[ Page 4973 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Mineral Act (Bill 73) Committee stage

On section 1.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4973

On section I as amended

Mr. Barrett –– 4973

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4978

Mr. Gibson –– 4979

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4980

Mr. Barrett –– 4980

Mr. Nicolson –– 4981

Mr. Levi –– 4984

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4984

Mr. Nicolson –– 4988

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress –– 4991

Mr. Barrett –– 4991

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress –– 4992

Mr. King –– 4993

Appendix –– 4996

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. R.H. McClelland (Minister Of Health): Mr. Speaker, seated in the Speaker's gallery today is Dr. Brock M. Fahrni. Dr. Fahrni is professor and head of the department of rehabilitation medicine at the University of British Columbia. We're very fortunate to have Dr. Fahrni with us as a world authority on rehabilitation medicine and long-term care. I'd like the House to make him very welcome.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it's a great honour for me to introduce a most distinguished guest to the House this morning, Professor Sir William Ferguson Anderson. He is the David Cargill Professor of Geriatric Medicine at the University of Glasgow, and consultant in the organization of patient care with the World Health Organization. He obtained his medical degree from the University of Glasgow in 1936 and is a fellow of no less than five royal colleges of physicians – Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Ireland and Canada.

Sir William is the current president of the British Medical Association and the British Geriatric Society. He's the author of several textbooks and the recipient of many honours in the field of medical teaching. Sir William was knighted by Her Majesty the Queen in July, 1974.

Our distinguished guest, Mr. Speaker, has been attending the 1977 World Congress on Mental Health in Vancouver. We are delighted and greatly indebted to him for his kindness in coming to Victoria today to share his expertise as a world authority on geriatrics and the care of the elderly – at a time when British Columbia is just moving into new fields in this area – with our senior officials of the Ministry of Health.

Professor Sir Ferguson Anderson is seated on the floor of the House. I'd ask this House to make him very welcome.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my personal welcome to Sir William Ferguson Anderson. It's nice to see the British Medical Association showing the wisdom and prudence of have a Scotsman as their president. I hope that Sir William has had a pleasant visit to Vancouver. I'm sure that all of us interested in the health field are very grateful for his visit here at a time when the congress on Mental Health holds so much hope for some improvement in public attitudes to mental illness.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise, in the absence of the MLA for Saanich (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , to welcome an eight-year-old voter of the future, Michael Nightingale, in the Hansard area. Mrs. Nightingale is one of our very loyal staff. I would ask the House to welcome Michael.

Clerk-Assistant: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 73 (6) , a report in the office of the Clerk In the matter of the petition presented to the House August 25,1977, by the hon. member for Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) the said petition is irregular in the following respect, namely: the petition is without a proper form of prayer and accordingly may not be received. See Beauchesne, 4th edition, page 256.

All of which is respectfully submitted,
I.M. Horne, Clerk of the House.

Orders of the day.

Hon. G.B. Gardom (Attorney-General): Committee on Bill 73, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

Hon. J.R. Chabot (Minister Of Mines And Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Mr. D. Barrett (Leader Of The Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the government for the 15 minutes, notice of change of business in the House. It's baloney.

An Hon. Member: Nonsense. Your Whip came down half an hour before the House sat.

Mr. Barrett: There have been changes and changes, and no co-operation whatsoever.

Interjections.

Mr. Barrett: Well, get up arid say so! What are you yelling about? You change the list overnight.

An Hon. Member: Nonsense.

Mr. Barrett: You come in and give 15 minutes' notice and then you expect to get House business done. Don't be silly!

Mr. Chairman: Will the Leader of the Opposition please take his seat?

Mr. Barrett: You've waited five years ...

[ Page 4974 ]

Mr. Chairman: We are not concerned with what goes on with the Whips of this House ...

Mr. Barrett: You've been away for two weeks. What are you squawking about? You had a holiday!

An Hon. Member: Only nine days.

Mr. Barrett: Nine days, okay.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition on section 1 as amended.

Mr. Barrett: You know, Mr. Chairman, in any other House there has been co-operation, at. least in knowing what the order of the business is.

Some Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Barrett: When did you find out? About 9:45.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, this is improper in committee. Would you please continue on section 1?

Mr. Barrett: It certainly is improper in committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal in section 1 with some basic changes that have been happening by law. Over the years, there's been a constitutional debate as to the authority of jurisdiction of mineral potential on offshore mineral development. At one time, the province of British Columbia was invited to participate with five other provinces in a discussion....

An Hon. Member: What has that got to do with the interpretation?

Mr. Barrett: What has this got to do with the amendment? I'm coming to it. Right with this section, yes. It's got a lot to do with this section. You're the minister. Just sit calmly and I'll come to it.

After the long controversy there was a question of definition that has to be included in this section, related to a change in federal law related to offshore minerals. In August, 1972, during a provincial election campaign, former Premier W.A.C. Bennett made a decision to send Lawrie Wallace as British Columbia's representative to the federal-provincial conference dealing with the legal position to be taken by the provinces related to offshore mineral rights. At that time, Mr. Chairman, the former Premier said:

"The instruction of Mr. Wallace ......

Hon. Mr. Chabot: There's nothing under offshore mineral rights in this section.

Mr. Barrett: There has to be and that's the point that I'm coming to. You have goofed in the bill and I'm trying to warn you that there has been a change in federal legislation. . . .

Hon. Mr. Chabot: If you want it in, move an amendment.

Mr. Barrett: "If you want it in, move an amendment, " he says. Will you vote for my amendment?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Try it.

Mr. Barrett: No. So there you go. What's the point? Now don't be twitchy and nervous. You've made a goof on this bill and I'm trying to warn you what the goof is leading to and if you sit right for five minutes, you might learn something.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: You're out of order.

Mr. Chairman: Please address the Chair.

Mr. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. An important jurisdictional dispute was resolved, and it was resolved with the announcement by the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) on June 30,1976, when he was the Attorney-General after a 30-year struggle with succeeding Attorneys-General – Alec Macdonald's father, Donner, this Macdonald and Gardom – and we won. Now that we've won, we haven't taken the trouble to enshrine that victory in the most important piece of mineral legislation in front of us, the Mineral Act.

The point I am trying to make is that after a 40-year struggle and a clear-cut victory, where the Attorney-General said: " 'The ruling is a banner day for British Columbia.' He said the provinces of Newfoundland and New Brunswick supported the position of British Columbia but it was opposed by the federal government, " which was correct. But British Columbia had decided to go its own route. That was a decision W.A.C. made. That was fair enough.

"Mr. Gardom went on to say: 'I would expect that there will be not any question' " – your English is a little bit confusing here, but the context is correct; it's the reporter's fault – " 'that the federal government will totally accept this finding.' He said the decision was based on law, and law alone, and the decision is morally and practically correct." That was the position of the Attorney-General, which I happen to agree with. It's absolutely correct.

It's funny, Mr. Chairman, if I may make just one

[ Page 4975 ]

brief aside, that in another bill they won't let the court decide at all. The Attorney-General seems to have two opinions on the approach of the court. If it's a good decision, the law stands; if it's a bad decision, change the law. We'll discuss that later. Let's deal with this one.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: You're confused.

Mr. Barrett: I'm not confused at all. You're stopping a judgment from being made. Anybody who could change political colours so quickly can change attitudes on the law quickly.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Barrett: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General and I are having a good debate. I agree with the Attorney-General's statement on this. Now the situation has changed dramatically in one year. A year ago June, this banner decision was brought down, and that is enough time, surely, for the ministry and the minister to have prepared in legislation the entrenchment of this very, very important federal decision. That entrenchment should have taken place under this section. Now it's not good enough, Mr. Chairman, for the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to get upset. I understand why he's upset, but I'm not his social worker.

An Hon. Member: Order! (Laughter.)

Mr. Barrett: My talents are limited in that respect to certain kinds of problems, sir . . .

Hon. Mr. Chabot: That's the first truth you've said.

Mr. Barrett: ... so I must deal with you politician to politician, It has now been, what – 14 months? I know the government has had a heavy legislative programme, but some clear-cut definition should have been made under the minister's instruction., and perhaps in consultation with the Attorney-General's ministry, for a clearly defined set of rules, standards and approach to this brand new jurisdiction that we're faced with now – that is, mining of the sea beds. Beyond the philosophy of how the revenue from sea-bed mining or sea-bed exploration is to be shared, we have e a very difficult task facing the Attorney-General's ministry and the Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry to do some pioneering work in defining legislation for the developments that will eventually come.

Mr. Chairman, this section should include, not with offhand amendments.... Perhaps there should be a committee announced by the Attorney-General and the Minister of Mines to study this important problem and report that they will consider amendments to this legislation, at a future session. It should be struck as soon as possible. It is an area where we do not have the legal expertise in the departments, simply because the energies have gone towards fighting the good fight without knowing the ultimate results of the fight. But now I think the best minds in the department and the Attorney-General's office... Perhaps we could hire outside consultants, as there are one or two lawyers in this province who are outstanding in the field of mineral licensing and mineral claims Acts and who could be called in to deal with this very important item.

As for offshore mining and offshore exploration, what kind of mineral exploration will be allowed? What type of mining will be considered? Will we contemplate oil drilling or natural gas drilling offshore? A whole examination of the lease structure and a whole examination of the permits and the methods of staking claims are now jurisdictionally ours – all ours. In the past, the experience we had, because there was no definition, was that an agreement had to be given for leasing, or permission given to lease for offshore drilling.

In terms of absolutes, a question has been raised. Will the province be permitting offshore drilling for oil and gas?

