[ Page 4819 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 84) Second reading

Mr. Cocke –– 4819

Mr. Barrett –– 4819

Mr. Lauk –– 4823

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4825

Division on second reading –– 4829

Copper Smelting and Refining Incentive Act () 3iJI 15) . Second reading

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4829

Mr. Lauk –– 4830

Mr. Lea –– 4832

Mr. Wallace –– 4833

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4835

Division on second reading –– 4837

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 38) .

Committee stage

On section 3.

Mr. Macdonald –– 4838

MT. Lea –– 4838

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4838

Mr. Macdonald –– 4838

Mr. Lea –– 4838

Mr. Barrett –– 4838

Mr. Macdonald –– 4840

Division on motion to rise and report progress –– 4841

On section 3.

Mr. Barrett –– 4841

The House met at 8:06 p.m.

Hon. T.M. Waterland (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, I have three guests in the House tonight. One is a gentleman who over a period of approximately 45 years has contributed a great deal to the development of mining technology in this province, my father Tim. He is accompanied by my wife, Donnie, and my youngest daughter Elizabeth. I ask the House to welcome them.

Orders of the day.

Hon. L.A. Williams (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 84.

MINERAL LAND TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

Mr. D.G. Cocke (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I had pretty well said what I had decided to say prior to the adjournment. However, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) urges me to say some more and I think I will oblige.

I suggested, Mr. Speaker, before adjournment that the minister was the unwilling culprit in this specific situation where the Treasury Bench wants to make sure that they get their $39.6 million from the mining industry. They're a little bit afraid that the courts won't find in their favour so they've decided that having lost $30 million in one year in succession duties, somehow or another they had to make it up. They are making it up from the mining industry,

The minister reminds me of an old graffiti, Mr. Speaker: "I finally got it all together." That was when he got in the cabinet. However, that graffiti goes on to say: "... but I forgot where I put it." He did forget where he put it. He certainly forgot where he put his principles upon which he was elected. I think that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) would probably share that feeling under these circumstances. He was so outspoken during the time that he was a civil or public servant trying his best in the mining area to get the government out of office, and that was the NDP government at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there is no way on the basis of principle that can we support this piece of legislation, not that we don't think that the mining industry should pay their fair share. Of course they should, but the hypocritical aspect of this legislation where the minister is trying his best to cover up for that government's particular direction when they were in opposition and finally when they first became government I suggest to you that it would be very difficult for any party with a principle to advocate or to support this particular piece of legislation. Therefore we certainly will not.

Mr. D. Barrett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to repeat what the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) said, but I kind of feel that that is an appropriate description of what this is all about. I'm not going to repeat some of the very excellent comments from the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and my colleague, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) I just want to review a couple of things, ask a couple of questions and leave it at that.

When the original bill was brought in, Mr. Speaker, positions were taken in this House that allegedly defined through the people of this province attitudes towards resource industries paying a fair share of taxation, which this bill is now purporting to deal with. I don't think that the Minister of Labour is going to miss too much but I would have liked him to sit around.

Interjection.

Mr. Barrett: Yes, I know you have heard it before, We've heard your principles before. I would like to know whether or not he was going to speak tonight.

Mr. Speaker, what is involved here is a piece of legislation that we brought in that was hotly contested by Social Credit and the Liberals and Conservatives when we were in power. Whether one agrees with the legislation or not it is the responsibility of the government of today to extend its philosophy through legislation and then put it into law. Then the law is either enforced or attacked politically or taken to court. Lawyers know all about that. The courts are the final arbitrators, as I understand it, and lawyers uphold that. They don't use words like the member for Kamloops when it comes to judges and things like that. They uphold the law, and they believe in the law, and they believe that courts should judge the law. The member for Kamloops is a lawyer. I know that he will get up tonight and explain to us and to the People of this province why the government wants to circumvent the law.

Let's deal with exactly what's involved here. A law was passed that said that the mining industry should pay a certain percentage from mines and mining operations to the people of British Columbia, on a formula arrived at by the previous administration, Mr. Speaker. During that debate, among the notable orators who participated in the exchange of the principle of that bill, were none other than the present minister, a number of the Social Credit cabinet ministers and, from out in the hustings, there

[ Page 4820 ]

were criticisms from the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. T.M. Waterland) , who used his freedom as a civil servant - never given by Social Credit, but certainly by the NDP - to speak out politically and participate. In using this freedom, he spoke out against the legislation, and that was his opinion. The legislation passed, Mr. Speaker, and those who voted against it and made it an issue of the day were people who later were to come into government, partly on the basis of the criticism of the particular legislation that is now being amended today.

This is what they said, Mr. Speaker. They said it was harsh, punitive, unfair and wrong. They said that if they got elected, they would do away with that legislation. In the interim, while the legislation was in effect, close to $39 million was collected. The mining industry concerned decided that even though they were paying, they would go to court. So, Mr. Speaker, the mining industry took the government of the day to court. After the election, Social Credit got elected. One of the first things they did was eliminate the legislation that we are dealing with here. Yes, they are amending legislation that they eliminated.

Mr. A.B. Macdonald (Vancouver East): What?

Mr. Barrett: That's right.

Mr. Macdonald: I should have stayed in San Francisco.

Mr. Barrett: Yes, Mr. Member. That's how they did it. They came in and said to the mining industry: "This is wrong; this is bad. We eliminate it." But the court case was going on. Instead of leaving well enough alone, now that there is $39 million involved, the government has decided to bring in legislation amending legislation that they eliminated. What's it all about? The mining companies took the government to court and in the process of taking the government to court, this government, which opposed the original legislation, said: "We are going to change the rules now, and no matter what you do in court, it doesn't matter, because in effect we are taking away your rights to go to court."

Now my good friend from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) called it hypocritical, and I agree; it's hypocritical. My colleague from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) called it a sham and political mockery, and I agree with that.

There's no use my repeating all of the various adjectives and adverbs in analyzing this bill; that stands for public record. Mr. Speaker, I'm very interested in hearing the minister explain some of his remarks and giving us the Social Credit justification for doing this. I expect the minister to get up tonight and first of all attack the NDP; that's number one. Then he will say: "Well, the NDP might have done something similar;" that's number two. Number three is, when it comes to bucks, principles don't really count with Social Credit anyway.

Now the defence of that lack of principle will be to attack the NDP, the people who drafted the legislation. They will do everything except address themselves to the kernel of this legislation, and that is: whether you agree with legislation or not, when does a government have the right to say that you can't have your day in court?

That's all very well to giggle over there, and to laugh and twitch, and to run around and consult each other, but in the final analysis, either the Premier or the minister or somebody over there is going to have to tell the people of this province: where does this end? Where does this end?

They have decided as their policy that if they don't like an impending court case, they will change the law in the middle of the court case. Not a decision by the NDP, not by the Liberals or the Conservatives, but a deliberate cabinet decision saying that when they don't like the law, they will change it.

In other instances when they go to court, if they don't like what the judge may rule, they settle out of court. After they made promises publicly that a court case will be heard on a charge of civil fraud, they settle out of court. It's a pattern that they use to justify staying out of court. If we don't settle, it will cost us more."

Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting, but I think first of all to go on to a couple of more comments, it's worth evaluating what the minister has said so far, Just to understand what we're dealing with, when we passed the original legislation that minister said it was oppressive, and it was over taxation. If it was over taxation, and you really believed that, why didn't you give the money back? No. They said, " We're not Santa Claus." In other words, when we passed the legislation, you were either lying then, or you're lying now. That's a fact. If you used the argument when you fought the legislation, saying it was over taxation and industry couldn't afford it, then when you came into power, had you believed what you were saying., you should have given the money back. If you come into power and you say, "We're not going to give the money back because it would be like Santa Claus, " one way you were lying.

You can't say that you're overtaxing in the one breath and say that we can't give the money back in the other breath. That's what Social Credit was doing, Mr. Speaker – Social Credit was lying.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.S. Bawlf (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would you kindly ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word "lie" and "lying" as used a

[ Page 4821 ]

moment ago, as it offends the House?

Mr. Speaker: Replying to the hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation on his point of order, I would agree with the hon. minister that it is improper and irregular for an hon. member of this House to impugn the integrity of another member by suggesting they lied or they were lying, but I listened closely to the hon. Leader of the Opposition in the remarks that he made to the House just prior to your point of order and while the suggestion of a lie was involved in his remarks, it was in a general way and was not....

Hon. J.R. Chabot (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Yes, it was indirectly. You can't say indirectly what you can't say directly.

Mr. Speaker: One moment, please. It did not impugn a member, or members, of this House; however, if the hon. minister feels that it did, then in all good conscience the hon. Leader of the Opposition should withdraw the remark.

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling and you correctly point out that I said Social Credit was lying, and that's correct.

Mr. Speaker: I didn't hear that term, hon, member, but I do believe that if the hon. member is offended by the remark, then it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is offended, I withdraw. Now I will say Social Credit lied. Social Credit lied when it said that it was opposed to this legislation. It lied when it said....

Mr. Macdonald: It's okay, Sam, you weren't a member then.

Mr. Barrett: ... that it would be Santa Claus if it gave the money back. Now the question is: which time did Social Credit lie? That's really the question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'll also deal further with the minister's statements as he goes on to say that the mining company.... You're going to speak in this debate, are you, Mr. Member? I think to this moment, Mr. Speaker, all we've had from the cabinet benches is gossip, a few barnyard words and a couple of other comments, but no participation in the debate-

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Look who's talking.

Mr. Speaker: Could we return to the principle and discuss second reading, please?

Mr. Barrett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I expected the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to speak.

Hon. K.R. Mair (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) . Marjorie Nichols taught me that expression. She learned it from you.

Mr. Barrett: Yes, she certainly did, Mr. Member. You didn't have to be taught anything. You did all right on your own ...

Hon. Mr. Mair: You bet! I'm here and you're there.

Mr. Barrett: ... anybody who handles widows the way you do, man!

Mr. Speaker, what I'm impressed by is the complete lack of principle in the Social Credit Party in bringing in this bill. What also impresses me is the fact that this group says to the mining companies: "Save your money. Don't go to court. We're going to change the law." All those high-blown phrases by the Premier and by the cabinet ministers when they were campaigning for office don't mean a thing, Mr. Speaker. They have decided to say that they will write the laws so that no matter who goes to court, it doesn't matter what goes on, we're still going to get you anyway.

