1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 5

[ Page 7233 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today somebody who was a co-worker with me, Marilyn Sadik, her husband Ihab Sadik and their son Karim. They're from Prince George. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: It's a rare opportunity for me to introduce a constituent. It's an even greater pleasure when it's a friend. I'd ask you to join with me in giving a warm welcome to Mr. Rob Griffith of Dawson Creek.

N. Lortie: On behalf of my colleague the member for Surrey-Green Timbers, I'd like to inform the House that there are students visiting us today from Simon Cunningham Elementary School in Surrey. They are 80 grade 5 students; 40 of them are in the House right now, and 40 of them are on a tour and will be joining us shortly. They are accompanied by several adults and their teacher, Ms. B. Wallace. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Lord: It's a pleasure to welcome four distinguished visitors from my riding of Comox Valley. With us today from the city of Courtenay is Mayor Ron Webber and city administrator John Wilson, and visiting from the town of Comox is Mayor Alicia Burns and administrator Helen Dale. Would members please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Edwards: At this time the Legislature has the great good luck to have the president of the Mining Association of B.C. drop in, look down and see how we're doing. I would like all of us today to welcome Gary Livingstone, who is in the gallery.

P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today is George Davison. Mr. Davison is a colleague of mine at the College of New Caledonia in Prince George, where he instructs history. He has recently been elected as president of the College of New Caledonia faculty association for the coming year. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'd like to introduce a distinguished visitor from Kamloops, Dr. Alastair McLean. Dr. McLean was a longtime employee of Agriculture Canada and is currently a member of the board of the University College of the Cariboo. In addition, he plays a mean bagpipe.

Introduction of Bills

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a more efficient and effective regulation of liquor licensing and control, and to be more responsive to the needs of both the industry and the public. The main provisions of the bill include a more clearly defined authority for the Liquor Appeal Board, constraints on the minister's power to direct the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch on specific licensing and enforcement decisions, and providing the general manager with the emergency powers to close an establishment for a period not exceeding 24 hours if public safety is threatened.

I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

TOXIC SOIL INCINERATOR PROPOSAL IN DELTA

F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Last night the Delta environmental advisory committee, which is loaded with technical expertise, reported to Delta council with strong concerns regarding the permitting process and the many unanswered technical questions on the matter of the toxic soil incinerator proposed for River Road, Delta. Has he considered using the provisions of

section 23(3)(

h) of the Waste Management Act, which allows him to suspend or cancel a permit?

Hon. J. Cashore: One thing at a time. I am having a meeting with the mayor of Delta and the representative from the GVRD on Monday morning. It's my understanding that the appropriate process has been followed. However, there is sufficient public concern being expressed that I am going to review this, in an abundance of caution, with the appropriate authorities at that time.

F. Gingell: I am really pleased that my questions to the minister during the estimates process have caused him to give pause to this issue and to give it a second thought.

The minister is a member of the Council of Ministers of the Environment. This particular permit doesn't meet any of their recommendations. Has the minister considered resigning from that council, considering that he's not willing to live by their standards?

Hon. J. Cashore: That subject, along with other subjects, will be thoroughly canvassed at our meeting

[ Page 7234 ]

on Monday. I have reviewed the question of the CCME standards. There is some question about how far-reaching the application of those standards is. But obviously that's one issue we are going to be looking at very carefully.

WINDY CRAGGY PROJECT

D. Jarvis: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Is it true that you are prepared to hang the Windy Craggy project by not allowing them to present their case to the mine development assessment program? Or will you allow them to do that?

Hon. A. Edwards: I think the member knows that that issue is being considered by cabinet, after the report of the CORE commissioner, and we hope to be able to announce some decision soon.

D. Jarvis: To the minister again. Is it true, then, that you have caved in to your special interest groups and to the United States and have allowed no further development in the Haines triangle?

Hon. A. Edwards: It may interest the member to contemplate how many special interest groups are involved in that decision, having given us advice and told us what their feelings are. There are many, and it's a very difficult decision. It requires a decision by British Columbia on land use. It's unusual in this province to have such an extremely high value for preservation in the same location as such an extremely high value of mineral resource. It's a world-class mineral resource finding and a world-class preservation area. The decision that we make will be a very difficult one.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: Which issue do you intend to decide first -- the land issue?

Hon. A. Edwards: It's been very clearly stated from the beginning that this is a land use issue, and we are making a land use decision.

[2:15]

HOMEOWNER GRANTS FOR SENIORS AND THE DISABLED

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Premier. We've had numerous calls from disabled property owners who, for the first time ever, are being denied their extended homeowner grant. These folks are being forced to re-prove that they are disabled and are qualified for that grant. Why is the government putting disabled people through this bureaucratic wringer in order to qualify for grants that they have previously qualified for?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If the member could give me that information, we'll check into what he has said and get back to him.

J. Weisgerber: A supplemental question to the Premier. Up until now, seniors who live in seniors' complexes registered under the Society Act have also been eligible for the seniors' homeowner grant. Can the Premier confirm that seniors who own homes in facilities registered under the Society Act will be no longer eligible for their homeowner grant?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will take that question on notice.