Mr. Chairman, it's a whole conference they're having that I have started. I don't even know why they called this bill.

An Hon. Member: It's a cabinet meeting.

Mr. Barrett: Cabinet meeting? I'll wait till the committee meeting is over, Mr. Chairman, I may get some answers.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Press on. We're listening to every word you utter.

An Hon. Member: That little bit of silence was the best part of your speech.

Mr. Barrett: Well, I have given you a problem that you haven't contemplated. You've got to update the bill. You haven't done enough homework. You have been having too many all-night meetings with bureaucrats, and not enough substance. You came to this House 14 months ago and announced a banner victory. It's obvious that not a single bit of work has been done to solidify that, Well then, if it's wrong, why aren't there in this section – because I am in order... ?

Interjection.

Mr. Barrett: Aw, come on! That's the weakest

[ Page 4976 ]

answer you could give.

An Hon. Member: What about specific recommendations?

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I have some specific recommendations. That's what I was just coming to – the area of philosophy. First of all, we have to have legal definitions that conform with the supreme court's decision and protect that forever.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: The court of appeal.

Mr. Barrett: Okay, the court of appeal, but it's ultimate. The federal government's not going any further with it. They've appealed, but we're still going to win.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, when you finish your discussion with the Attorney-General, would you kindly address the Chair?

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, to entrench the victory, I am suggesting that the minister should have come in in this section with clearly defined terms related to the offshore potential of this province.

It also infringes upon a very important debate that was abruptly stopped in this province that has to be renewed, and renewed very, very quickly, and that is the question: do we believe in the possibility of offshore drilling for gas and oil? That has to be defined in this section. The government's position has to be clearly known by a definition in this section as to whether or not we now, with the absolute control of the jurisdiction of offshore mineral rights, are going to move into oil and gas exploration off the coast. What is the government's position?

I have to refer here to earlier debates in this House, Mr. Chairman, about this definition. At one time, the former Social Credit government, because it did not have under this section the definition of authority to go into offshore drilling.... The former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Dan Campbell, that notorious political wizard, stated that the approach the government would take would be to drill the wells on the land and then angle them in under the sea bed seeking the resources that way. Is that the government's position now?

Interjection.

Mr. Barrett: That's correct. Dan Campbell never did anything straight that he could find an angle on. That was his suggestion at that time: "Drill on land under the sea bed and seek the resources that way." Is that the government's intention? We don't know. There's no definition. The next question I want to raise....

Hon. Mr. Chabot: In answer to.... Oh, I thought he was....

Mr. Barrett: No, not yet, Mr. Minister. Don't get jumpy. Easy!

We have never had a definition after the Attorney-General's statement as to whether or not the government favours offshore drilling. In the absence of the rules of offshore drilling an indication that this government is against offshore drilling for gas and oil? Is it an indication that it has not set any standards but it is in favour of it? We don't know. It's unwise to call this bill after the Attorney-General announced the banner victory. We've had 14 months since that victory, and there is no definition here of what the rules of the game are going to be and what participation there will be.

As for other minerals, there's a question here of the use of American technology on mining nodules. The Howard Hughes research group has done the work of developing the technique and the scientific technology to deal with mining nodules on the ocean bed. Now could the minister tell this House what research his department has done?

Hon. Mr. Gardom: That's a good speech.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: That's the best he's done in years.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: We're just discussing the quality of your speech. We think it's the best you've made for years.

Mr. Barrett: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Now that I have regained your attention, the question of nodule mining and the fact that the ocean floor, in terms of mining, has not given the same kind of definition of staking mineral claims. . . The shifting, changing tidal and seabed action indicate the all-new legal problem. If we are going to go to nodule mining in the offshore areas of the province of British Columbia, what is the technology? What are the definitions that are to be described under this particular section? Fourteen valuable months have gone by and we have not had a legal definition of the two different and distinct approaches to mineral resources that are now wholly within the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia.

I would like to know if the minister has assigned staff in his department to deal with the question of nodule mining, how definitions will be arrived at in terms of ownership of the nodules, the collection and disposal of wastes from nodule mining and what particular role the government will play in that form

[ Page 4977 ]

of mining. I want to give the Attorney-General as much time as possible to make notes because it is obvious that they haven't done any work on this. I appreciate the fact that I have struck a nodule here with him. Just nodule your head.

Mr. Chairman: Please continue.

Mr. Barrett: Well, look. It takes a little time for them to settle down over there and I'm just waiting. Okay, now they are settled down.

An Hon. Member: Rude!

Mr. Barrett: They're rude. They certainly are. I agree with you, Mr. Chips. Your observation is correct, but I'm not going to comment on their rudeness.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of technical approach under this section, it is my opinion that we should have definitions as soon as possible related to offshore drilling – whether or not the government is going to allow offshore drilling. We have to have a statement on that for oil and gas, and then we have to have definitions under this section for that,

The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is the technology related to offshore, sea-bed mining in terms of collection of nodules, the ownership of the nodules, the staking of claims, the regions and the overlapping related to nodule mining. The most experienced technology that we are aware of in the western world has been done by the Hughes research group, and I think the Rand Commission has done some work as well, mainly on the assessment of what the potential is, rather than the technology.

It appears that the Americans have substantial information on legal definitions. The court cases about offshore rights during Huey Long's administration in Louisiana were banner decisions related to the United States versus the state government. There might be material there, in terms of definition of responsibilities on offshore ownership, that would be useful to the department.

Having spoken very briefly, Mr. Speaker, about the definition of the legal problems that need to take place in this province under this section, related to both oil and gas drilling offshore and nodule mining, there's also the potential of conventional mining approaches and how the application of definition takes place under this section.

Just a brief comment on the philosophy, Mr. Chairman, related to definitions: because we know so little of the environmental impact under the definition section, it is important that the minister also consider, through his ministry, very stringent definitions under section 1 for environmental protection in an area that is pioneering.

Interjection.

Mr. Barrett: Regulations may be a factor, Mr. Minister, but also, the strength in those regulations ... It is my opinion that definitions under section 1 would be even better. For example this Act could prohibit. ...

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Wrong Act.

Mr. Barrett: No, it's the right one, and you know it, Yes, it's the right one.

This Act could prohibit offshore drilling, ...

Hon. Mr. Chabot: The Mines Regulation Act.

Mr. Barrett.: No, no, no, no. This one in the definition....

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Mr. Chairman: Please addresses the Chair, hon. member. Would all other members do the same thing?

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Minister, it is my opinion that this Act should also carry definitions of approaches, in terms of the same words here in section 1: "Exploration and development mean such prospecting, surveying, drilling and other activities as may be prescribed." It's right here in this section. It's not the wrong Act; you just haven't read this one.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: It's the wrong Act. Clean up your act.

Mr. Barrett: Now, Mr. Minister, what I'm suggesting under exploration and development is a definition in this section related to offshore drilling, I believe that offshore drilling for oil and gas should be very carefully approached by definition in this section, as to how and when and under what conditions you will allow the exploration and development of offshore resources.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

Mr. Barrett: No, Mr. Minister. The leases and the approaches in terms of mining and exploration have to go in this Act, too. The Norwegian government holds the most extensive technology related to the definition that should be under this section and by the British government. If my friend for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was here, I would say the Scottish national government, as well.

My point is, Mr. Chairman, that the jurisdiction that has the best technical legal information in dealing with this problem is the United States; the

[ Page 4978 ]

jurisdiction that has the best technical knowledge for nodule mining is the United States, with the Hughes Corporation's research; and the jurisdictions that have the best technical and legal knowledges related to oil and gas offshore development are Norway and Great Britain.

Mr. Chairman, I'm extremely disappointed that since the day that the federal government announced its decision to allow the province to have the jurisdiction, the minister has not defined how that jurisdiction shall be used in this province.

I would be happy to share with the minister the research material that I have here – extensive research material done by the former administration – copies of which are available to him. Rather than take up the time of this House and go through it all under this section....

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Where did you get them, in the basement?

Mr. Barrett: No, no, not in the basement. It's all above board. None of it's to do with Dan Campbell – no blacklists, nothing.

So, Mr. Chairman, unless the minister cares for me to go on throughout this whole Act section by section – as I'm prepared to do, because we didn't get notice that this bill was coming up until this morning – perhaps he'd like to withdraw the bill and come back properly prepared and properly informed about this whole new problem we're dealing with and that should be in under this section. I'd like to hear from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition objects to the bill appearing on the order paper or the bill being debated today. He's twisting and suggesting that I'm not prepared to debate the bill, which I am.

Now the Leader of the Opposition seems to be concerned about offshore mineral exploration. There's nothing in section 1 or in this Act that prevents offshore mineral exploration in British Columbia. It can be undertaken under the auspices of this Act or of this section.

One of the problems that we have, of course, is that in eastern Canada there has been an offshore mineral agreement reached between some of the maritime provinces and the national government. We have negotiations going on at this time between the government of British Columbia, under the auspices of the Attorney-General, and the federal government, on the question of offshore minerals off the coast of British Columbia.

We have pending an appeal against the decision to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada by the national government on this question of the decision that was brought down. So the matter is being negotiated at this time and, hopefully, it will be resolved in the not-too-distant future as to areas of jurisdiction.

The only thing that prevents any offshore mineral exploration at this time is an order-in-council that has been in place setting the reserve, pending the outcome of the negotiations that are taking place between the national government and the provincial government. That order-in-council reserve has been in place – I wouldn't want to give a date – but since the late '60s, I would suggest. It was put there primarily because of the continuing dispute between the national and provincial governments.