I'd like to hear the minister tell the House - not an attack on the NDP - what you say to the mining industry to rationalize this? That the devil made you do it? That you were sitting there in cabinet one day and someone seized your hand and made you write this bill, you didn't really want to do it? That it's your hate for the NDP and what you define as their "goofed-up legislation" that made you do it? Or someone else did something similar to this that made you do it? 0r is there a reason of your own?

I would like to hear the Minister of Labour and the Attorney-General stand up in this House and tell this House, as former Liberals, why they support this legislation. I'd like to hear the Premier make a speech on this bill. I challenge the Premier, the Attorney-General and the Minister of Labour to stand up in this House and tell every citizen of this province why they're taking away someone's right to go to court - nothing to do with the NDP or the mining legislation Or the past or anything else. The simple kernel of this legislation is that they deem to make it retroactive so that the mining companies will lose their case in court.

I ask the Premier to tell any citizen in this province that what they do to the mining companies will be done to them too, or to the lumber industry, to any small business or to anyone else. This group that ran up and down and sideways all over this province defending freedom is now on the edge of

[ Page 4822 ]

taking away the freedom of a group that is not too popular – certainly with our party – to appear in court.

My colleague, the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) , made an interesting observation: where are the screaming ads in the newspapers from the mining companies today? They're more frightened of this government than they ever were of the NDP. Mr. Speaker, you must understand that as my colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) pointed out, the only other time in history when that happened in this House in the same way was when Social Credit took over, seized, appropriated, grabbed and took away the B.C. Electric. Yes, they did. Then they botched that up and bad to go to court to clean it up.

Mr. G.R. Lea (Prince Rupert): Then they tried to thwart the court.

Mr. Barrett: Then they tried to thwart the court again.

Do you remember the bad old days of Social Credit? You couldn't even sue the government under the previous Social Credit administration. What's the point now? What did the minister say here? The minister said that they should save their money. Was it in The Globe and Mail that he said "save their money" or "save them the cost of the court case"? There it is. He says here:

"Mr. Chabot says that although he opposed the original NDP legislation, he saw no reason why the government should play Santa Claus to the mining industry." - that's really something - "The minister said he hoped the industry would drop its court action, adding that one reason that he brought the bill forward now was to save the industry time and expense of preparing a costly legal action."

"We're going to hang you anyway, so what's the use of going to a judge and hiring a lawyer? Just step up and get hung. Get it over with."

Mr. Macdonald: They're going to hang him and save him the price of a lawyer.

Mr. Barrett: They're, going to hang him but they're going to save him the price of a lawyer before they get hung.

Mr. Macdonald: A priest only costs $10.

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, they may even double the charge of that, considering the way they operate. I challenge the Premier to stand up and tell this House and the people of this province what he will tell chamber of commerce audiences about why he took away the mining industry's rights to sue the Crown. I challenge the Premier of this province to get on a platform and go around this province and tell people at a public meeting, which lie has yet to call anywhere in this province - an open public meeting in the evening - and explain to the people under his stewardship why you brought this bill in and why you've denied this group the right to sue.

I don't believe there will be another cabinet minister get up to speak or the Premier on this legislation. They want it to go away. They want it to die. Take a little bit of pain and get it over with. Let the Minister of Mines get up and close the debate and scream and holler about jobs, about the NDP and everything else except reasons why this government decided to take away the mining industry's rights.

Mr. Speaker, 1 don't see a single demonstrator on the lawn. I don't see a single ad in the newspaper from all those freedom fighters out there. I don't see a great mobilization of the business community. But where does this stop? 1 find it absolutely incredible that throughout the whole debate, which is really a basic debate on dictatorship versus democracy. , , , That's really what it's all about. It's not a question of NDP philosophy or Social Credit philosophy or a difference of political parties. It's simply a matter of our judicial system being placed in the role of defining legislation that was passed. Instead of letting the courts decide this, Social Credit is going to decide it for itself and take away their rights.

The mining companies are big enough boys to look after themselves. They're big enough boys to fight for the kind of legislation they do want or they don't want. But no one's bigger than the government when it comes to changing the rules in the middle of the ball game. 1 want to know from the Premier of this province if this is the first and last time you're going to do this. Is it going to be done again? If so, who have you got in mind, and why? Why are you afraid of the courts so much? You were afraid of them in the B.C. Rail case; you're afraid of them in this case. What have you got against the courts of the land?

Mr. Speaker, 1 find it puzzling that there isn't a single backbencher who will get up and say that when he ran for Social Credit, he didn't think they were lying about freedoms. 1 find it puzzling that there isn't a stirring defence, especially from some of those small, independent businessmen back there who believe in the rights of individuals and of companies.

I'll bet you this, Mr. Speaker, if this happened to any one of the cabinet ministers in their own private business and it was another government that did it to them, they would be up screaming, hollering and yelling on the lawns and the steps of this Legislature. It's all who has got the upper hand, Mr. Speaker.

That's the way this government operates: say anything, do anything, promise anything, Social Credit-lie-about-any thing. But once you have power, change it. Social Credit lied about taxes; they said they wouldn't increase them. They promised a freeze

[ Page 4823 ]

on taxes. Guess who got frozen? Social Credit lied about this.

Mr. C. Barber (Victoria) . They promised to keep rent controls.

Mr. Barrett: Yes, and rent controls are something else.

Bill 71, which I won't mention tonight, is another attack on individual rights in this House, relating to insurance agents.

The whole theme of this legislative session is: "Get all the dirt done now. Violate principles, ignore the courts. Do anything, say anything, because it's all against the NDP in the final analysis, " is their attitude. They think that because people are against the NDP they can do what they want.

I don't often agree with The Vancouver Sun or the Vancouver Province editorials, but they have come out against the government on this legislation. I expect the chamber of commerce will hold an emergency meeting and condemn the government. Will they? I expect that the mining industry will be out with hired pickets on the front lawn as they did with Bill 3 1.

Yes, I expect that the Premier will get up and make a public statement explaining why his government made this decision, not attacking the NDP and the original bill but why they decided that the mining companies would not be given the right to complete their court case. You owe that to the people of this province. You owe that to every citizen who lives in this province regardless of how they voted. The Premier of this province owes every free citizen of this province an explanation of why a group's rights to go to court have been taken away. Will it ever happen again? If so, to whom?

All the rhetoric and all the insults that fly across this floor become meaningless in the day-to-day administration of a province. One person speaks out for the government of the day and that's the Premier.

In this bill tonight we're taking away some person's right to complete a court case. We are saying to a group of citizens of this province, and whether we like them or not is irrelevant: "This is the law; you go to court on it. But if you look like you're going to win, we're going to change the law."

I believe it is the moral responsibility of the government and its leader, the Premier, to stand up and calmly state the reasons why the mining companies are not being allowed to complete their court case, whether or not this kind of legislation under Social Credit will ever be brought in again.

I ask the Premier to stand up and tell the citizens of this province that their rights will not be eroded. Whether they like them or not, the government and the Premier are supposed to speak for all citizens with equal rights, equal duties and equal responsibilities.

I want to know from the Premier of this province why the mining companies are being denied their right to have this case heard in court. Why? You owe that explanation to every citizen in this province.

Mr. G.V. Lauk (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I can see why the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would want to leave when I rise to speak in this debate. I hope he wants to come back.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has, as its major principle, an act of inconsistency on the part of the Social Credit government. And I don't so much blame the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources as I do the circumstances in which he has found himself. He's been plucked from the back bench, a member of the previous Social Credit administration, into a very - to put it politely - pragmatic administration. And perhaps to be more accurate, it's a fairly unprincipled one, in the sense that they seem to operate out of political expediency rather than philosophy.

The Premier sighs - the only one sitting in the front bench. He should well sigh, indeed.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, when I look at this bill that's before the Legislature today and the comments of the Premier.

Interjection.

Mr. Lauk: There are many proud Polish-Canadians, Mr. Member, and racist remarks are not appreciated.

I'm wondering about the comments made from time to time by people like the Premier. It's incredible that in one stroke of the pen he would raise the tax on ordinary people in this province, then go back with a straight face and, I think, actually convincing himself he's saying something truthful, call upon the federal government to reduce taxes because it's causing unemployment. This kind of blatant, two-faced approach to politics in this country surely must end, Mr. Speaker,

On the one hand we have the First Minister of this province raising taxes on ordinary working families and, on the other, going to Ottawa and pretending that it's their fault entirely and they should lower taxes.

Again, the speeches that we heard from the hon. member for Columbia River, the speeches that we heard from the then Leader of the Opposition about what we were doing to the poor little mining companies in this province, were the most incredible display in the history of this Legislature, Then they immediately did the opposite – or almost immediately; two years later – of what they said they were going to do.

[ Page 4824 ]

Mr. Barber: Very surprising.

Mr. Lauk: No, Mr. Member, I'm not surprised, but a lot of people seem to be. I'm just wondering how far the cynicism of this province can go. I've seen people on this side of the House in the Legislature, some of them battling for 15 years, who don't have even one-tenth of the cynicism of the newcomers on the other side of the House. It's a crass disregard for the parliamentary traditions of the British parliamentary system, a total contempt for the public of this province, to say one thing and then do another.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. hon. member, I just remind you that we're debating second reading of Bill 84. The remarks that you make in debate should be directed to the principle of the bill. As long as you relate your remarks to the principle, you're in order, but when you stray from that particular area, I think you realize as well as I that then you're exceeding the rules of debate with respect to second reading.

Mr. Lauk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm saying that when this government was in opposition, they spoke about dealing with the mining companies in a different way than this bill is proposing to deal with the mining companies. They argued for consistency, they argued for confidence and they argued for government that would provide the kind of stability to the mining industry that would create jobs for this province. Now that's what they said. There are a. great many voters and people in this province who believed what they said. That's what they said. "Build confidence and consistency in your mining policy, " said the Leader of the Opposition of that day and the member for Columbia River as he then was, still is, and it seems forever shall be. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that they meant nothing of what they said.

The question of this bill coming down currently rather than last spring is just a matter of timing. We've heard from the remarks of the minister that it was planned all along. At least, that's the impression he gives - that it was planned from the very beginning. It was treachery from the beginning, the chuckles and the sighs from the Premier notwithstanding. It's a very serious demonstration of cynicism, on the one hand in politics, and contempt for the people of this province on the other.