SHELL CANADA

K. Jones: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. When in opposition several years ago, the NDP was opposed to the provincial government doing business with Shell Canada. Has this government changed its position?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know of any government policy that says we can't do business with any company. There is no government policy refusing business with Shell Canada.

K. Jones: The current Minister of Finance demanded in a letter to the then-Premier in 1989 that the province boycott Shell Canada. Now government air services has contracted to be the major tenant in a new million-dollar air terminal owned by Shell Oil at Victoria International Airport. Will the minister explain to B.C., and especially to Ken Georgetti, why she is taking this hypocritical stance?

Hon. L. Boone: I would be pleased to explain to anybody why we are extending our business to all companies in British Columbia and in Canada. This government does not deny opportunities. I think the province would want to know why you want to deny opportunities to companies which are duly operating here. Politics have changed considerably in South Africa in the last two years, hon. member, and I think you should update yourself on those policies.

RECONVERTING GOLF COURSES TO AGRICULTURAL LAND

A. Cowie: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister confirm that poor-quality, unused agricultural land can be designed for golf courses in such a manner that they can be reconverted to agriculture at some time in the future, whenever needed?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's an unusual question. In the history of civilization in North America, Europe and the rest of the world, only once has a golf course been reconverted to agricultural land.

A. Cowie: From that, I take it that the minister is aware that golf courses can be converted -- if they are designed properly -- for agriculture.

[ Page 7235 ]

Is the minister also aware that thousands of golfers are leaving this province and golfing across the border in the U.S.? [Laughter.] I take it that he is aware.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the member please take his seat until the House comes to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I call the House to order. Thank you. Would the hon. member continue with his question.

A. Cowie: The fact is that there are many jobs lost in B.C. due to the current policy of the NDP government. This is a loss of income. Many golfers and recreation users are denied the opportunity to play golf because of this poor policy that does not allow....

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

A. Cowie: When will the minister realize that it's better to allow unused land to be used until it's needed for agriculture in, say, 200 or 300 years?

Hon. B. Barlee: In the greater Vancouver district, which would include greater Vancouver plus the Fraser Valley, there are approximately 100,000 extra hectares where they could build some golf courses. This is the case all around the province. The agricultural land reserve is designed to protect one acre out of 20. The golf course individuals have 95 percent of the land in British Columbia to concentrate on, and I suggest they do so on the 95 percent that is not agricultural land.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

A. Cowie: The minister must realize that many thousands of acres right around Vancouver are poor-quality agricultural land that could be used in the meantime. When will the minister realize that people don't want to drive an hour or two up the valley in order to play golf?

Hon. B. Barlee: It's easier to eat food than golf balls, and I think that most people in British Columbia would say we should be very secure of our food in this province, and not held at ransom to other countries. The 5 percent that we've set aside for the agricultural land reserve is reasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable at all. I think the majority of people would appreciate our stand.

HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Premier. Can the Premier advise this House on the current high school dropout rates for British Columbia? Does he agree with the figures cited in the current issue of Maclean's magazine?

The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.

L. Fox: For the Premier's information, the

article reports that a new Statistics Canada survey concludes that the dropout rate for B.C. is 16 percent as of 1991. Does the Premier concur with the Stats Canada report, and does he recognize that this is the lowest dropout rate in Canada?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The member would probably have directed that question to the Minister of Education if she was here, and I'm sure she would be quite pleased to answer it. The statistic you have mentioned -- that the dropout rate, which we thought was 30 percent, is down to 16 percent -- is indeed encouraging, but this government would like to see it go down even further. That's why I've called a summit next week of a number of leaders in British Columbia to look at the whole issue of education, training and skills, getting people to complete high school to get good training to get good jobs. That's what British Columbians want for our young people.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: Obviously we concur that a 16 percent dropout rate is indeed still too high, but it's substantially below the 34 percent that the NDP government has been assuming was in fact the number. Similarly, having the second-lowest dropout rate, as we do, is much better than having the second-highest dropout rate, as this NDP government has been claiming. Will the Premier concede that the new Stats Canada figures are the most accurate, and will he commit to cite these figures from now on in all government issues?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think we agree that 16 percent is still too high. What we should be concentrating on, and what is being missed, is the number of young people who are dropping back into the system. Instead of looking, as we normally do, at young people concluding their high school by the age of 18, we should have an education system that is far more inclusive and allows young people who don't go on to college or university to feel that they have opportunities in trades training and vocational courses and entrepreneurial and small business opportunities.

We should be directing our education system toward one that includes 100 percent of young people, so 16 percent won't feel that they have to drop out because their needs aren't being met.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think it's amazing that we now have the education Premier talking about inclusiveness and about kids getting into school and finishing school, when for six or eight weeks he did absolutely nothing in this province and abdicated his responsibility by absenting himself from cabinet meetings.