There appears to be some more increased activity as far as negotiations are concerned regarding offshore minerals off the coast of British Columbia. I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future, because of the interest being shown by the national government to resolve this dispute, some resolution will be reached without the necessity, I hope, of the matter going before the Supreme Court of Canada. I would think it would be in the next few months.

Mr. Barrett: I want to thank the minister for his statement. What I'm trying to raise with the minister, in all seriousness, is the fact that I am aware now that this long-standing problem is coming close to a conclusion. We're all thankful for that. Even with the supposition that we may lose in the appeal, the federal government and Prime Minister Trudeau took the position some years ago that a 50-50 compromise would be acceptable with him in any event.

Now we have won the whole bag at this point, and I hope we continue to win the whole bag.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: It was a close decision.

Mr. Barrett: Close decision. I want to say with the best chauvinism that I can muster: those mineral resources belong to the province of British Columbia. Now, having said that and having, in fact, that appeal court victory, what concerns me very seriously, Mr. Minister, is that an opportunity is present for us to act on that decision, by defining in this section the rules and definitions under which activity will be permitted by the government of the day.

What I am concerned about is that the federal government may get the idea that because we haven't aggressively seized under this section the opportunity to do the definition work that should be done. Lawyers may be able to twist this into an argument, saying: "Well, British Columbia doesn't feel its case is very solid. As a consequence, in 14 months it has not even moved, under this section, to define the roles that will be given to normal definition of a Mineral Act."

[ Page 4979 ]

Now, Mr. Minister, I appreciate your resume, which is, in my opinion, correct of the legal status. But I regret .... I would like some indication from you that your ministry is looking at definitions, is aggressively pursuing that and that we might see some legislation next spring, regardless of what the federal government does.

The particular thing that I am concerned about, Mr. Minister, is the area that is least controversial about ocean-bed exploration, the work done by the Hughes Corporation and nodule mining. There have to be brand new definitions developed here in the province of British Columbia related to nodule mining, so that the people who are going to make the investment, be it the government or private enterprise or joint venturing, know what the rules of the game are. Without that definition, we may be behind in terms of the capital investment that could be available on a competitive basis, simply because we were not in a position to define fox that capital investment what the rules of the game were.

I don't know anything that is impending immediately in terms of that kind of investment. I don't know. I certainly have a disagreement about the approaches to oil and gas, but on nodule mining, there is no basic difference in terms of reaping that harvest. The question is, how? What are the legal definitions going to be? What are the rules of the ballgame? That's what's missing from this section.

I ask the minister: will he be setting up a committee? Can the House look forward to those kind of definitions, and will this matter be aggressively pursued?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, there is no need for any changes in the definition, insofar as offshore mineral exploration is concerned. As I have mentioned before, it is a matter that once we have reached an agreement with the national government as to the offshore minerals of British Columbia, then it is a matter of changing the regulations. Any requirement that might be necessary can be embedded in the regulations, without the need of any changes in the interpretation. The interpretation clearly....

Mr. Barrett: You can't stake a claim on nodules. You have to have some definition.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: That can all be done by regulation without the necessity of changing the definition of the Act under the regulations.

Mr. Barrett: I feel that it would be advisable, and it's the last comment I have, for the minister to consult with the Attorney-General's ministry and his own Deputy Minister of Mines – and you have a very good deputy sitting there with you, and another excellent deputy sitting behind you – for a legal definition of nodule ownership. That's what I'm concerned about. That's the point I'm trying to make. It is a different approach to mining than we know of at this point in terms of legal definition.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I want to follow along on this very valuable point raised by the Leader of the Opposition and tell the committee a sad little story that illustrates how the inactivity of the Ministry of Mines on the subject of undersea and nodule mining has been greatly harming British Columbia. I just want to read two or three sentences from The Globe and Mail of Thursday, August 11,1977: "Inco" – a somewhat Canadian company – "of Toronto is part of the international consortium that plans to head out with a ship from the west coast in November to test the prospects of mining magnesium nodules from the ocean floor." It's that close, Mr. Chairman – November.

Then where is this ship to be based? This is the sad thing. I'll just tell you who the consortium is: "Offshore drilling expert, Sedco, of Dallas, is a member along with three West German firms and 23 Japanese companies." That's pretty big game. Where is the ship to be based? I quote again: "The ship is to become available to the Inco group, based at Bellevue, Washington." Bellevue, Washington, Mr. Chairman, is south of the border. One of the great opportunities for British Columbia economic development is going down the mineshaft because of the inactivity of that minister and that ministry in paying attention to the possibilities for undersea mining exploration.

Mr. Barrett: Fourteen months and no definitions.

Mr. Gibson: It's one of the minor tragedies of British Columbia mining and employment because this is a game where we could have gotten in on the ground floor. This has been said in the House for a number of years – it's not a new idea – but the government hasn't done a thing. It's a very sad and tragic little thing and, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I say that to illustrate that the point you are making is an important one.

I'll go on and ask the minister about a more technical question. Section I defines "mineral claim" and it defines "2 post claim." These are two different kinds of claims. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it's a Catch-22 situation because the two different kinds of claims are defined in terms of each other than as a 2 post claim after February 28,1975, and includes a fractional mineral claim." That sounds

[ Page 4980 ]

reasonable enough, but then let's hear what a 2 post claim is: "2 post claim means a mineral claim. . . ." That's interesting, isn't it? A mineral claim is defined in terms of a 2 post claim and a 2 post claim is defined as a mineral claim. I repeat: "2 post claim means a mineral claim or fractional mineral claim located on or before February 28,1975, or a 2 post claim located after section 45 comes into force."

I ask the minister: will he explain this nonsense to us – defining one thing in terms of another and then defining that other thing in terms of the first thing? Would he explain how that really makes any sense in the definition section? Couldn't you have done a little better than that?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: The member for North Vancouver-Capilano suggests that we're not doing enough as far as offshore exploration is concerned. We have started in a small way this year. The ministry is participating in a small exploratory programme regarding the sea floor with a group from UBC and a consultant who has been engaged. We're examining the sea floor off the Juan de Fuca Strait. There's a $20,000 expenditure taking place there, so we are starting exploration in a small way. We're starting prior to having obtained an agreement between the federal government and the provincial government. If you have any influence in Ottawa, whether you're going to Ottawa or whether you're going to run in the next federal election or not, I would hope you would tell the people in Ottawa that there's a need for this matter to be resolved so we can get into exploration of the sea floor in a more aggressive and realistic way than we are presently doing.

Mr. Gibson: You should have been doing it years ago. How about the definition of "mineral"?

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the point the minister seems to be missing – not only opportunities that we've missed that may or may not be in order, and I appreciate very well what the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) is saying – and I'm sticking strictly to the section, is that we do not have definitions under this section as to the rules of the ballgame under the B.C. government jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Not necessary.

Mr. Barrett: It is necessary, Mr. Minister. You can't seem to appreciate that the little $20,000 expenditure that you're making is related to brand new technology, definitions and designs in terms of geographic jurisdiction. Do you stake an acre? Do you stake 100 acres?

An Hon. Member: Hectares.

Mr. Barrett: Oh, hectares? The hectare, you say. Do you send a scuba diver down with a lead post and drive that in and hope that the nodules stay within the cage? The fact is that there is shifting going on at the ocean bed. The magnesium mining mentioned by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano may be different from copper nodules. We have no definitions at all, What I'm trying to get across to the minister is that extensive definitive work has been done by the Hughes Corporation and some by Inco. The minister has excellent staff. I am suggesting that he consult his staff, loosen up the purse strings a bit, and let his staff travel to California. Don't be afraid of your professional staff, Mr. Minister. You define the policy, but they can give you excellent guidance in terms of legal definitions and the application of the policy. I am suggesting that you unleash your staff and let them go to California and Great Britain to gather the available information and bring to this House definitions, so that we don't miss the opportunity of providing jobs for the people of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would be willing, if the minister wants, to withdraw this section and come back and rewrite it. It's not fair to ask me to make amendments; I only had 15 minutes' notice that you were going to call the bill.

An Hon. Member: The minister should make amends.

Mr. Barrett: I do believe the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , whose educational background lends experience not only to the weight but also to the logic of his arguments that we are now in a race for capital investment that wants to be defined as to the rules of the ballgame for ocean floor exploration. The excuse the minister is giving in saying that Ottawa is appealing the case is irrelevant. We've won the case. The Attorney-General has announced the victory. Unless we show some leadership after the victory, the banner day the Attorney-General is talking about will turn into rags. Fourteen months have gone by, ticking away time that we should have been using aggressively to define, under this section, how capital investment will be applied. They can't apply it unless this section has definitions as to what the rules of the game are. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano gave one illustration; I can give you another illustration: the shipbuilding industry alone, in terms of auxiliary definitions as to what kind of equipment they must buy, where from, and what kind of content from Canadian shipbuilding goes into the exploration approach. All of that definition should have been given months ago. There should have been meetings

[ Page 4981 ]

with the Minister of Economic Development and the Attorney-General, to define under this section what the rules are so that the application of those rules could have been providing capital investment and jobs for the people of this province. There's been a 14-month goof-up here. It is regrettable. There are people out there who are losing mortgages, losing their homes, looking for jobs, and a 14-month administrative goof-up by this government has prevented a direction of investment, I'm not talking about oil and gas drilling – there's a philosophical argument there – I'm talking about nodule mining, It's not as if the minister didn't have staff to help him; he's got excellent deputy staff available to him. But you haven't done your work, Mr. Minister. Now I don't blame you entirely; you are new in the job, but your predecessor wasn't.

An Hon. Member: Leo?