The Mineral Land Tax Act was a legitimate taxation base and should have been dealt with on that basis. This Legislature passed it in good faith. All of the debates were heard and the vote was taken. At that point, the Legislature spoke, and from that point on, the recourse of anyone who felt aggrieved by that statute was the courts of the land. It was a basic and is a basic right, we hope, of every British Columbia citizen and every citizen of Canada. We're not just talking about the sanctity of contract, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about a statute upon which people have relied to conduct their daily business affairs.

There was every confidence that the Barrett administration would allow the courts, without interference, to come to a judicial decision about the validity or the invalidity of that statute and let the chips fall where they may. The courts of this land are an integral part of our system, and when you interfere with that system, even in one part – the judicial system – you affect every part. You make the system shabby by such a performance, You make the system unreliable and you make, importantly to all British Columbians, the economic system in this province totally untenable for foreign investment and totally untenable even for domestic investment. The supremacy of parliament is inviolate for as long as it is used sparingly and with great caution.

Sanctity of contract is based on two fundamental pillars in our society; confidence and consistency. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , through the lack of confidentiality in his ministry, has destroyed among the business world a sense of confidence in this government. Now the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, with another stroke of the pen, has destroyed consistency of approach and destroyed any hope of predictability in this government's actions.

The Minister of Labor in 1969 happened to be the same personality who now occupies the chair of the Ministry of Mines. I must regretfully remind this House, and the people of British Columbia, of the kind of heavy-handed tactics he used then which are now being applied in this statute. There's a consistency of approach in this one personality in public office – heavy-handed tactics, back-of-the-hand treatment to citizens without recourse to the courts, without any word for mercy. This approach this Minister of Mines is using is the same one he used when he was the Minister of Labour, which brought his government crashing down in 1972.

Mr. Barrett: He was told to do it then and he's been told to do it now.

Mr. Lauk: Exactly this. We know that the circumstances in which this minister found himself as Minister of Labour prevail today as Minister of Mines. He in himself, I believe, is a very right-wing individual – so right-wing that he would be thrown out of his riding if his constituents knew just how right wing he is – but I think if you look at this statute you begin to get an inkling. Oh, I think he is going to do what he is told. The cabinet is just delighted to have him there to take the heat, but I've never seen a man enjoy it more.

It reminds me very much, Mr. Speaker, of the old

[ Page 4825 ]

saying about power in individuals and parliament being supreme: when you think about power, why is parliament being supreme and why does it have power? Because it is used sparingly. We have an absolute freedom of speech in Canada to say anything about anything, but we have the wit not to say it, which preserves the freedom; we have the wit not to use absolute power, which preserves that power in the Legislature.

We have on the one hand this tremendous inconsistency of $190-odd million in the first quarter surplus of this year and the First Minister traveling across the country saying: "Let the federal government reduce taxes." This inconsistency shows contempt for the people because they won't understand the hypocrisy of such a move, 1 must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I don't know whether the people of this province are going to believe it or not, 1 have enough faith left to say that they won't. I have enough faith left in this system and in the people of this province to say that they have had enough of this contempt of themselves.

The people of this province, since 1975, are overtaxed, over governed and underemployed by the senseless, narrow-minded, economic policies of this government. The Premier turns out to be nothing more or less than a national windbag saying what everybody knows should be said. He's the master of the obvious, never taking action.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have been most patient with the hon. member who has strayed far beyond the principle of Bill 84 in his remarks.

Mr. Lauk: Where did I stray, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: You have been all over the landscape, hon. member, with attacks on the members rather than on the principle of the bill. Now its one thing to attack the bill that is before the House, its something else to engage your entire debate on personal attacks against other members of this assembly. Please direct your remarks to the principle of the bill that is before us.

Mr. Lauk: With respect, Mr. Speaker, they are not personal attacks. This is an interpretation that is often given both in the press in this province and in this Legislature. Personal attacks are directly attacking a person's personal lifestyle, and so on. If you interpret my saying that the Premier is a national windbag – which is generally accepted, I understand – that is a description of his role as First Minister, not of him personally. I'm sure he doesn't want to be a national windbag. He just can't help it.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, may I remind you that there is only one minister responsible for the conduct of this bill through the Legislature? That is the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. It's under his jurisdiction. It is also a fact that the principle of the bill is that which we should be debating this evening, not every other particular matter that you may have some special interest in at this time.

Mr. Lauk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am looking to the problems that we are facing in this province, the attitude of this government, and the attitude of the Minister of Mines. The Minister of Mines, through this statute, Mr. Speaker, is really reflecting the philosophy of the government that seems cynical and without philosophy. It has contempt for the people and what they think the people are prepared to believe and swallow day after day.

As I said, they are overtaxed, over governed and underemployed through the policies of this government. We have seen, since 1975, not only this move, but also a series of moves to the right that are very startling indeed. There has been a dangerous move to the right in this province.

We see those riots in the British Isles; we see documentaries like "California Reich" in California; we see what's going on in Chicago and other jurisdictions of the free world. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the people of this province, that so long as there is freedom of speech left in this Legislature.... Stemming from the Government Reorganization Act, through to that monolithic Systems Act and the Statistics Act, and now a retroactive elimination of legal rights involving millions and millions of dollars....

I think in the final analysis it's a premature and silly move. I don't know what legal advice they're getting, but the chances of these mining companies succeeding in court in all cases were not absolute. As a matter of fact, advice would indicate the government would have come out all right. Why not take ... not their chances, but allow the courts to adjudicate?

Allow people to have confidence that their rights will be protected and that the rights of this system are predictable. Because in a democratic system, if your rights are unpredictable, they're not rights at all. If you say to a man that he has the right to freedom of speech except when he is going to use it – that he has the right to freedom of religion, except if he goes to the wrong church – then those aren't rights at all, Mr. Speaker.

If this government wishes to destroy a system, this kind of statute if designed to do so. I urge everyone in this Legislature to oppose this bill

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate in Bill 84, I'll attempt in as rational a way as I can to reply to the hypocritical debate that has taken

[ Page 4826 ]

place in this House under this legislation.

It started off with the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , who delivered the most pathetic speech I have ever listened to him deliver in this House. He surrounded it with the word "hypocritical, " I suggest that is all I've heard from the opposition since this bill has been debated – nothing but sheer hypocrisy. Well, what more can you expect from the member for Prince Rupert? A used-furniture salesman – maybe that's the way he makes his living. He used mock indignation to attack the bill. There was a lot of sound and fury but very little substance in his attack against the bill.

I was rather surprised to see that member for Prince Rupert attack his leader, in effect, because the Leader of the Opposition, the former Premier, and the last member for Vancouver East – wherever he comes from; wherever he's at now – during the debate under the Revenue Sharing Act suggested at that time that the government was remiss in not extracting more revenue from the mining industry in British Columbia. He suggested that there should be more revenue, and he went on to attack one of the mining companies in this province when he attacked Kaiser Resources. He said that Mr. Edward Kaiser Jr. was in the hall where he spoke in Fernie. He cringed when I suggested that maybe if we become government again, we'll increase the royalty on coal.

Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, just a few moments later, up stands the member for Prince Rupert suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He suggested there isn't the need for more taxation from the mining industry in British Columbia; that there is a need for a refund to the mining industry of $39.6 million. That's in effect what he was saying when he uttered those words, which were sound and fury. Surrounded with hypocrisy, he turned around and attacked his leader,

Then we heard from the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) . He called the legislation "murky, " or words to that effect.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: That was your suggestion – that it was murky legislation. Mr. Speaker. I want to say that when that member spoke in the bill, he was never in order. He talked about the necessity for continuing with this ambiguous legislation which was proposed by the NDP. He suggested we should continue, that we should jeopardize more tax dollars that have been spent and wasted. Many of those dollars were wasted by the former government. There was $103 million of taxpayers' money wasted by that member for Vancouver-Burrard when he was a minister of the Crown.

There was $103 million of taxpayers' money wasted by that member for Vancouver-Burrard when he was a minister of the Crown. He warrants the title, King of Waste – King of Waste in the province of British Columbia. Never in the history of British Columbia...

Mr. Speaker: Hon. minister ... order, please. I must remind the hon. minister that we're debating the principle of Bill 84 and the repeal of the minimal tax legislation.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: I'll stay as much in order as the other members stayed in order, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I hope hon. member that you'll stay in order and respect the judgment of the Chair when I draw you to order.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I always have. That's one of my trademarks, to respect the Chair and its rules.

We've heard from that member for Vancouver Centre, the lawyer member, and I never know whether he's the first member or the second member, but I know he's the most chirpy member for Vancouver Centre. He got up in a pious and pompous fashion tonight, and he huffed and he puffed and he didn't say much. He was never on the legislation. He suggested that when I was Minister of Labour, I came down harshly upon a particular group in the province of British Columbia, and he went on to say that it was in the year 1969. Well, it goes to show you how correct that member is in his assessment of anything, because his research is excellent; I wasn't the Minister of Labour in 1969. Now he's trying to correct it, Mr. Speaker, suggesting 1970, and he's wrong again. He's wrong again, Mr. Speaker.

He can huff and puff all he wants, but he's wrong again as he usually is.

An Hon. Member: When he's not wrong, he's not here.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: That's a good line: "When he's not wrong, he's not here, " because he isn't here too much of the time, and he's the member who criticizes when the occasional cabinet minister is absent from the House during the question period. He's not here very often himself so how can he stand up and criticize? I'm off the point now.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation which is before the House now is not a question of additional taxing powers. The official opposition would attempt to lead you to believe that retroactive taxation powers are being instilled in this legislation. That's not a fact at all. The member for Oak Bay suggests that if there are any amendments they should take place from

[ Page 4827 ]

now on. This legislation should not be amended, or clarified for the years 1974, '75 and '76, and if it's going to be clarified, it should be for the present. It's quite obvious that the Member for Oak Bay doesn't recognize that the taxing authorities for this legislation, the principle of which we are discussing now, are not in effect at this time. They have been deleted.

The question is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Of the tax dollars that were collected in 1974, '75 and '76 under the Mineral Land Tax Act, the question is: do we refund those dollars that have already been spent or do we keep them for the taxpayers? Many of those tax dollars have been wasted, as well, by that former government; that's the issue here. That's the issue of this bill. This bill would not have been necessary had we not for a three-year period had an incompetent, bumbling, idiotic government in the province of British Columbia.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we're just correcting very sloppy legislation which was introduced by that government. We're just clarifying it. There's no changing of rules; it's a matter of clarification, and the opposition can twist, twist and twist all they want about it. Those are the facts, and the member for Prince Rupert can sneak around all he wants, phone the various mining companies, and attempt to get their point of view. I want to tell you, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, the mining industry has had an experience with your party and they'll never trust you again. Never will they trust you again.