Mr. Barrett: No, not Leo. Leo at least actually did some mining work. I want to tell you that this minister is new. He's not new to politics – he's got a lot of scars in the political wars – but he's new in this portfolio. Fourteen months, and then you come with this bill, section after section. I'm only dealing with one section. Just imagine how much work I have to do, along with my friend the member from North Vancouver, on every other section. You haven't done the work. We need the definitions because every single day we don't have them, we're losing jobs and investment in this province, Mr. Minister.

Mr. L. Nicolson (Nelson-Creston): It's obvious that this minister has a sluice-box mentality, quite appropriate to. . . .

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. That's unparliamentary.

Mr. Nicolson: Pardon me. "Mentality" is the wrong choice of words. But certainly his philosophy in terms of mining is appropriate to the 19th century, at which time goldpans and sluice-boxes held forth.

Mr. Chairman: Now can we deal with the section?

Mr. Nicolson: Here we are today talking about the exploration of our offshore minerals of the continental shelf and this minister is mired in the 19th century looking for another Klondike or another Barkerville or some other kind of a gold rush to bring about exploration and activity, Mr. Chairman, I think it's absolutely incredible that with this exciting prospect.... And this could be the Klondike of this century. This tremendous offshore resource could be the Klondike of this century if the minister would get out of the 19th century and into the 20th century.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, I believe you're dealing with the principle of the bill. Would you kindly return to the section?

Mr. Nicolson: This is going to be the Mineral Act. It's not an Act to amend the Mineral Act. It's not a series of amendments.

Mr. Chairman: No, we're dealing with section 1, hon. member. Kindly return to it.

Mr. Nicolson: We're talking about the bible upon which exploration and utilization of our mineral resources are going to take place. Yet within this, we're excluding one of the most- important new frontiers – the only new frontier. Who would really have thought that there were any frontiers left to conquer? Of course there's been a lot of activity, but we know what most of the values are on land. It's a matter of waiting until mineral prices rise to levels which will make it economical, or until technology comes around which makes it economical, to mine the very thoroughly explored resources which we have on land and on surface.

But here today, two members of the opposition -one from the official opposition and one from the Liberal Party – have pointed out that the minister has really been keeping his eye on the hole rather than the doughnut. Here we have the new bible, if one would, of mineral exploration and exploitation, which has completely overlooked the only real frontier that is left. No ground rules have been set out. I would think that it would be very appropriate that the minister take this bill and think this over for the next week or two or do some work.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, we're dealing with the section, not with the bill. Would you kindly return to that?

Mr. Nicolson: Yes, I'm on the definition section. Well, we really can't proceed to debate a bill section by section that in the first section does not make any reference to the tremendous resources which are underground.

I'd also like to bring to the minister's attention another failing in the definition section. Under the definition of "mineral, " we see that:

" 'Mineral' means ore of metal and every natural substance that can be mined, and that (i) occurs in fragments or particles lying on or above or adjacent to the bedrock source from which it is derived and commonly described as talus, or

[ Page 4982 ]

(ii) is in the place or position in which it was originally formed or deposited, as distinguished from loose, fragmentary or broken rock or float which, by decomposition or erosion of rock, is found in wash, loose earth, gravel or sand."

It does not include, Mr. Chairman....

Hon. Mr. Chabot: You can read!

Mr. Nicolson: I would like that minister, right now, to get up and define what is meant by "diatomaceous earth." If you're so bright, Mr. Minister ...

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, only one member can speak at a time.

Mr. Nicolson: ... can you define that?

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, I'm rather surprised to hear the opposition stand in this House and suggest that we should open up new frontiers as far as mineral exploration is concerned after the kind of dismal record they have had with the mining industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Nicolson: Define "diatomaceous earth."

Hon. Mr. Chabot: They did everything within their power to destroy the mining industry in British Columbia. That opposition over there did everything to decrease the number of mineral claims that are explored in British Columbia. They imposed a rental fee against every little. prospector in the province and every claim held in this province, which caused the forfeiture – the loss without notice – of thousands of claims by little prospectors. And they have the gall to suggest there should be new frontiers.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. minister, back to this section. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston on section 1 as amended.

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just demonstrated his ignorance of the meaning of the words "diatomaceous earth." I gave him the chance to get up and define it and he doesn't know. Here's part of his definition of "mineral, " and he doesn't even know what is meant by "diatomaceous earth." Mr. Chairman, I gave the minister a chance. Now he's disrupted the whole threat of the argument, so I'll have to return to the beginning. In terms of this definition of "mineral, " which I find lacking, where he says it means "ore of metal and every natural substance that can be mined. . . ." He then goes on to define it as:

". . . occurring in fragments or particles lying on or above or adjacent to the bedrock source from which it is derived, and commonly described as talus, or (ii) is in the place or position in which it was originally formed or deposited. .

Interjection.

Mr. Nicolson: No, that isn't normally what I think of as talus. That wasn't what I learned. in Geology 200. I think of talus as being somewhat more limited in meaning.

"... as distinguished from loose, fragmentary or broken rock or float which, by decomposition or erosion of rock, is found in wash, loose earth, gravel or sand, but does not include coal, petroleum, natural gas, building and construction stone, limestone, dolomite, marble, shale, clay, sand, gravel, volcanic ash, earth, soil, diatomaceous earth, marl, or peat."

Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to get up and give us some greater understanding of what he understands to be diatomaceous earth.

But the real problem in this section is the part which eliminates building and construction stone. This means that a person can file a mineral claim, he can stake it, he can do his improvement work, he can keep up his fees and charges, he can do his $200 or $ 100 a year work, or whatever it is that's required in order to keep a claim in good standing, as many people have done.

Here is a loophole which has existed, a difficulty which has been brought to the attention of his department for years now. Here we see a new definition in the Mineral Act. Again, it's going to enshrine the same loophole which has been frustrating honest, hardworking prospectors who find that when they have registered a claim and proved it up, unscrupulous people come in, sometimes from outside of the province, take out a quarrying permit and claim that the mineral which they're going to take is a building stone.

This has happened particularly in the case of silica. I have seen this happen in the case of silica, which is valuable, and for which there's a market. There are really two different uses. It is a nice ornamental stone. I've seen people hauling this stuff out of our province – out to Calgary – from the Kootenays. That's where the minister buys his suits, Mr. Chairman – in Calgary.

I've seen free miners – people who have worked very hard to keep a claim – who have been very fortunate to get a high grade of silica, and who have been attempting to make improvements, to exploit this resource, particularly high-grade silica, which can be used in the smelting process and sold to nearby

[ Page 4983 ]

Cominco. There have been cases, and the ministry just throws up its hands and says- "Well, the Act isn't specific about what is building and construction stone, and whether silica is an ore or a mineral, or whether it is just a building stone." So I see no reference to silica defining silica to be a mineral. Once again, Mr. Chairman, the Act could be very unspecific.

You know, the minister has gotten up but certainly he has not answered the question. He casts back and talks about the....

Coming off this situation from which I would like to have some answers, and going back to the business of the offshore mining prospects and the lack of any definitions in this section pertaining to that, and therefore the inadequacy of this Mineral Act.... In that respect, the minister gets up and says: "Why didn't the NDP do anything about it." Well, the NDP certainly did do something about it. We fought for our jurisdictional right for the offshore minerals. We fought for it against the federal government, which is often intruding into the rights which have been granted under the British North America Act, This battle was won; it was won 14 months ago. The Minister of Mines is not aware that this great jurisdictional battle, which has so much to do with his department, was won during his government's terms of office. It was announced by his Attorney-General. So he's casting back into the past.

I would also like to tell the minister that there are more mines closing down and failing to open under his jurisdiction – if he wants to go casting back to years 1972 to 1975 – in my riding, because of this minister's complete failure and bungling in his department, and that of his immediate predecessor, who is now Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) .

We see that there is a mine being closed down. The HB mine in Salmo is being closed down. They are going to close down in one and a half years, and Cominco has announced that they are doing this. They haven't been political about it, as they were maybe in the past when mines were closed down, but we see that this minister has failed to keep mines open. Also in the Duncan area, Cominco is failing to open a mine which they were exploring and they were going to open when we were government. Now they have decided to close it down.

Mr. Chairman: How does that pertain to this section?

Mr. Nicolson: I'm just following the arguments given without interruption by the Minister of Mines.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We will stick to section I as amended.

Mr. Nicolson: Well, that's good, Mr. Chairman.

I'm glad you will keep the minister in order from this point forward.

Mr. Chairman: You're the member who is speaking at this present time, hon. member, and I would ask that you follow the advice of the Chair.

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we don't hold to the rules while one side of the House is up speaking and not hold to them at another time. The minister was in free flight. I didn't get up and raise a point of order. I didn't object to the fact that he wasn't speaking to section 1.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!

Mr. Nicolson: But I certainly would say that I have a right to respond....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Take your seat, hon. member.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: The Chair must insist, that every member speaking in this debate, in order to preserve order, must speak to section 1 as amended the interpretation and definition section of this Act" – and I so rule. Would the hon. member for Nelson-Creston please continue?

Mr. Nicolson: Right on, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to hear that, and I'm reassured that when I take my seat and that minister gets up, he will be brought to order and made an example of.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, in summing up some of my opening remarks here, I think that the members of this House deserve some explanation, some reassurance, concerning the very serious error of omission which is in this Act, and that is the lack of reference to offshore mining. There is also the very serious error, as I see, in failing to deal definitively with the problem which occurs, and which I see reoccurring, between mineral rights and quarrying rights.

As I see it, some unscrupulous people will be able to come into this province in the dead of night and spirit away. . . They have stolen tons and tons of high grade silica to make fancy fireplaces over in Calgary, with no real revenue to this province, because of what I see as still a fuzzy definition of building and construction stone. I would urge that anyone who has mineral rights would be able to at least prohibit the misuse of the definition of building and construction stone to steal silica and spirit it out

[ Page 4984 ]

of this province for fancy fireplaces in Calgary.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like a clear, definitive answer from this minister as to what he means by "diatomaceous earth."

Mr. N. Levi (Vancouver-Burrard): In the years I've been in the House, I've heard a lot of appellations attached to people. Now we have the minister referred to as the one with the sluice-box mind. Previously he was "jobs, " and before that he was a hooper. In the railway business, he was a hooper. He used to hoop up the orders. Well, we're going to see if we can get him to hoop up some observations on another area in respect to this section. We'll go off the ocean floor and come up on top, Perhaps the minister would talk to us about what's happening in the uranium field. As I understand it, we have a possibility of two mines taking place in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, I do not believe that has anything to do with the definition section. Would you please relate it?

Mr. Levi: Oh, yes, it does. It certainly does. We had a long, long debate here on nodules on the floor of the ocean.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: That was out of order too.

Mr. Levi: That was out of order? It went on here for about half an hour. Now the uranium issue, which comes under this Act presumably, is not exempted in this Act. Let me ask the minister this: does the issue of uranium mining in this province come under this Act?

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, we're dealing with this section.

Mr. Levi: Does uranium mining come under this Act? I presume that it does, At the moment, we have a discussion going on in this province about starting the operation of two uranium mines. It's under the Mineral Act. Are we okay? Are we on the right track, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: I'm waiting.

Mr. Levi: Well, I'm waiting for you to stop interrupting me so that I can carry on. Am I on the right... ?

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, if you can relate it to the definition and interpretation section of this Act, then you are in fact in order.

Mr. Levi: Well, is uranium mining covered under this Act? I suggest it is.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, it's not a question of whether it comes under this Act but under the definition and interpretation section, which we are debating this time. That's all.

Mr. Levi: I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that it does. The issue of uranium mining is within the purview of the definition section. I thought that the minister – if he's about to come out of the 18th century and not operating like Mr. Poldark down in Cornwall – would have some regard for some of the serious implications of what's going to happen if we have uranium mining in this province. Now at the moment. . . .

Hon. Mr. Chabot: On a point of order, uranium comes under the definition in the Mineral Act but the development of uranium, or any other mineral resource in the province, comes under the Mines Regulations Act and not under the definition of section 1.

Mr. Levi: We are talking about the business of mining uranium. That's under this Act. It's in part of the definition. It's not one of the exclusions in the definition section so one must presume that it's in there.

An Hon. Member: We should be arguing whether it should be included or not in the definition, nothing else.

Mr. Levi: I'm not arguing whether it is included or not included. As far as I'm concerned it is included because it is not stated in the exclusion section. It is in there as part of the mining industry. It is part of the Mineral Act, Let's not dance around. We had a long debate here on the business of nodules on the ocean floor. Well, now we want to talk about another issue, a more immediate, more serious and potentially more dangerous one, and that's the issue of uranium mining.

You have got two companies that are interested in mining, one just north of Kamloops and one in the Kelowna area. The minister should know. Have you got a point of order?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, the question of mining uranium or any other resource in the province has nothing to do with the definition or the interpretation under section 1; that comes in the Mines Regulations Act. The ways, methods and means under which mines will be developed in British Columbia is not under the Mineral Act.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. minister, I am waiting for

[ Page 4985 ]

the member to relate his remarks to the definition section, and perhaps he is about to do that. Will the hon. member please continue?

Mr. Levi: Do you want to rule on this point of order, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: I've ruled, Hon. member. Please continue, hon. member. I am waiting for you to relate your remarks to the section.

Mr. Levi: What is he so touchy about? He can spend half an hour answering questions about what goes on on the floor of the ocean but somehow he doesn't want to deal with the issue of uranium mining. Why not? What is he so seared about?

An Hon. Member: It has nothing to do with the Act.

Mr. Levi: There are two major companies coming into this province to do uranium mining, one of them in the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs' area and one in the Premier's riding. That is an issue. It is a serious issue because of the health implications.

We have waited through every one of your bills for you to make some policy statements....

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, this Act deals primarily with titles and how mineral claims and ore bodies will be held in the province.

Mr. Levi: And leases.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Title has nothing to do with the development of mines in the province. This has to do primarily and virtually strictly with title.

Ms. K.E. Sanford (Comox): "Exploration and development" is right in the title.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, before you continue, one moment, please. As the Chair views it, this Act is the Mineral Act and it deals with leases, recording of titles, the definitions with respect thereto, but not to development or exploration of mines.

Interjections.

Mr. Barrett: On a point of order, I refer you, sir – obviously you haven't read it, or you might have been ill-advised – it says "exploration and development" in the second item in the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is a definition section relating to other, ...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. The hon. second member for Burrard on section 1 as amended, the interpretation section.

Mr. Levi: Dealing with exploration and development, which is the second definition in that section I – it's there – it says: "Exploration and development means prospecting, surveying, drilling and other activities which may be prescribed." Now where in this section are we out of order in discussing uranium mining? Where? We have at the moment in the province two developments.... Right in the bill, "development, " So, Mr. Chairman, with respect, we are completely in order. The minister can't wriggle out of it that way by saying that it's not in the Act; it is in the Act. What I want to ask him is....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Allow the hon. member to continue.

Mr. Levi: Let the minister be very frank. He was frank enough about worrying about nodules on the sea floor. Let him be very frank about the issue of uranium mining. For instance, what role? Later on there is another section that says: "Lease means a lease issued before June 30,1976." Can the minister tell us: was such a lease issued? Have leases been issued, in respect of... ?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Leases come under a different section of the Act, not under section 1.

Mr. Levi: It's in the definition section. We are dealing with section 1. We've covered development and now we're covering the leases.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Trying to deal with second reading all over again,

Mr. Chairman: Please allow the hon. member to continue so that the Chair can ascertain whether or not he is, in fact, in order.

Mr. Levi: Very good, Mr. Chairman. The question to the minister is in respect to the section dealing with exploitation and development and the issue of uranium mines. Let me ask him, because he doesn't seem to want to talk about it: am I right in saying that there are two developments at the moment – exploration and development of two uranium mines, one north of Kamloops and one near

[ Page 4986 ]

the Kelowna area? Have any leases been issued? Further to that, has the minister had any discussions, because it relates to leases and to approval, with the federal people? As I understand it, in order to operate such a uranium mine the okay has to come down from the Atomic Energy Control Board. There also have to be public meetings held. Now who calls those? Does the federal agency call them, or does the minister call them? These are in order for people to have input into the serious problems that have arisen, particularly in the province of Ontario, in respect to health matters and uranium.

In all of his speech, Mr. Chairman, when he has talked about mining in this section, he has not talked about jobs. Everybody else has talked about jobs. Two developments of this kind – of uranium mines -could mean a great deal of employment but, at the same time, there are some very serious health implications. We are concerned that that minister might go ahead and issue leases so that these mines go into production and somehow there wouldn't be an opportunity for input by the community about the health hazards. Does he have any role in that? Has he talked to anybody about it?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: You're under the wrong Act.

Mr. Levi: Is he interested in it? This has serious economic implications.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, one moment, please, if you will. If you wish to discuss exploration, or development, or free miners, or lease, or leasehold, that's fine, but techniques, or implications relating to techniques, are not permissible under this section. That's just for your edification. Please continue.

Mr. Levi: Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "techniques, " Mr. Chairman.,

Mr. Chairman: I'm speaking of techniques in mining. That would come under another Act altogether.

Mr. Levi: Yes. You mean the technical aspects of mining.

I've really only raised three issues: the issue of exploration, the issue of development, and the issue of lease. That's in the context of this Act. It's legitimate to raise, in that context, the issue of health matters in terms of uranium and the question of leases for uranium mines. Is the minister in touch with the people in Ottawa? Is he talking to them? Has he had discussions with the people on the Atomic Energy Control Board? It directly relates to this province. What is he going to do about the issue of public meetings in terms of the development?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: It has got nothing to do with this. That's under the Mines Regulation Act. Stop abusing this House all the time.

Mr. Levi: Arrrgh! He's an incredible minister. My colleague is fight. He's got a sluice-box mind. His brains are running out over his ears.

Mr. J.J. Kempf (Omineca): On a point of order, this member has been totally out of order in his debate for the last 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman: Please state your point of order.

Mr. Kempf: He is as out of order as he was when he wasted $103 million of the taxpayers' money when he was a minister!

[Mr. Chairman rises]

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order! That is not a point of order.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Levi: I move that the member for Houston be the Gauleiter of the Legislature. He makes his own interpretation of the rules of being out of order. You're the chairman. So far you haven't ruled me out of order.

Mr. Chairman: We're not concerned with any other member's interpretation, hon. member. We are concerned with section 1 as amended of Bill 73.

Mr. Levi: Right, and the issue of exploration and development and licensing, without talking about techniques, as you seem to be concerned about, Mr. Chairman. Let the minister get up – nobody is going to object; nobody is going to get up on points of order – and let him be frank with the House and tell us what this government's attitude is towards the issue of the development of uranium mines. That's what we're asking. He has had endless opportunities in the bills he has had to talk about policy and he's avoided it every time. Now tell us, because we're dealing with this section and there is a major concern in this province – not only in this province but also in all of North America – in respect to the mining of uranium. Now what is the government's policy? That's a fair enough question under this section because it deals with exploration development and the issuing of leases.