They have the audacity to suggest that we're changing the rules in midstream. There is no changing of rules, it's merely a clarification of the Act. I'll give you an example of clarification of rules under that former government because they corrected the Mineral Act back two years ago, three years ago now, in 1974, in which they imposed a rental fee against every mineral claimholder in this province without notice. It was imposed arbitrarily by the government, a $ 10 rental fee in the Mineral Act, which caused the forfeiture of tens of thousands of mineral claims in this province. I've just signed another letter today to a small prospector, and I've received hundreds of letters from prospectors who have lost their mineral claims, because of the changing of the rules by the imposition of a rental fee, without notice, for the purpose of denying those individuals the right to hold claims in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. minister, I believe that you're straying somewhat from this particular bill.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: I'm not straying. I'm suggesting there's a parallel here. You allowed the opposition, Mr. Speaker, to speak about parallel situations and that's exactly what I'm doing.

I'm suggesting that we axe not changing the rules in midstream on this legislation; we're merely clarifying. I'm pinpointing to the opposition what it means to change the rules. They changed the rules against the small prospectors in this province, Mr. Speaker, which caused the forfeiture of tens of thousands of metal claims in British Columbia, and that will never do.

No, Mr. Speaker, this debate has been nothing but a smokescreen for an incompetent, bumbling former government in this province. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) uses great language.

An Hon. Member: Pompous.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Well, I'm not going to call him pompous. I'm merely going to quote some of his language, some of the words he uttered here a little earlier before the dinner hour. It was good stuff.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Yes, the speech was too long. It didn't say very much. This is what he had to say:

This is a disgusting bill, Mr. Speaker. It offends some of the most powerful, profound and truthful parliamentary traditions that we've ever enjoyed-as citizens of the Queen. It offends the parliamentary and democratic traditions of this House, that any government should have the nerve and presume for itself the power to bring in retroactive tax legislation.

This bill is the most anti-democratic yet that the coalition has introduced on the floor of this chamber. 1 believe the bill is subversive. This bill subverts justice, the bill subverts fair play and it subverts the opportunity that any company and any individual should have for a fair day and a fair trial in court. This bill is profoundly subversive of the opportunity to obtain a fair hearing in court because they propose to rewrite the law after it has gone to court,

This bill is corruptive. It corrupts a court system that should have the opportunity, fairly and openly in law and in the full light of day, to hear a case without after-the-fact political interference ... the member doesn't subscribe to that, Mr. Speaker.

... from a coalition attempting to rewrite the law to suit its own purposes....

No member of the NDP can support any bill that is fundamentally subversive in its intent. This is such a bill....

If it does not stand, that is for the courts to decide, Mr. Speaker, not that group over there. If it does not stand, that's for a fair and independent judiciary to determine this group, after the fact.

This is a bill that is designed to intimidate the judiciary and to guarantee a pro-government verdict in advance. If they believed in the fairness of the courts and the legitimacy of an independent judiciary, they

[ Page 4828 ]

would not be introducing a bill like this. They would allow the courts to make a fair decision. They would have trust and confidence in its objectivity and neutrality....

No government headed by an NDP in the history of this country has ever introduced such a bill.

An Hon. Member: Well, he's new.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Oh, I'm not going to talk about potash, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to talk about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , the former Minister of Finance, when he amended, in 1973, the Logging Tax Act. I'm quoting from the second reading notes on the Logging Tax Act by the Minister of Finance of the day. He presented the notes and he is the former member for Coquitlam, the former Premier of British Columbia, the now Leader of the Opposition and the second member for Vancouver East. He said this in his notes:

A recent British Columbia court of appeal decision has ruled the Act....

That's the Logging Tax Act.

... is not clear on the taxing of certain processing procedures which could considerably affect the revenue received by the province from this tax. The amendment proposed in this bill results from the court of appeal decision and is intended to make this taxation policy clear.

Oh, clear! Did the Leader of the Opposition just fall down on that statement?

While this bill is made retroactive to January 1,1972, 1 would emphasize that it does not alter the tax policy that has been in effect since the inception of the Act; rather it clarifies this policy.

The Act is retroactive to January 1,1972, so the effects of the court decision will not affect the tax returns required to be made in the current year of 1973. While this Act is made retroactive, it does not change any past policy, it only clarifies it.

Some Hon. Members: Ohhhh!

Hon. Mr. Chabot: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) doesn't want to hear the debate. He wants to come in and huff and puff, pant and rave and then ran away. He doesn't want to hear the debate. The third section of the bill read: "This Act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent but is retroactive to the first day of January, 1972, to the extent necessary to give full force and effect to the provisions it amends on and after that date."

Mr. Barber: How did you vote on it?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Oh, I'll get to that. Don't get jumpy, Mr. Member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) . Don't get jumpy.

This is what you had to say and I'll repeat it because you apparently didn't pick it up. You said: "No government headed by an NDP in the history of this country has ever introduced such a bill." That's a crass falsehood.

Mr. Speaker, that second member for Victoria suggested that the NDP's principles were substantially higher than to introduce or support such legislation. If he really believes, Mr. Speaker, what he has to say and if he has any principles at all, which he espouses to a great extent in this House, he has no right to sit with that group over there.

Mr. Speaker, that member suggested that never in the history of this country had an NDP government introduced such legislation; their principles were too high. In fact, his were substantially higher, Mr. Speaker. If he really believes that, he has a responsibility to resign, because if he doesn't, he's a phony. If he doesn't resign, Mr. Speaker, he's a phony, and a sanctimonious phony at that.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. minister, I would ask you to withdraw the imputation.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Well, I didn't say it directly.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I'm afraid you did, hon. member. You said the hon. member is a phony, and I ask you to withdraw that unconditionally.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, you're jumping to conclusions that the member will not resign. He might resign; then I'll withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister will withdraw the imputation that the member is a phony.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw without reservations. But I wish you would give equal treatment in this House to members of the opposition who make derogatory remarks to members on this side.

[Mr. Speaker rises.)

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister please take his seat?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! It is my observation that in moments of debate in this House remarks are made that have a personal reflection on other hon. members of this House. As the person responsible to all members of this House, when I hear

[ Page 4829 ]

such remarks they will be withdrawn. If I hear them, and they are a personal reflection on the character of other hon. members, they must be withdrawn.

Remarks that are made in a general way which have no direct imputation or accusation against hon. members of this House may be permitted, but not personal accusations.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Hon. Mr. Chabot: I'll observe your ruling, but I suggest the NDP is a phony party, Mr. Speaker. That's a phony party that makes phony statements.

If that member for Victoria has any principles at all after what he said this afternoon, he'll resign.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) on Friday, in an interjection across the floor, suggested to me: "Who do you think you are, God?" From a member who was the Minister of Finance who brought in parallel legislation in 1974, that's a lot of gall.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talked about the Bill of Rights and how this legislation offended the Bill of Rights when he was speaking this afternoon. When the Logging Tax Act was introduced, retroactive legislation....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Now there's the windbag from Oak Bay!

Mr. Wallace: That doesn't make you right!

Hon. Mr. Chabot: I'm not suggesting the member for Oak Bay is blowing his cool, Mr. Speaker. He's blowing his cool as he usually does when he's caught out.

But I want to say that the record is there regarding the retroactive legislation on the Logging Tax Act. The member for Oak Bay did not oppose it verbally or by vote when it was taken in this House in 1973. In 1973, he never objected, Mr. Speaker. It was the same kind of legislation that he's now suggesting is repugnant and offends the Bill of Rights. But he didn't oppose the Logging Tax Act amendment in 1973 by vote or by voice.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP appears to want it both ways. They suggest you should give access to the courts. They give access to the courts, sure they do. They want it both ways. And if you win in the courts, then we'll defeat you by legislation. That's what their approach is, Mr. Speaker; it's a very inconsistent approach.

It's a party that lacks principle; it's a party that's hypocritical as far as this legislation is concerned.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division,

YEAS - 26

NAYS - 15

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

Bill 84, Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Williams: Second reading of Bill 15.

COPPER SMELTING AND

REFINING INCENTIVE ACT

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Bill 15, the Copper Smelting and Refining Incentive Act, is in effect the reinstatement, to a substantial degree, of legislation which was repealed by the former socialist government. The legislation makes provisions for payment of up to 5 cents per kilogram for blister or refined copper produced in a smelter or refinery within the province. Such payments will be made on the conclusion of agreements approved by cabinet between the minister and the producer and are limited to a 10-year duration with a maximum payment of up to $500,000 per year.

The former socialist government, in its three-and-a half-year tenure, managed to come full circle on the question of incentives for the establishment of copper smelters for British Columbia, I might say that had we not had a socialist government, there might be two copper smelters in existence today, Cominco was in the process of attempting to establish a copper smelter in Kimberley and, after the repeal of the former Act and the attitude of the former government, they decided not to proceed with the establishment of a copper smelter at 70 Mile House in

[ Page 4830 ]

the lower Cariboo. The hearing was underway, in fact, under the auspices of ELUC. Again because of the attitude of the former government, this project did not proceed. This government is endeavoring to encourage the further processing of raw materials in British Columbia rather than exporting them to foreign countries. This incentive, even though small, clearly indicates to the industry the objective and intention of this government.

I have indicated previously that British Columbia has the capacity and is capable of supporting two world-scale copper smelters. A world-scale smelter consumes between 120,000 and 150,000 tons of concentrates pet year. The present production of copper concentrates is in the order of 970,000 tons per year. This does not take into consideration the many known reserves and ore bodies that have yet to be developed in the Highland Valley and in northwestern British Columbia.

Copper prices today are relatively unattractive and do not enhance further development. With an upward increase in the value of copper in the world markets, the development of our known reserves would become more attractive and, at that time, interest in the establishment of a copper smelter in British Columbia would be far more attractive. I might say that interest has been shown in the establishment of a copper smelter in British Columbia by two companies.

Mr. Lauk: Name names.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: I'll give you how many companies but I won't give you the names. Because of the soft price on copper, this interest is fairly unattractive at this time. The greatest opportunities for job creation actually exist in the fabrication of copper products, and the establishment of a copper smelter, or copper smelters, in British Columbia would facilitate to a substantial degree the realization of this objective.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The NDP, although violently opposed to incentives in 1973, in 1975 came full circle with the offer of incentives to the Teck Corp. for the establishment of a copper smelter in Kamloops. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) says nonsense. I don't know why, if that appears to be nonsense to him, he did not oppose the repeal of the Copper Bounty Act that was in existence at the time.

Mr. Lauk: That was a silly Act.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, this legislation clearly indicates the objective of the government which is to encourage present and future copper producers to develop an integrated mining, smelting, refining and fabricating industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to speak briefly and then the mining critic is going to get up and take you apart, Mr. Minister. You justly deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I'm amazed that the Minister of Mines stands in his place.... You know, it seems to me that if I was over there and he was over here, in the same circumstances, I would say: "I want to give credit to the former administration because I am a man who gives credit where credit is due." But has he got that kind of graciousness? Has he got that kind of genteel magnanimity? No. He stands up and tries to put the knife in again. I don't know why we constantly have to lower the level of debate in this House. I'll try and raise it again and hope that the minister, when he closes the debate, doesn't lower it again as usual.

Let's deal with the facts, Mr. Speaker. Let's not deal with these hyperbolic claims made by the Minister of Mines. Cominco was not near a smelter many years ago in 1970; they weren't even close.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: They certainly were.

Mr. Lauk: When we as an administration talked to Cominco they hadn't drawn a single line on a blueprint. They hadn't even performed the most rudimentary pre-feasibility studies. They put something in their pipe and smoked it and came to Victoria and said: "Well, because we're Cominco how about a bounty? How about a little bit of incentive?"

Comparing Cominco with the Afton smelter project is like comparing a dinosaur with an Okanagan peach – totally different situations. Teck Corp. came to the Barrett administration with the blueprints, the financing, the programme, the environmental, the licensing and the machinery on purchase and the minister knows this. He knew it in 1975 and he knows it today, But in the fine traditions of old Columbia River Social Credit debate, he stands in the House and pretends otherwise. Well, that rests on his head; that's his problem. Cominco also had transportation problems, but we won't got into that with respect to their copper smelter.

I'll tell you why there won't be a new copper smelter in this province and I will tell you why quite honestly. One reason is because there is an inventory of copper in the world. When you can't raise the price of copper, you can't raise capital currently to develop major projects. There's a second reason: this government has absolutely no interest in secondary industry in this province – none.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is an abject failure, a man who is careening

[ Page 4831 ]

and reeling from disaster to disaster, protecting himself from charge after charge and inquiry after inquiry. He has provided no jobs, no incentives and no programmes in the province of British Columbia since he took office in 1976.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now we will get back to this bill and this minister please, hon. Member.

Mr. Lauk: May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this copper smelter incentive programme was announced by the previous administration? May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of an historic agreement? Nippon Kopan, one of the major Japanese steel producers in the world, and the province of British Columbia signed an agreement to foresee the construction, for the first time in this province, of a steel mill that would provide secondary jobs. For the first time, an historic programme was launched to build an oil refinery, whereby the province of British Columbia and the people of this province could really test the costs of gasoline and oil at the pumps, providing jobs to British Columbians.

Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker – the last great project was the Afton copper smelter project, and it was a good one. But what was the NDP administration prepared to give to Teck Corporation to build the copper smelter? Oh, if it isn't Tom the water baby over there; there he is.

Interjection.

Mr. Lauk: Yes, the minister has gone over there to silence Tom.

This project, Mr. Speaker, was a worthwhile one When Teck Corp. came to see our administration, we looked over their plans and we looked over their financing and we said; "It looks like a great project. With the type of copper ore there it will be a good project and we will proceed."

But let's remember the taxation system of the day. On that copper, Mr. Speaker, Afton Mines was charged 5 per cent. So mark that in your books everybody. Maybe the press can grasp this, with the greatest conceivable respect – 5 per cent per pound for copper.

This incentive is 2.2 cents per pound. All right. Now let's take 5 per cent per pound as 2.5 cents on, let's say 50 cent copper – 2.5 cents per pound. So the province of British Columbia was getting 2.5 cents and Afton would be rebated, in a sense, 22 cents. Now that was the story in 1975, and Afton accepted it. In other words, there was a net revenue to the province of 0.2 cents, The province was giving nothing up to Afton Mines, but it was gaining 0.2 cents on each and every pound that was smelted in this province, and Afton accepted it. Now along comes the barefoot boy from Columbia River. Boy, did they see him coming! They saw him coming down the street with a straw hat and a piece of grass sticking out of his mouth going doity-doity-doh down the street and the city slickers from Teck Corp. said: "Well, Jimmy – Mr. Minister" – oh, did he like to hear the sound of that. . . . "Mr. Minister - I haven't had that since 1969? '70? '71? I think he only lasted 18 months before he brought his government crashing down into smithereens, but Jimmy liked to hear the "Mr. Minister." They said, "I hope you live up to the previous agreement, " and Mr. Minister said: "What was that, Mi. Teck Corporation?" They said: "They promised us 2.2 cents a pound for smelted copper in this province." So he bought, but he'd forgotten that the previous Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources had repealed the royalty Acts, and that they weren't paying 5 per cent per pound. Instead of a net 0.2 per cent coming back to the province, they gave 2.2 cents of hard taxpayers' revenue to Teck Corp. Nothing back. Nothing back at all. Taken to the cleaners once again. We are now paying Teck Corp., through our sales tax of 7 per cent. Our Medicare payments are up, our other charges at ICBC and other taxes that are going into revenue, and out of that hard-earned money, the member for Columbia River, has given away 2.2 cents per pound - $500,000 per year - to Teck Corp, I'll tell you why we're not going to have another copper smelter. We can't afford it, that's why.

Mr. Barber: How much can we give away?

Mr. Lauk: He said that we did a turnaround on the incentive, his research or the lack of it is showing again. From the beginning of the NDP administration we said that we will tax the raw material that is leaving this province, because we feel that there should be secondary industry in this province. We put a tax on it, but we said that if there are those who are willing to add value to those raw resources – that material we take out of the earth, that we cut down in the form of trees – if we add value to it here, if they provide secondary manufacturing jobs and wealth to the people of this province, we will give them incentives and rebates. We will make it attractive to them to invest in the secondary industries. Excellent policy indeed, and if it were allowed to continue, there would be other projects instead of cancellation of projects. I suppose we should be grateful to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources that he didn't act in the way his thoughtless and inept colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, has acted in canceling the major projects that were on stream in his department.

An Hon. Member: Steel mill, oil refinery.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Back to this Act.

[ Page 4832 ]

Mr. Lauk: At least he has some vision to proceed with the copper smelter. I feel that the whole project has changed its complexion insofar as this administration is concerned, and it's very unfortunate, indeed, that this minister has been deceived into thinking that he is providing the same package deals that the NDP did. We provided a tax rebate; they're providing an outright gift in virtually the same amount, and I don't even know whether the minister knows it today.

Mr Lea: The member for Vancouver Centre was absolutely correct. This legislation is inadequate in a great many ways. The mining industry of this province says that it is silly legislation. They don't see it as good legislation, and they want one of two things: they want a fair taxation policy and if it is going to be a grant, they want it to be a true incentive, an incentive to expand the mining industry and create jobs. What is it that makes a healthy mining industry? What are the main reasons? The ministry and this government would have you believe that it is the taxation policy. Obviously taxation can affect industry, and can drastically effect an industry that's dealing with raw resources, but is it the main reason that it either goes ahead or stops, or doesn't get off the ground in the first place? According to the minister's department, what he's inferring is incorrect. I would like to read from a brief submitted to the Royal Commission on the British Columbia Railway on June 27,1977, in Vancouver, by the Province of British Columbia Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Appendix 1, page 12, starting with: 1. Vocational factors. They're talking about: "What does it take to get the mining industry going, specifically copper mining?'

" Physical proximity to establish transportation infrastructure is important on new mine feasibility. Also the availability of low-cost energy, such as the conventional fossil fuels, natural gas, diesel fuel, or electric power, is important to location of mineral processing, concentration and smelting. In British Columbia, the copper industry benefits from access to tidewater since much of the concentrate product is shipped to other countries for refining."

Secondly, they discuss economic factors. It says: "The most important economic influence on mine development is metal price. This variable determines economic cutoff grade for a new prospect and influences most of the other economic factors in mine feasibility."

Not quoting for a second, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that taxation is one of those other influences on the mining industry. But the taxation policies of almost any government are found after assessing what the metal price is in mining and what the mining industry can reasonably expect to make in profit. Once that's established, then of course the government will say what is a fair rate of return to the government – therefore, the people – for the resources they own, based on the health of the mining industry at a given time. We know what the metal prices were in the early '70s, especially '73. We know that the prices were as high as almost any other time in the history of this province, if not the highest,

It goes on to say:

"Copper prices are currently unfavorable to the development of new low-grade copper deposits. High copper content or bodies can overcome some of the vagaries associated with price uncertainty. The cost of capital has become an important influence."

Again, leaving the brief for a second, we now have the mining industry telling us that because of other legislation that's being passed by this Legislature, the mining industry is going to have a harder time attracting capital to British Columbia - because of Bill 84. If they have a harder time attracting capital, it means they have to pay more for it, Those are the rules of the game. If the people who invest their money in mining look at British Columbia and see it with a government that brings in retroactive legislation affecting taxation, the cost of that money to the mining industry in British Columbia increases. That is not only an influence against copper mining, but obviously one against copper smelting. It's not the best influence or the best incentive in the world.

To go on, the brief says: "The larger low-grade copper deposits are very capital intensive, requiring substantial annual production and reasonably stable and attractive copper prices to recover equity and loan capital invested and generate a return."

By the minister's own brief to a royal commission of this very same year, the minister and his ministry point out to the people of British Columbia some of the main reasons why it's very difficult to get mining off the ground – the copper or metal prices; the cost you have to pay for money and transportation -1 and of course taxation. The former Minister of Mines, the now Minister of Forests only (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , and a person who spent years of his life in the mining industry.... When I say that those are major factors in getting the mining industry going, he chuckles, because he knows the secret that obviously I don't know – that there are other factors. Of course there are other factors; we're talking about the main factors. I'm quoting from a brief put out by his colleague, the Minister of Mines' ministry.

What have we here? We have a bill before us that says the copper smelting people or anybody interested, if the minister so desires and they so desire, can enter into a contract where they can receive $0.5 million a year for a period of 10 years maximum. That's a large copper smelter though, Mr.

[ Page 4833 ]

Minister, to get that maximum. Yes, it is – for British Columbia. What is the tonnage? Maybe you'll tell us that when you're up speaking. What would have to be the tonnage to get that kind of subsidy? It would have to be a bigger copper smelter than we're contemplating now.