The minister shakes his head. I can only conclude, Mr. Chairman, that he has no policy. As far as he's

[ Page 4987 ]

concerned, Denison can come in here and if they can get the lease from the federal government, then let them go ahead and to heck with the health of the community. That's a major issue, if he has any understanding of what has been going on in Ontario. Has he had any discussions with his colleague who's responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board, or with the Minister of Health? These are very serious issues relating to this industry. Has he met with the United Mine Workers or the United Steelworkers? No. He sits there and the only defence he has is: "It's not under the Act."

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, the debate that's being carried on by the member for Vancouver-Burrard is completely out of order. It has nothing to do with the interpretation under section 1. The development comes under the Mines Regulation Act. If the member for Vancouver-Burrard is as concerned as he expresses he is now, why didn't he raise this issue under the estimates where it should have properly been raised? It should have been raised under the estimates of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Why didn't he raise it then if he was concerned? Why does he always persist in being out of order? I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that that member is out of order.

Mr. Levi: That's not a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: One moment, please. Order, please. Take your seat, hon. member. The Chair must advise in this area.... When we're speaking of, we'll say, a lease, hon. member, you may say that something may be included or should be included in a lease. We're speaking of exploration and development. You may say that something may or may not be included in this definition as it relates to exploration or development. But entering into full-scale debate on health as it relates to uranium mining or into the specifies of mining is clearly out of order under the definition section of this Act. I don't know – it may be in order in other sections of the Act, but it is certainly not under the interpretation and definition section. I recognize the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard, on section I as amended.

Mr. Levi: You are now directing me specifically to the leasing section. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, I'm directing you to this section.

Mr. Levi: No, in respect to.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I'm directing you to the section as it applies to interpretation or definition. Please continue.

Mr. Levi: Right. Okay. I want to deal with the leasing.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Wrong section.

Mr. Levi: The definition of "lease" is "a lease issued before June 30, 19 76." I ask the minister: have any leases been issued for the development of uranium mines? That's a fair enough question. He wants to know why we didn't debate it in the second reading. We never know in this House, with the cockamamey so-called House Leader, what's coming up from day to day.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. You are completely out of order, hon. member. If you persist in abusing the rules of the House, I will have to ask you to take your seat.

Mr. Levi: What for? I've asked him a question; let's get an answer.

Mr. Chairman: Order. You're debating section 1 as amended, and I must ask that you be completely relevant towards that section, please.

Mr. Levi: Okay. Mr. Chairman, the House is all overheated. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 12

NAYS - 24

On section 1 as amended.

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, I wish the

[ Page 4988 ]

minister would take some of the constructive suggestions that have been offered by members of the opposition a little bit more to heart and not engage in political debate.

This minister and this government were handed several months ago an opportunity for a new frontier – a new Cariboo gold rush, a new Klondike – in terms of the court decision that came down in favour of the province of British Columbia as to its mineral rights.

Mr. Chairman, what this government seems to be blissfully unaware of is that right here in British Columbia we have the leading technology in the world for underwater exploration. We have the people and we have the prospectors who could go out and stake out our claim to the continental shelf of this province. Mr. Phil Nuytten, a man in his 30s, whose company, I believe, is called International Hydrodynamics....

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, are you debating the principle of the bill?

Mr. Nicolson: I'm talking about how a person can go out and claim-stake the only unexplored, unexploited resource in this province.

Mr. Chairman: Order! You're debating the principle of the bill and not this section. I must ask you to return to this section or take your seat, hon. member.

Mr. Nicolson: We look at the definition of a "2 post claim, " which means "a mineral claim or fractional mineral claim located on or before February 28,1975, or a 2 post claim located after section 45 comes into force." We look at the definition of legal cornerpost, which means "a post placed and marked in accordance with the regulations that establishes the true geographical point from which the location of a mineral claim is determined." We look at other definitions in this section. These definitions are totally inadequate for the establishment of a mineral claim 200,300 or 600 feet under the surface of the water in this province or on its continental shelf.

We have the prospectors with the technology and the equipment who could go out and start staking these claims today. We have the top technology in underwater exploration. The people who have been retained to explore, for instance, under the arctic ice, are people largely based in Vancouver. These same people have been taken and flown to points in South America and places all over the world. Probably the greatest accumulation of this expertise is to be found here in British Columbia over in Vancouver.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Mr. Don Sorte and his group which pioneered the Pisces minisub, which is a civilian piece of equipment which has been used to a great extent for recovery work and so on. . . But it could be used in terms of exploring and exploiting the tremendous possible wealth that could be producing jobs here in this province, and we have the technology here in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that people are aware, unless they occasionally read the business pages of the Province or Sun, of the fact that we do have the top technology in the world – I'm speaking about the world – in underwater exploration right here in British Columbia. These people could be the prospectors who go out and stake, but how are they going to go out and stake this continental shelf off British Columbia? Are they going to go out and drive wooden stakes out there under the 2 post system?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Wrong section – section 14.

Mr. Nicolson: Well, how can they possibly do it under section 14 when there are no parts of this defined in the definition section? Legal corner posts are posts "placed and marked in accordance with the regulations that establishes the true geographical point, " The minister picks a section out of thin air and says it is under section 14. What kind of chicanery is that, Mr. Chairman? Section 14 says a mineral claim should be located in accordance with the regulations. I might point out right now that this godless minister in section 15 is going to allow the staking of mineral claims on a Sunday.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: We're on section 1 right now.

Mr. Nicolson: I'm very serious about this. Here we are on this Friday morning, and this minister is so bound up in the mentality of mining in the 19th century. Certainly this technology is very adequate, I suppose, if we were still going out and mining with pans and sluice boxes and rockers and various other antiquated systems.

Mr. Chairman, it's very evident in this definition section that there's a complete lack of currency of thought in terms of mineral exploration and where the mineral resource is going to come from. This business of going out and staking mineral claims is largely the perpetuation of a dream of striking it rich, and the probability is still there. Some people can, but it is less and less probable. A great deal of this section on the staking of mineral claims and changes in staking and prospecting. . . .

In the Nelson area, just about every second person is a prospector. They go out and prospect. They have their claims, they prove them up and keep working on them. But for most of them, it's like what a

[ Page 4989 ]

lottery ticket is to a person in the city. There is that chance, that very remote chance, that it will perhaps pay off. Even if they do have a mineral claim that is of real genuine value, then they have the problem of getting a proper price for their ore concentrates. With only one major refinery in the field of lead zinc, well, people who have lead-zinc properties have to face that.

So in going out and prospecting, it is tremendous recreation. There is that little thing in it. It would certainly appeal to me as well – the fact that with all this hard work, it is, to a great extent, good recreation. It's outdoors; it does half-hold the remote prospect of finding something. But, Mr. Chairman, this minister is still keying the Mineral Act and aiming it toward this type of prospecting. He is completely ignoring in it that the technology of going out and claim staking underwater is going to be completely different from this. There is no signal, no sign and no encouragement that he's taken up the opportunity which was presented to this province 14 months ago.

I would urge the minister and the Minister of Economic Development, who are probably ignorant of this most incredible circumstance, that here in British Columbia we have established our right to the offshore minerals. Here in British Columbia, we have the happy coincidence of having at hand the leading technology in underwater exploration – some of the leading equipment. It is equipment that is flown by mineral exploration companies all around this world for the exploitation of resources elsewhere. But these British Columbia-based companies are not being taken full advantage of.

Mr. Chairman, there are none so blind as those who will not see. We often miss the obvious. We find that incredible, I think, don't we? We have such a massive inferiority complex that we say to ourselves: "Oh, well, that can't possibly be true. We couldn't possibly have the leading technology in all the world. Well, certainly in Russia they must have something better." No, they don't. The Russians sent people out here to Vancouver to see the technology of the Pisces sub, of which Mr. Don Sorte was in the group,

An Hon. Member: Don't you ever get laryngitis?

Mr. Nicolson: After about six or seven hours, Mr. Minister, I might sometimes get laryngitis. If you learn how to speak properly, and learn how to control and speak from the diaphragm, rather than....

Hon. K.R. Mair (Minister Of Consumer And Corporate Affairs): It doesn't help the content, does it?

Mr. Nicolson: There again, Mr. Chairman, is an example of what power will do in terms of blinding one. The minister would not acknowledge that such a thing could exist under his very nose, that such a tremendous technology could be existing and have escaped his notice.

Mr. Kempf: On a point of order. I have listened to the debate in this House this morning and I've seen the level of debate from that side of the floor dip to a very low level.

Interjections.

Mr. Kempf: But never, Mr. Chairman, have I seen it dip to such a low level as it has this morning, and I call that member to order. I ask you to call that member to order under standing order 40 (2) . The member is totally out of order, Mr. Chairman, and I wish you would call him to order.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, you do not have the floor, and it's not a point of order. And as much as I respect your position, please do not interrupt again on those lines. The hon. member proceeds.

Mr. Kempf: It was a point of order. I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Barrett: Are you going to challenge the Chair?

Interjections.

Mr. Nicolson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for defending me against the onslaught of that vicious member.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Member, if I may make a statement to you. I do not defend you, only on the onslaught. But I cannot agree with your line of debate. I wish you'd come closer to the. ...

Mr. Kempf: It's out of order!

Mr. Nicolson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that's your right.

Mr. Chairman: I'm not going to make an issue of this, but you are wandering a great deal, and I know you're able to be to the point if you want to be. I ask you to read this section and stay with it.