But the fact is that this bill is nothing more than a political document. The mining industry says itself that it won't be an incentive to a new copper smelter. The ruining industry says that. Didn't the minister speak with them before he brought it in and find out what would be a proper incentive if an incentive is needed? Obviously not.

The minister, without consulting the mining industry, brings in Bill 15, drops it on the table and says to the people of British Columbia: "Aren't we a nice government? Aren't we interested in the mining community? Look at this. We're willing to give them a maximum of $5 million over a ten-year period to start a copper smelter." Anybody in the mining industry knows that that kind of money is not an incentive to starting a copper smelter – no incentive whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, we could have backed legislation for more money. We could have backed legislation that would have put a true incentive in front of the mining industry to start a copper smelter, but tied to jobs for British Columbians, tied to incentive money that should be paid back with some forgiveness and tied to a formula that would set out some jobs to be created by incentive money on behalf of the taxpayers of this province. We could have supported legislation like that.

We can't support legislation that the mining industry itself doesn't oven see as an incentive to their own industry, but are laughing at. They are ridiculing the Social Credit Party and this government, laughing at them, knowing full well that this legislation will not be an incentive for copper smelting in this province. It just will not. The mining industry says it won't; the official opposition says it won't.

I'm sure that both the mining industry and the official opposition would support legislation that had a true incentive in it, tied to job creation and loans to the mining industry to be paid back to the people of British Columbia if they need it. But a straight gift that won't even act as an incentive; a silly, stupid piece of legislation that's meant to sway the votes in this province rather than sway industry into a healthy situation? Mr. Speaker, it's ridiculous legislation. It's phony legislation. It's legislation that the mining industry doesn't want and doesn't need and says so publicly.

For this House to pass mining legislation that neither industry nor the taxpayers want, but only the government wants, is the height of ridiculousness. It's the height of arrogance because it means that people in this province are so politically naive that they can't understand politics when they see it.

Mr. Speaker, the mining industry understands politics, they see it in Bill 15. They say it's not a bill that will bring incentive for a copper smelter, and I say it. It is a ridiculous bill that will not be an incentive for a copper smelter. It will only be a gift. But, Mr. Speaker, even more than that, it's a gift that no mining company will ever get.

I prophesy that no mining company will get $5 million over ten years out of the taxpayers. The minister will not sign that agreement with anyone. It won't be there and available to them, because nobody's going to take him up on it, unless for other factors they decide to start a copper smelter anyway. If all of the factors outlined in the brief by the ministry to a royal commission on the British Columbia Railway are strong, if the mining industry can see a firm metal price for a time to come, if they have the products, if they have the ore, if they can get the money at a reasonable interest rate and if they can see some ground rules that won't be changed retroactively, then they'll go ahead. They'll go ahead on those factors. After they've considered all those factors, and said, "Yes, it's time for a copper smelter, " they can apply for the gift because that's all it is. It's a gift, it's not an incentive.

Bring an incentive in here tied to job creation and a healthy mining community and the NDP will back it, but we won't back this farce.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask one or two questions on this bill as much as make comment, because the Mining Association of British Columbia in December, on the front page of its "B.C. Mining Industry Newsletter, " quoted the president, Mr. J. Douglas Little, as saying: "When you leave the realm of projection and consider the question of costs and profits, it is all too apparent that under present conditions we are a long way from economic copper smelting in British Columbia."

Similarly, the minister was interviewed some time after this bill was introduced in July of this year, Mr. Speaker. He was asked about the comments of the ministry's chief geologist, Mr. Athel Sutherland-Brown, who had made the statement that the Ministry of Mines didn't expect any worthwhile copper development in the province for two decades. At this particular time, the minister had been forecasting that there might be even two world-scale copper smelters developed in tile province. In this report in the Vancouver Province of July 5, the minister is reported as having said he had only predicted that a copper smelter could be built eventually. The minister went on to say: "But eventually could be any time depending on world economy and the price of copper. It could be less than 20 years."

So as a person trying to support as readily as one

[ Page 4834 ]

can in an opposition party the concept of secondary industry and the creation of more jobs in a diversification of our B.C. economy, I would like to support this bill if I could. But I have to ask some of these questions to find out how practical and realistic this bill is when, in the light of the minister's own statement, Mr. Speaker, it might be within 20 years. Now I don't think that the 10 per cent of the labour force that's unemployed in British Columbia is really interested in thinking that this government is bringing in bills which, in 20 years, might develop secondary industry and create jobs in a wider wider variety of types of occupation than we now have. So I wonder if the minister would first of all care to expand on his comments that it might be up to 20 years before there is a copper smelter in British Columbia.

The second question I would like to ask relates to the same statement in December, 1976, by the president of the Mining Association of British Columbia, when he said that the probable cost of processing copper in British Columbia would be 37 cents a pound, and that mine costs would be 45 cents a pound, and that the break-even price would therefore be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 77 cents a pound. I understand by the most recent figures on the London metal exchange that the price of copper has fallen to 55 cents a pound during the month of August, which is 22 cents a pound less than the break-even point which would make a smelter an economic possibility. So that is one economic factor which stares us in the face right now, Mr. Speaker.

I also understand from an article by the business editor, George Froehlich, in The Vancouver Sun on April 6, that there is really an enormous excess of copper production throughout the world, particularly in Third World countries such as Zambia, Zaire and Chile. In this column, Mr. Froehlich quotes from a study, which was done by the Ontario government, entitled: "The Ontario Metal Mining Industry, Present and Future." That was prepared by the mineral resources branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources in Ontario. That report states that excess copper production capacity exists in Zambia, Zaire, and Chile. These countries cannot afford to cut back production in spite of the oversupply of copper due to their need for hard currency foreign exchange, and the necessity to maintain employment. They must produce and sell copper whatever the price.

Since it has been stated many, many times in this House in regard to our economy that we are players in a game, we're competitors in a world market, whether or not we want to award wage settlements or fringe benefits which boost the cost of production of copper or any other product. What is so vital or crucial in the long run as whether or not we can sell that product on the world market? Here we have studies from other jurisdictions, so one could not necessarily be accused of just picking figures from a study in British Columbia. I am referring to a fairly detailed study that was done in Ontario which shows very well that there is a world surplus of copper. Beyond that, it shows that those Third World countries, for the reasons I've mentioned, will continue to produce copper in excess no matter what the world price, because it is such a basic element in their economy, and to sell the copper and to provide jobs for their people in the process of producing the copper.

So my third question would be whether the minister can tell the House any information that isn't otherwise available as to how it would appear that there is any economic feasibility whatever for a copper smelter in British Columbia when one takes into account the 77-cent-a-pound break-even point; when in fact the price on the London metal exchange in August was 55 cents a pound; when Third World countries have produced, and are continuing to produce, an enormous excess of copper.

Finally, could I ask the minister in regard to the Afton company whether or not this bill is being introduced to provide in legislation the verbal promise that was made by the former administration in regard to a subsidy for a copper smelter? As with the former bill we debated, Mr. Speaker, I did some personal research and talked with people in the mining industry. This is the clear impression that exists among those who are knowledgeable about the mining industry in British Columbia – that this bill in fact, while it is touted as being one that will encourage mining companies to build perhaps a second copper smelter, all the indications, such as those I have mentioned in the world situation regarding the marketing of copper, are that this bill is merely in place, or is being brought before the House, to put into written form the verbal commitment that was made by the former administration. It is this commitment upon which I believe Afton has acted, and they will in fact be completing the construction of a copper smelter within the next 12 months. This is the information I have from the mining industry.

So that we on this side of the House can understand the real reason for this bill, and so we can perhaps better evaluate any future impact the bill might have – by "future" I don't mean 20 years down the road, I mean in the next few years, so we can try to determine any impact which the bill will have as an incentive to other companies – I think the minister should answer some of these questions which I've put to him.

I think, in fairness to whatever government is in power in this province, it is fair to read into the record, Mr. Speaker, the fact that as recently as last week representatives of 50 different nations met in Geneva to try and discuss and determine how there might be some stabilizing effect brought upon this very volatile world of copper prices. The studies are

[ Page 4835 ]

being carried out under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. The whole purpose of that meeting, Mr. Speaker, is to try and determine stabilization arrangements to prevent the serious difficulties that occur in some countries where the lower-grade ores and the cost of production just makes it almost impossible for a province such as British Columbia to compete with the Third World countries which have very rich ores and a low cost of production.

Mr. Speaker, these are economic facts of life. I think when we are debating this bill we have to ask the minister for answers to the questions I have posed. Either this bill is simply a written commitment to Afton to meet the verbal promises that were made by the former administration, or it is something more than that. It represents something more in the sense of an outline of what the government of British Columbia is prepared to do to try and encourage a second copper smelter with the creation of jobs and the diversification of our economy that would result from that project.

As a taxpayer in the province of British Columbia, I can only come to the conclusion that the former is the purpose of this bill – simply to meet the commitment to Afton which was made by the former government. Any suggestion that it will realistically act as an incentive for some other copper company to forge ahead with a copper smelter project is extremely difficult to accept on the basis of some of these economic factors that I have quoted.

I would hope the minister would give us a straight answer to some of these questions so that at least we can vote intelligently on second reading of this bill.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate I want to reply to some of the remarks made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in which he was suggesting that they had worked out a satisfactory arrangement with Afton Mines when he was the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Well, they worked out the best arrangements that Afton Mines could possibly work out with that government that was against the mining industry and demonstrated that it was by its actions while in office. So Teck Corp. found itself in such a position that they had no alternative but to deal with them. The NDP appears to have a hang-up about equity in various mines. We've removed that aspect from the departmental legislation because the former minister, when he repealed the Copper Bounty Act in 1973....

An Hon. Member: Order!

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Are you suggesting I can't quote from an Act of 1973? I made a passing reference.

When it was repealed, he talked about the necessity for the government to have an equity in any copper smelter that might be established in the province. There was one that was on its way to being established in the Kimberley-Maysville region by Cominco despite the denials of the opposition. It was brought to a halt, as I stated previously, because of the government's attitude and its removal of the incentive that had been in place for many years.

The former minister, one Mr. Nimsick, said: "We've got to have an equity. It doesn't matter whether the mining operation or the copper smelter in which we have that equity loses money or not We’ve got to have that equity so we can show the people that we have an equity." Those are his very words on April 9,1973. "We've got to have an equity. We've got to show the people we've got an equity, It doesn't matter whether that equity ever produces a profit or not; we've got to have the equity."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

Mr. Lea: The minister was inferring that he's quoting from Hansard from a certain date. I don't believe that the minister is quoting correctly, and I would ask him to point to and read from what page of Hansard he's quoting from.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, the minister may use copious notes, the same as you may use.

Mr. Lea: Mr. Speaker, that is not the point of order. The point of order is that he is inferring that he's quoting from Hansard. He said the minister said those very words – Nimsick. I don't believe those very words were spoken by Nimsick. I want him to point out where it said that – what he's quoting from.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister continues.

Mr. Lea: I have raised a point of order. What say you?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, I did not hear the hon. minister quoting from Hansard. I heard him referring to specific notes from a document. I don't know whether it was Hansard or what it was. I did not hear that.

Mr. Lea: The minister picked up the Hansard book, opened it up and said: "I quote."

Hon. Mr. Chabot: No, I didn't say that.

Mr. Lea: Yes, he did.

[ Page 4836 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order please.

Mr. Lea: Yes, he did.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: You didn't see that.

Mr. Lea: Yes, be. ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Mr. Lea: You pip-squeak!

[Deputy Speaker rises]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Speaker did not hear the hon. minister say that he was quoting from Hansard. I noticed that he was quoting from a document. I don't know what the document is and it is not relevant at this point in time.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat. ]

Mr. Lea: Mr. Speaker, I am saying ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you on another point of order?

Mr. Lea: ... that what the minister says is incorrect. I want him to tell us what he was quoting from.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest, hon. member, that you wait until the end of the speech to rise on this sort of point of order if you wish to understand or ascertain what document the minister was quoting from.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: I was just referring to a speech made one time by the former Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Mr. Nimsick, in which he said the key thing the government was interested in was having an equity in copper smelters. And it didn't matter whether that copper smelter made money or not, as long as we could show the people of British Columbia that we had an equity. He said that in Hansard. Read it for yourself on April 9,1973. Mr. Speaker, in case you don't know it, I wasn't quoting from Hansard. I was referring to Hansard on April 9,1973.

There was some suggestion that the legislation is brought in to primarily deal with the responsibility we have with providing an incentive to Afton Mines. This legislation was brought in for that reason partially but not entirely. There's a bigger reason out there, because that was underway. The bigger reason is to encourage the establishment of the copper smelters, which I'll talk about a little later on. But I never suggested that the legislation was similar to that of the NDP. It isn't, because they had intended, had they remained government, to make provisions for the 5 per cent equity position in Afton Mines.

The member for Prince Rupert wondered whether Teck Corp. would get the maximum of $500,000 that's spelled out here for a specific number of years. There has been no agreement worked out, but they would qualify on the basis of their production for $500,000 per year. You suggest that no one would ever get $500,000 per year. The information 1 have is that half the mines, because of their production, would qualify for the maximum. It's just a question now of coming to a conclusion as to the number of years the contract would be for.

[ Mr. Speaker in the chair- ]

It is anticipated that, without too many problems, the smelter will be in production later this fall. Metal prices are the determining factor as far as the viability and interest in copper production are concerned. 1 recognize that we're not alone as far as copper production is concerned. It's a worldwide dilemma of overproduction, soft prices and high inventory. But we feel that we have a responsibility to encourage the further refining of our natural resources in British Columbia. This legislation is a demonstration of that concern. We recognize that copper prices are unfavorable at this time. They're excessively low, so low that many of the copper producers in British Columbia are either in break even positions or in the loss position. We recognize the problems we have with the situation which exists in Zambia, Zaire and Chile, where copper must be produced at virtually any price to sustain employment in those countries. We're not alone in that dilemma. The United States is facing the same situation; most of the copper producers in the United States – from some information that was conveyed to me very recently –primarily because of a labour contract that was signed not too long ago, were in the loss position when they made their projections. Most of the copper producers in British Columbia are in the loss position.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Pardon? Unfortunately, I don't have the information before me, but 1 have a list of about 40 different copper mines in the United States and the bulk of them are in a money-losing position at this time.

There was some talk about Sutherland-Brown of my ministry having suggested it would be 20 years before there would be any copper development in British Columbia. He informed me that the press release misconstrued the remarks that he'd made before the BCR inquiry. He never suggested it would take 20 years. He knows full well that economics

[ Page 4837 ]

determines the viability of copper mining in British Columbia.

We are very interested in promoting copper smelters in British Columbia, primarily because we believe that it will lead into the further refining of these products in the province through fabrication Until you actually got copper smelters, it's difficult to encourage the fabricating plants in the province. That's where the bulk of the benefits are really - in fabricating. As far as employment and jobs are concerned, it's in fabrication. Certainly there's employment as far as copper smelters are concerned. We know we have the resource in British Columbia.

As I stated a little earlier, it takes 120,000 to 150,000 tons of copper concentrate per year to maintain a copper smelter. We're producing, at this time, 970,000 tons of copper concentrates per year, and we have an abundance of reserves. Time doesn't permit me to give you the known reserves. Of course, a mine is only....

Mr. L. Nicolson (Nelson-Creston): Give us the unknown ones.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: The unknown ones? I'll leave it to your seatmate from Prince Rupert to give you the unknown reserves of copper in the province.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talked about the selling price of copper. It varies, depending upon the markets and depending on your point of processing of your product. There are some very complex sales agreements, which take into consideration processing. The bulk of our copper concentrates from British Columbia go to Japan and it's a complex sales agreement they have there.

Seventy-seven cents seems to be a ballpark figure for a break even situation in British Columbia, but it varies from mine to mine. There are some mines that are substantially higher. For instance, Valley Copper, which is looking at the possibility of putting an ore body into production in Highland Valley, is substantially higher than 77 cents as a break even point.

We're fortunate in British Columbia to have the best technology in the world. We are able to extract the lowest copper content ore in the world effectively and profitably, and some are even making a profit at the depressed prices today.

This bill really makes provisions for entering into a contract with Afton. It shows the government's intentions to encourage the further processing of our copper concentrates in British Columbia so that we can someday have a fabricating industry here. If this legislation doesn't do the job, maybe at a later date, because of economics, we will have to bring another bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 27

NAYS - 14

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

Bill 15, Copper Smelting and Refining Incentive Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record for this evening. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) stated earlier that in debate in 1973, on an Act to amend the Logging Tax Act, I did riot vote against the bill. I want the record to show clearly that on neither second reading nor third reading was there any division or recorded vote. In fact, I might not even have been in the House, I think that the record should be set straight on that.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: You didn't speak against it either.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, I appreciate the hon.- member's comments, but the record is there in Votes and Proceedings on any bills where there was a recorded vote.

Hon. G.B. Gardom (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 38.

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND PETROLEUM

RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Veitch in

[ Page 4838 ]

the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

Mr. Macdonald: On section 3, Mr. Chairman, this repeals section 7 of legislation enacted by the New Democratic Party government and it rather bothers me in terms of the minister's philosophy. I spoke a little bit on this in second reading and the minister got up and he said: "Well, we're giving people an equity in the resources of the province. Look at the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation." He quoted a socialist example and I'm glad the minister agrees with the legislation we brought in terms of BCPC.

But does repealing this section mean that even for something like Petro-Canada, where there's a joint enterprise by the federal government with private industry to develop petroleum resources in the north and other places in Canada, they are totally opposed? Does this mean that the government is going to be totally laissez-faire in the development of resources in the Province of British Columbia and doesn't believe in partnership with private industry and public enterprise? Are you turning back the clock completely, or is there a little glimmer of light that you have got one foot in the 20th century? What does the minister think about Petro-Canada? Is he against that kind of a concept for the development of mineral resources? I would ask the minister what he thinks about that.

Interjection.

Mr. Macdonald: I want to know if the minister is turning his back totally on public involvement in the development of new mineral, petroleum and natural gas resources in this province in terms of equity participation. That's what it seems to be saying – you are eliminating the power to do it. Now am I reading this section correctly, Mr. Chairman? Has the minister got any reply to that?

Mr. Lea: Mr. Chairman, this is a section of the bill where we're asking for the government to explain its policy. They're bringing an amendment and is the minister not going to explain his policy on this?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: During the debate on the principles of the bill, I clearly outlined that the reason for rescinding former section 7 in the ministry Act, was that the government, under this vehicle, was not prepared to entertain purchasing, leasing or otherwise acquiring any real or personal property as far as involvement in the development of the mineral resource.

Mr. Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, presumably that means that the government of British Columbia wouldn't even acquire equity share capital in an enterprise for resource development in this province? That's what it means, doesn't it?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: That's correct. Under this Act, that's correct.

Mr. Macdonald: I want to say that I totally oppose the repeal of this section. I think the government economics are not only pre-Galbraithian and pre-Keynesian, they're pre-Cambrian. I mean that. This province is going to suffer in terms of the ancient, antique doctrinaire philosophy of this government, in terms of employment, and in terms of the development of our mineral resources. In the period of three and a half years under the NDP government, we had a real spurt in the development of our natural resources in this province, in terms of providing employment and public revenue. If there is unemployment, as there is particularly in the mining industry in B.C., and in petroleum – there's no doubt, with the repeal of this section, where the blame lies. It lies squarely on the head of this coalition government which wants to be so doctrinaire that it's turning its back on all of the experiments in the development of natural resources, that are going on in all the countries of the western world that have a progressive programme. If they brought forward a proposition like that, let's say, in the country of Norway, today, does anybody over there say that it's a Marxist socialist state, or something of that kind? That's what we are talking about. How are they developing the North Sea oils? It is public and private enterprise, a creative partnership for the benefit of the people. This government is totally turning back the clock in this section, and I oppose it entirely.

Mr. Lea: I think that we should get our points of view squarely on the floor of the Legislature, because as the member for Vancouver East was saying, what are you going to do? Are you going to fly in the face of common sense everywhere? What everybody else is doing makes common sense - are you going to fly in the face of that? The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources stood up and said:"Yes, under this Act."

The Premier mumbled under his breath over and over again his answer to an argument from the other side: "Vote against it then. Vote against it then. Vote against it then." The head of state didn't stand up and give his government's position. "Vote against it then" – it sums him up.

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, what this is a declaration that this government intends to do

[ Page 4839 ]

and hope for the best in the resource field. It intends to do absolutely nothing and hope for the best and then write its own releases and say: "We're still hoping that things will get better."