Mr. Nicolson: Okay, I'll read this section, Mr. Chairman.

"In this Act, 'certified mining lease' means a mining lease certified by the chief gold commissioner;

"'exploration and development' mean ...

[ Page 4990 ]

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Member, I didn't ask for that, but go ahead if you want to.

Mr. Nicolson:

... such prospecting, surveying, drilling, or other activities as may be prescribed;

'free miner' means a person who holds a valid and subsisting free miner certificate issued under this or a previous Act;

'lease' means a lease issued before June 30,1976;

'leasehold' means the area leased under a lease, mining lease, or certified mining lease,

'legal corner post' means a post, placed and marked in accordance with the regulations that establishes the true geographical point from which the location of a mineral claim is determined;

'limited production' means annual production of less than 1,000 t (metric) of ore,

'mine', where used as a noun, means land from which a mineral deposit is mined for its mineral content;

'mineral' means ore of metal and every natural substance that can be mined and that

(1) occurs in fragments or particles lying on or above or adjacent to the bedrock source from which it is derived, and commonly described as talus, or

(ii) is in the place or position in which it was originally formed or deposited, as distinguished from loose, fragmentary, or broken rock or float which, by decomposition or erosion of rock, is found in wash, loose earth, gravel, or sand, but does not include coal, petroleum, natural gas, building and construction stone, limestone, dolomite, marble, shale, clay, sand, gravel, volcanic ash, earth, soil, diatomaceous earth, marl, or peat;

'mineral claim' means an area located other than as a 2 post claim after February 28,1975 and includes a fractional mineral claim;

'mining lease' means a mining lease issued under section 29;

'mining property' includes a mineral claim, 2 post claim, leasehold and real and personal property pertaining to a mine or used in the working of it;

'minister' means that member of the Executive Council charged by order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council with the administration of this Act;

'ministry' means the ministry responsible, under the minister, for the administration of this Act;

'2 post claim' means a mineral claim or fractional mineral claim located on or before February 28,1975 or a 2 post claim located after section 45 comes into force;

'unit' means a square of prescribed dimensions contained in a mineral claim.

I'm always glad to oblige the Chair, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to get back to what I consider a very important point, a very important oversight by the minister. That is the real frontier, the real area that has escaped notice. The obvious, which has been circumscribed, is the fact that as of the landmark decision 14 months ago, British Columbia has had a new frontier opened up for it.

We have at hand an area that can possibly be exploited with all the excitement, all the boom, all the problems, and just about everything else that one can imagine that would have existed possibly only in history books back in the 19th century and not in this century.

Combined with that, Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to tell this minister that under the definitions in this section there is no way that the people in this province, the prospectors, who do have the wherewithal and the most sophisticated technology in the world with which to deal with the exploration and the prospecting for these minerals, can proceed. There are no ground rules defined in this definition section. They cannot raise capital, because it will take capital. They cannot strike a company under the Companies Act, or any other such thing, without some sort of signal from this minister.

Now we have this new Mineral Act. We're starting off with a list of definitions that just doesn't include what one could expect in terms of the real new wealth that will be discovered in this province, not in terms of what is going to be developed immediately, but what is going to be explored in the next 10 years. The real wealth is going to come from this area. It is not going to come from the small prospectors who are very active as part of our culture in the Kootenays. Probably every third person has done some sort of exploration and small mining. Husbands and wives go out and work all summer on their mineral claims. This, of course, will continue and it's good.

But in terms of the really exciting potential that we have here in this province, the minister has failed to show any recognition of it. When it was brought to his attention by several members of this House under this bill this morning, the minister showed that he is unprepared to bring in the necessary amendments or definitions. On this side of the House we would have to introduce a whole raft of amendments so that the minister could have time to consider this very important thing that has been brought to his attention.

I ask the minister to get in touch this weekend with Mr. Nuytton without fail. Go and see this firm, I think it's called International Hydro-Dynamics. I'd be pleased – I would certainly give up my weekend – to

[ Page 4991 ]

take the minister over and introduce him to Mr. Nuytton, Mr. Sorte and other people in the underwater exploration field. They can be the prospectors. In terms of establishing things by corner posts underwater, this is totally, totally inadequate.

There have to be other ways of locating mineral claims; there have to be other definitions. There has to be a whole section put into this definition section to cover these things, I think that if the minister were to show some interest, I could go to the phone, and possibly, if Mr. Nuytton is not in some other part of the world – if he's not exploring presently offshore potentials in Africa, South America, Australia or all the parts of the world that he's taken to with his expertise – or any others in the field.... In fact, there's more than one outfit in Vancouver.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: You're wanted on the phone.

Mr. Nicolson: There, Mr. Chairman, is the response from the minister. He can't even define "diatomaceous earth, " let alone address himself to this very serious problem. In order that the minister, who might perhaps have eaten something that disagreed with him this morning.... He's not his. . .

Hon. Mr. Chabot: I move the committee rise and report progress.

Mr. Nicolson: No. I move Mr. Chairman do now leave the Chair.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: It's a straight abuse.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 11

NAYS - 21

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

On section 1.

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, during a discussion of this section in dealing with the definition of the various terms under the interpretation of section 1, I want to draw the minister's attention to the definition of the word "mine.” Perhaps the Chairman would address himself to that particular definition which says: " 'Mine, ' where used as a noun, means land from which a mineral deposit is mined for its mineral content."

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, earlier this morning we were dealing with a definition in this section as to sea-bed mining. It is impossible under this definition to determine whether or not the land here as defined under this section applies to sea-bed mining.

Interruption.

Mr. Barrett: I agree with the youngster who has expressed his or her opinion on this bill. That's right, it hurts!

Hon. Mr. Chabot: It's your speech.

Mr. Barrett: It's not my speech. This government is doing it to everyone.

Interjection.

Mr. Barrett: Even a doctor has diagnosed it. That's right, Mr. Member.

What I am trying to point out here, Mr. Chairman, is that we have not had an answer from the minister as to how this section would apply to sea-bed mining. Perhaps the minister would like to give me an answer now so that we could go on to another subject in this section. Would the minister be kind enough to indicate how this particular definition applies to sea-bed mining?

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, only one member can speak at a time.

Mr. Barrett: I just want the minister to indicate if he wants to participate in this debate or. . .

Mr. Chairman: No other member can speak until you take your seat, hon. Member.

Mr. Barrett: Okay, I will repeat it so that the minister understands a very simple question. I'm looking for his kind of answer – a very simple answer. What I want to know from the minister is

[ Page 4992 ]

how this section applies to sea-bed raining under this definition:

" 'Mine, ' where used as a noun means land from which a mineral deposit is mined for its mineral content." Would the minister care to answer that before I go on to my other questions?

While we are dealing with the minister making his mind up about that, we also have to deal with the question of the ore bodies as defined by legal corner posts, and other descriptions under this section, and the laying out of the geographical area in which the mineral claim will be operated from. In the legal, technical sense of this section, with which I want to deal, because I am in order. . . I still don't have an answer from the minister as to the legal definition of sea-bed mining, as well as the other area here where "mine" means "land from which a mineral deposit is mined for mineral content."

The question of leasing for sea-bed mining as well has to be defined in this section, because it is not clear, and we do not know whether leasing means geographic sections in terms of surface measurement or sea-bed measurement. There is a whole question as to whether or not the legal definition is through nautical terms in terms of navigational designation of the area from which the sea bed will be mined, or the actual sea bed itself and how that definition will be made. In other words Mr. Chairman, will the staking of sea-bed claims come from the surface through a surface vessel or will there be some submersible and a designation of the area below the surface that is actually to be mined?

There is a question here that has to be answered about the legal definitions under this section before activity can take place for sea-bed mining. Unless we have that legal definition under this section, the possibility of that sea-bed mining going ahead is very limited.

Mr. Chairman, we come also to the mineral claims section and the definition under this section that "mineral claim means an area located other than as a 2-post claim." We still don't have what kind of posting will be necessary for underwater claims. Will there be buoys marking the spot? Will it be a declaration through order-in-council, or will it be gazetted that a mineral claim has taken place on the sea-bed, after the form has been decided? For instance, once the sea-bed has been staked and the minister fills out these gaps in the bill, when we have somebody who has actually staked a claim under the definition – which we don't have yet – how will it apply to the question of mineral claim information?

At the present time, Mr. Chairman, under this section anyone can go into the mining ministry and ask for claims maps. That's a fact, and it's defined in this section. When you get a claims map, you can see clearly on the geographical region, the court district, the land registry office, all of it designated for a mining area. When somebody goes into the mining ministry now and says that they're interested in doing exploration on the sea-bed and asks for the maps, how in the world will they be informed as to what area has been designated as already staked or not staked? These are serious technical problems dealing strictly with this section of the Act. When you talk about a 2-post claim under a mineral claim, how in the world are you going to define it? Is it going to be on the surface, or on the sea-bed itself.

I want to thank the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) for reading the whole section, because when he read it he also mentioned the question of the 2-post claim which is a highly technical evaluation of claiming. If you ever find yourself in the position of staking a claim, you should be aware that 2-post claiming also covers fractional mineral claims which are referred to in this particular section. How do you deal with a fractional mineral claim on the sea-bed? We have no definition on the whole question of sea-bed activity, no technical structure under this section to define how you go about getting that sea-bed activity going. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has pointed out that there are corporations that are moving into the area of sea-bed mining. One of them he mentioned was INCO. Supposing INCO approached the minister – under this section minister means the member of the executive council, et cetera – and asked him about claiming; now would the minister answer that question? These are legitimate questions and requests that we've made for information under this section that are entirely in order. The minister would assist the House a great deal if he answered those technical questions rather than make philosophical comments that are out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should have those answers. I believe that the minister's stonewalling has not done service to this House and because of that, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Chairman: The motion will be accepted, hon. member, but I must remind you of standing order 44.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS – 12

NAYS – 19

[ Page 4993 ]

On section 1 as amended.