The first move in this province covered under section 7 that's now to be repealed was by Duff Pattullo, a Liberal premier of this province, who in the 1930s had the initiative to make the first move towards government development of resources. It's a long tradition in this province. We've been a. pioneering, courageous province ever since in terms of developing resources. Even the previous Social Credit administration carried on that tradition started by Duff Pattullo in the '30s.

What you're declaring tonight in passing this subsection is that we cannot do anything by ourselves. We have to wait on the charity of private investors to provide jobs in this province or leadership for resource development. What you're really saying by repealing this section is that the pioneering spirit of governments in this province, having had the courage in the past. . . . When it has been tradition in this province since the '30s to pioneer and provide jobs and employment opportunities for the people of this province when the private sector will not act, or cares not to act, you're repealing this opportunity now and saying that you won't lift a finger for the unemployed in this province unless private capital does it all.

Mr. Chairman, it's an incredible admission tonight by the government that has an unemployment figure of over 100,000 people in the summer, and we will reach thousands more unemployed this winter. In this section – the one opportunity for this government to show some leadership, some initiative – it's not going to do anything except repeal that responsibility. Lick your finger and hold it up in the wind and hope for the best.

These are trying times in this province, through you, Mr. Chairman. The people of this province want some leadership, not rhetoric. They want some action, not speeches. They expect the government of the day to recognize the problems that exist and to act on them.

You're saying that you're going to lay down, roll over and be a friendly little puppy for any investor who may come along. But in terms of the unemployed who are waiting out there for jobs, you're not going to lift a finger or do anything for them.

There was a vision and there was hope in the previous Social Credit administration. It made moves. We used to hear speeches about unemployment over there. They don't care now. There was a bit of a dream. There always has been government action in the province of British Columbia. There has always been some pioneering since the '30s, in terms of this kind of initiative.

This is a Herbert Hoover subsection – root, hog or die. If you don't inherit a rich father, then tough luck on you. If the big, rich boys don't come into British Columbia and invest, then tough luck on you. The unemployed are just out there, and they are not seeing any leadership at all by this government to create any jobs. The one opportunity that is open in terms of capital investments is either through mixed ventures or government venture itself, and they won't lift a finger.

If this section had not been in effect, could we have bought the Princess Marguerite? Not on your life. What would they have done with the Royal Hudson?

Interjection.

Mr. Barrett: Not on your life. The Royal Hudson, yes, that's right. The Royal Hudson, that you take big pictures of, that wouldn't have been started either.

Mr. J.J. Kempf (Omineca): That would have been a godsend to this province.

Mr. Barrett: Ocean Falls wouldn't have been bought. Can-Cel wouldn't be operating. It's true, my friend; it's true.

The government is declaring tonight that there is no move at all being made to show leadership in the economic sphere. It is abandoning its responsibility to the unemployed. It will not provide any kind of leadership or direction for the economy. It intends to sit back and hope that someone else will do something for us.

But we're not that kind of people in this province, Mr. Chairman. We shouldn't wait for the whims of international investors. We shouldn't sit back and hope that somebody will do something like the Princess Marguerite for us. We've got to provide the leadership for this province to at least give some protection or some security to our people who are seeking jobs.

Not only have you abandoned Railwest, but you're abandoning any concept of government responsibility in the economy by repealing this section. I think the people of this province deserve a heck of a lot more than a smug Premier sitting there saying absolutely nothing at a time when we have over 100,000 unemployed and not a single lifting of a finger to help those people. Now we have an abandonment in this section by the Premier, his cabinet and that government of any concern of doing anything on their own to help the unemployed.

Since the '30s we've had governments that have had guts enough. Even the previous Social Credit administration was a bit adventurous. But we're abandoning all of that in this section tonight, and

[ Page 4840 ]

we're abandoning the unemployed when the opportunity is there and the commitment is there.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) talks about the need for another pulp mill in this province. Every other jurisdiction in the western world talks of a mixed economy and shared investments.

Earlier tonight we passed a bill saying to the private sector: "Okay, we'll change the rules in the middle of the game. Now we're saying we won't participate." How in the world are you going to get investments unless you stand up and say you believe in British Columbia? If you don't believe in it, who is going to? There are 100,000 people unemployed and you have not given one signal that you believe in this province and that you have the willingness to lead this province and start solving some of the problems of unemployment and under-investment.

You don't care; you don't care as a government. It is an incredible attitude that says in this section that they will repeal any responsibility to get involved in any purchases, any operation. It's all a big joke. Lament about the unemployed when the election campaign is on, but forget now. It's a step back into the past. There isn't even a sign of liberalism left in the ex-Liberals.

We have a national government that understands the need for joint venturing. We compete in the western world with nations that have governments that are committed to so-called free enterprise and they participate, as the United States, Britain and the Scandinavian countries do. Our own competitors have a leg up on our own indigenous business unless government participates in sharing.

I find it unbelievable that with over 100,000 people unemployed in this province – over 100,000 people looking for jobs in this province – this government's attitude is: "We have no responsibility to do anything." In Terrace, Mr. Chairman, unemployment ranges as high as 16 per cent. In Prince George unemployment is over 14 per cent. In the Kootenays unemployment is 16 per cent, again. Regions of this province are looking for some leadership from a government that claimed it had all the answers. There is not a hope, not a whisper, not a prayer, nothing.

The Premier walks out. The Minister of Forests is in public newspaper appeals asking for another pulp mill. There's a need, the Premier says, for two more pulp mills in this province to provide jobs. Well, I say that if that is a recognized need – and I agree with it – then let that government have the guts to get involved and give some leadership to the people of this province, Where's a government of guts and determination that will say: "We will put our people to work"? Where's a government with commitment and understanding and compassion and feelings?

Some of the money they collect in general revenues should be reinvested back in the resources of this province. You don't believe in any commitment like that at all. You hope for the best. I hope that the people of Victoria don't lose the Marguerite because of this section. I hope Ocean Falls doesn't close down because of this section. I find it absolutely unbelievable that there's not a word from the cabinet or the Premier on the unemployed or on a commitment to do anything about it. It's all a joke with them, all a big joke.

Mr. Macdonald: I just want to add one word, Mr. Chairman, about the coal resources of the north. The new government across the way there has done a belly flop in terms of Sukunka and coal development in the north. Everybody in this chamber knows that at the present time, because the Minister of Economic Development was saying, "Well, give me two months and we're going to make the great decisions, " and so forth. Nothing has happened. A few experimental cars are going out with a bit of coal for testing.

Now I'm not trying to be doctrinaire, Mr. Chairman, but I'm telling you that you may very well need public enterprise, perhaps in partnership with the private companies, to develop coal resources of the northeast of British Columbia. That's jobs; that's public revenue; that's the development of our provinces; and that's returning to the people of the province on equity in those resources.

What you're doing is saying: "Leave it all to the international companies. If they think the climate is right, and the profits are big enough, and they're better than what we can get in Uganda or Venezuela or somewhere else in the world, they'll come in. They'll be very kind to us and they'll develop our resources." Well, it's not working. You belly flopped totally on the development of coal resources in this province. You repeal this kind of a section where you can do a partnership development of those resources and get some results.

Mr. Barrett: There are 100,000 unemployed.

Mr. Macdonald: The unemployment speaks for itself.

In addition to that – it's not only that – it is the question of whether this province and the people will have some say in ownership of their own resources or whether it will all go to the big companies like Exxon and Noranda – all these big international companies, whether we shall have any equity in our province at all. This old laissez-faire attitude – that's the only way to describe it – of the coalition government there, is something that the people of this province ought to understand, because you're not a center party. You're away to the right of center, far too right for the modern world in terms of modern thinking, modern economics and modern

[ Page 4841 ]

development.

Oh, the Attorney-General looks over there and says: "I came in as a Liberal and I brought sort of a leavening, left-of-center influence into that government." Baloney! Mr. Chairman, this is a right-wing reactionary government that's selling out this province to the international companies! I'm going to repeat it. It's a right-wing reactionary government that's selling out this province to the international development companies! It doesn't give a darn whether the people of B.C. will be employed or whether they will get any return from those resources. Look at that section you're appealing.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Vintage Lewis

Mr. Macdonald: Do you mean David or Stephen? I will stand by either one and either one will recognize that coalition opposite for what it is – coalition of opportunists, a coalition of turncoats of many colours!

Mr. Barrett: Of many colours, all of them deep blue.

Mr. Macdonald: I don't know how the people will decide that kind of an issue when an election is called in this province. But for my part I would never strike my flag. I would fight this kind of an issue throughout the towns and hamlets and villages and cities of the province of British Columbia. We would fight it against big press and big privilege and big money. But it is the kind of an issue on which we would fight and whether we'd win next time, we would win it.

Oh, they laugh. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) laughs away while he is playing footsie with the big international timber companies. It's great, isn't it, to be a serf in your own province? That's what we are talking about. Laugh that one off. It's very funny, isn't it? You wouldn't laugh in any modern part of this world. They wouldn't be able to allow you to laugh in Germany or Scandinavia or Sweden or Great Britain. Even in the United States, they are turning to some public development of resources.

This is a reactionary right-wing coalition that ought to be voted out of office!

Mr. Barrett: I think the government deserves an opportunity to rethink this. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 25

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

On section 3.

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with here is a complete sellout of the government to the principle of involvement by the ordinary people of this province in the new development of their own resources. At the same time, while the Premier is making speeches saying that the successful enterprises bought by the previous administration will be open for shares by the people of this province, they are also admitting in this bill that they have no intention whatsoever under the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources to be participants in any new development.

The policy announced by this government is: "Yes, the NDP enterprises that are now making money may be open to the public, but we want to inform you. . . ."

An Hon. Member: Name one.

Mr. Barrett: Westcoast Transmission, the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. They voted against them, and Can-Cel – they voted against that, too. They're saying: "You people out there can put your money in as shareholders, but never again will we have the guts or the drive to do things for ourselves. We have to depend on welfare from the international corporations and hope for the best from the international corporations."

This section, Mr. Chairman, is a complete abdication of leadership that is absolutely necessary by any government, regardless of political stripe, in this province at this time. We have over 100,000 people out of work. Small businesses are going belly up every day, Foreclosures on home mortgages are the highest they've been since the Depression, and we have a section in front of us saying that this government will do absolutely nothing in the

[ Page 4842 ]

economic field to alleviate these problems. I think it's disgusting, Mr. Chairman, and I draw your attention to the clock.

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.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11: 01 p.m.