Mr. W.S. King (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about the dispute that has been taking place between the provincial and federal government with respect to the ownership of offshore resources. I want to make the point to the minister that while we have a partial victory in terms of the appeal court decision in B.C.'s favour in terms of owning the offshore resources, I think it's very important in constitutional law and civil law that one assert one's ownership.

I think we're missing an excellent opportunity in the definition section of this bill under section 1 to go back up and reinforce the appeal court decision we had by dealing specifically with the provisions, with the definitions and with the framework under which any offshore development of our resources in British Columbia can take place. I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, that in the absence of any move by the province of British Columbia, and particularly by the Ministry of Mines, to assert what is held to be their jurisdiction, by laying out specific guidelines, specific terms and specific interpretations for offshore development, we compromised the partial legal decision we have right in the face of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I think it is very important that there be some reference to the specifics of offshore mineral development in the interpretation section of this bill.

You know, it is a tenet of law that possession is nine-tenths of the law. I think I can draw an analogy with respect to the Arctic area of this nation, where the federal government has the obligation to patrol with their military craft as a gesture of ownership and control and sovereignty in terms of protecting the resources in that area from competitor nations such as the United States. The principle is identical. If we leave a vacuum here in terms of any specific control mechanisms for the development and exploration of offshore mineral resources, then there is a vacuum that the federal jurisdiction will be invited to move into. So while we have an initial legal decision favouring British Columbia's sovereignty over offshore mineral resources, it should be supported by specifics in this statute in terms of the framework, the guidelines and the definitions which would apply, if any corporation seeks to start exploration and development. That's just common sense.

We're very concerned in the opposition that it's absent from this bill. It's an oversight, and we want to admonish the minister and the government to rectify that oversight and to withdraw this bill and take it back for further study – either that or bring in some amendments which cover the base which is neglected at the moment. We think that's very important.

Mr. Chairman, the minister took a responsible position in terms of the dispute that's been going on over the years with respect to ownership of these resources. I congratulate him on that position. I think it's a reasonable one. But having done that, he certainly has the obligation to protect British Columbia's continuing interest. When there's the complete absence of any provision, any reference to the unique needs of offshore development and of mineral resources, then it is indeed a vacuum. I think the minister should think about that. I think he should consider either bringing in amendments or taking the bill back for further study.

What position does this put corporations in that might be looking at exploration off the coast of British Columbia? They don't know the ground rules. They don't know whether they can go in and start exploration now in anticipation of some guidelines that'll be laid down later on. I think in light of other occurrences in the province within the last few weeks, the mining companies of this nation would be extremely reluctant to venture any capital investment, knowing that retroactive legislation is the order of the day in this province....

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, you're dealing with another bill.

Mr. King: No, I'm not.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask you to return to the section, if you will, please.

Mr. King: I'm dealing with the section, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking how any corporation can start investment in, perhaps, the rigging that would be .necessary to be in a position to explore under the sea-bed – this new equipment that is necessary to support the heavy-duty machinery that might be necessary. It's a completely new technology, and it has to be flexible. It has to be developed as they go along according to the topography of the ocean floor and according to the material to be mined. All of these things have to be viewed. There's no standard machinery and equipment in the sense that there is for underground and open-pit mining. We're looking at the development of completely new technology, in general terms.

Mining corporations, it seems to me, could place themselves in a position to take full advantage of the resource potential that's there if they had the confidence that they could invest now and start developing the technology and being in a position to

[ Page 4994 ]

explore.

But, Mr. Chairman, how can they do that? How can they undertake that capital investment when there's no definition in the bill and there's a complete absence of any framework? On top of that, Mr. Chairman, they are afraid that retroactive legislation may come in and wipe out that initial capital investment. Wouldn't you say that is true?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, hon. member. It is out of order to refer to something contained in another Act or bill. The first part of your statement was correct. Would you please continue?

Mr. King: Well, I wasn't referring to any specific bill, Mr. Chairman. You are quite wrong. I was referring simply to a general principle that they would be afraid of.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, it's not a principle of this section. Please deal with section 1 as amended.

Mr. King: I think it's fair to draw an analogy and to explore the position that investors are in, Mr. Chairman. I didn't mean to identify any bill when I talked about retroactive legislation. The fact that you could do that tells the House something, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Please continue with section 1 as amended – the specific points in the section,

Mr. King: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the real problem that bothers the opposition. The minister made a fairly rational statement – it was quite a rational statement, you know, coming from the Minister of Mines – regarding the position the province takes vis-a-vis the federal government with respect to the ownership and the sovereignty over offshore resources. We got him that far. Now I think the next logical step for the minister is to tell us what he's going to do to assert that sovereignty that he is insisting on for the province of British Columbia. It's meaningless to say we own those resources if there's no plan for control and tile rational and orderly development of the resource. That should be contained in this section of the bill. It should be contained in the definitions. Does it mean the same -the interpretation of "mine, " for instance? Is it intended by the minister and his staff that that definition apply to both land and underwater mineral resources? We don't know.

In the absence of any different interpretation regarding the unique and much varied underwater potential, we have to ask this question. We have to ask what capital investment is being lost to British Columbia because of the confusion created by the absence of any reference in this section to underwater mining activities.

I'm concerned not only about the direct capital investment that might accrue to the province in the development of machinery for the physical mining, I'm concerned also about the ancillary services that could be developed with time in advance of anticipated activity on the ocean floor. My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , mentioned with a good deal of wisdom and foresight – which is sadly lacking in the government – the possibility of developing much activity in the shipbuilding sector of British Columbia to support the new rigging that will be required to explore the ocean's floor for minerals.

We need a shot in the arm economically in this province. Industrial development has never been so dead in this province as it is now. We need some vision, we need some activity. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is in a unique position to act as the catalyst for that kind of development, and there he sits mute, Mr. Chairman.

It grieves me sadly to see the minister, rather than trying to answer the questions and outlining for the House what he has in mind and whether or not he recognizes the weakness of this section, he gets up and talks about points of order to try and avoid answering the questions. I think that's regrettable. Gee, I'm a neighbour of the minister's up in my area of the country, and I would hope that lie would be a bit more neighbourly about answering questions in the House.

An Hon. Member: In French or English; it doesn't matter.

Mr. King: Sure – in French or English. We are prepared to accept his intelligence on a bilingual basis.

Mr. Chairman, we're certainly interested in moving as quickly as we can with the legislation that is before the House, but it is very difficult to move in an expeditious fashion unless we receive some answers, We're not going to buy a pig in a poke in terms of legislation. We want to understand that legislation; we have an obligation to do so on behalf of the constituents whom we represent in this province. Sure, we represent not only individuals in our constituency but we represent the need for investment to create jobs and to start some industrial development in. this province so there's more tax revenue coming in to support social programmes. This minister could be the catalyst for all of those desires.

Mr. Chairman, I see the House is dwindling again, and I think this is an important matter. If the minister will give me an indication that he wants to answer and deal....

[ Page 4995 ]

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, neither the minister nor any other member can answer while you're still on your feet. Please continue with the debate.

Mr. King: Oh, I appreciate that. But with all due respect, sir, I want to indicate to you that.... You know that it's a tradition in the House that occasionally members give each other a wink and a nod across the floor to indicate their willingness to do something. I know a wink's as good as a nod to a blind horse. I'd be prepared to accept that. If he wants to give me a wink or a nod, I'd take my seat and let him answer. If he's not prepared to do so, Mr. Chairman, I have no alternative but to move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: On a point of order, I'd like you to rule whether this is in order or whether it's an abuse of the rules of the House. This is the fourth time in the last hour or so that a motion of this nature has been put. It appears to me to be an abuse, Mr. Chairman. It appears to be a foot-dragging strategy on the part of the opposition.

Mr. Chairman: Your point is well taken. The Chair has accepted these various motions and I must quote for you, if I may, from our own standing orders, standing order 44:

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

The Chair will not accept that motion on section 1 as amended.

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, is that your ruling?

Mr. Chairman: That's my ruling.

Mr. Barrett: I challenge your ruling. You can't.

There's no point....

Mr. Chairman: I'm sorry. It is not debatable at this time.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, during the debate, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) moved that the Chairman do now leave the chair. As several motions of this type have been entertained and defeated during committee – and in fact, divided upon – the Chairman then quoted standing order 44, wherein it is in his power to decline to propose the question to the House. This was declined. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) challenged the ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question is: shall the ruling of the Chairman be sustained?

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

YEAS – 19

NAYS – 12

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

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1 as amended.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, it's quite obvious that the opposition don't want to do any work in this House. ...

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be wise if we give the opposition the weekend to clear their heads. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. minister, that is not in order in that there must be some intervening business.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I'm sorry, the motion is in fact

[ Page 4996 ]

in order.

Mr. Barrett: On a point of order, what is your ruling? Is the motion in order?

Hon. Mr. McClelland: Of course it's in order. There has been intervening business.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, it is in order.

Mr. Barrett: Would the House Leader care to give us the order of business for Monday next so we know what we're dealing with on a day-to-day basis?

Hon. Mr. McClelland: It's on the order paper.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

APPENDIX

73 The Hon. J. R. Chabot to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 73) intituled Mineral Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1: In the definition of "exploration and development" by adding "exploring, " after "prospecting, ".