[ Page 7236 ]

REPEAL OF BILL 31

G. Farrell-Collins: The other day we had the Minister of Labour announcing to the Canadian Union of Public Employees that he was going to repeal Bill 31. Will he commit to keeping Bill 31 on the books until the education system in this province is sorted out and until there is a new bargaining system?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member himself, during the course of debate on Bill 31, voted in favour of the provision which repeals the legislation on March 31, 1994.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES

J. Weisgerber: The debates on the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs gave us an opportunity to canvass a number of issues. I was particularly interested in the discussions we had around the negotiation of treaties and the opportunity that provides to resolve land claims in British Columbia.

The debate also gave me, at least, an opportunity to reconfirm the position of the Social Credit caucus that it is important to enter into treaties as a way of ensuring that we have lasting and binding settlements in British Columbia, which will in fact give us an opportunity to put the issue of land claims behind us. It also provides an opportunity for us to enter into treaties that are the essence of fair agreements and that recognize the interests all British Columbians.

The estimates debate provided me with an opportunity to urge the minister to recognize the special responsibility he and his government have to represent the interests of those non-aboriginal British Columbians who will not have a place at the negotiating table. I believe that governments, federal and provincial, have a responsibility to represent all their citizens. In the case of aboriginal land claims, aboriginal people will be there at the table. They will have an opportunity to express their issues and put their positions on the table.

I'm sure that they're very capable and will do an admirable job of that undertaking. But the remaining British Columbians, those who are not aboriginal, are going to have to depend on the federal and provincial governments to represent their interests. Given the traditional federal government stance and the attention that they've traditionally paid to their fiduciary responsibility for Indian people, I believe there rests with this minister a particular responsibility to be there, to be aware, and to be sensitive of and to articulate the interests of non-aboriginal British Columbians.

[2:30]

I also urge the minister to make sure that land claim negotiations or treaty negotiations are an open process; that British Columbians have an opportunity to understand the ongoing negotiations; and that they have an opportunity to examine the positions taken by the three parties when negotiations started, and thereby have an opportunity to follow the negotiations and understand the settlements when they are finally concluded. At the end of the day, those negotiated settlements are going to require, in one way or another, the approval of the people of British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia are going to have to, by some method or another, endorse, accept and be willing to live with the settlements. I believe that can only happen if people have an opportunity to follow the discussions in the negotiations. We've seen what happens, and we've seen public response, when intergovernmental agreements are reached behind closed doors. We saw British Columbians, particularly, reject the Charlottetown accord. The same thing happened across the country with Meech Lake.

British Columbians and people generally in this country are very leery of agreements and arrangements made by governments behind closed doors. So I think it is particularly important, as we move into this phase of land claims negotiations in British Columbia, to make sure that it's an open process that people can examine; that people have access to information.

We also had an opportunity to discuss with the minister the thorny issue of cost-sharing between the federal and provincial governments. It's pretty obvious that British Columbia has been disadvantaged by the early and unfortunate comments made by the now-Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition.

I see that my time for this brief

summary of estimates has concluded, and I thank you for the opportunity to respond here.

V. Anderson: It's a privilege to respond at the end of the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. I would particularly like to thank the minister for his efforts to ensure that we had briefings, both with him personally and with members of his staff prior to these estimates, as we developed and understood the programs put before us. I want to particularly thank the staff who participated in the briefings; we appreciate their time and efforts.

The Aboriginal Affairs ministry is fairly new in many of its functions. I want to express appreciation to the minister in the reorganization he has undertaken within that ministry to clarify the ministry's roles in working not only with the treaty negotiations but also with the aboriginal people, to cover all aspects of their involvement in our provincial activities.

The concern of governance was raised during the estimates discussion. It seems to me that this area is being overlooked. We are talking about treaties on land and possessions, fisheries and forests, but we are not yet talking about how we live together with common, shared governance in the recognition of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, each having independence but cooperating in a shared living space. We hope that the ministry and others concerned with this will begin to focus on this area of concern as well.

We appreciate that the ministry has been working with the First Nations Summit and with the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. No doubt there are other groups that will also have to be taken into account as these processes continue.

[ Page 7237 ]

A great deal has been said about partnerships. We are struggling to discover the meaning of those partnerships -- federal, provincial and municipal, and with local community people. We have heard about third-party interests being taken into account so that they might feel a part of the negotiations. But I have expressed concern about those who are not involved in third-party negotiations -- those who are not formally involved with the communities across the province -- and how they will feel that they are a part of the new thrust that is being taken, which is important to our province, as we live together cooperatively.

I also want to stress that we need to undertake educational approaches to better understand the contribution of the aboriginal people to our communities, not only in the past but also for the future, and that as we work together, it will be for the benefit of all.

I also want to mention that the Provincial Capital Commission comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I wanted to thank him for the clarity of his presentation on that commission as it works cooperatively with the city of Victoria in the areas in and around the capital buildings. I want particularly to comment on his presentation regarding the plans for St. Ann's Academy. I would encourage all who have an interest in the plans for that development to read in Hansard what the minister has said, so they will be more fully informed and be able to respond.

Overall, I would like to thank the minister for his presentation, his clarity, his responsiveness and his willingness to go back, research and provide additional information to us. I appreciated very much the opportunity of working with him.

Hon. A. Petter: I would like to express my thanks to the members opposite, in particular the member for Vancouver-Langara and the Leader of the Third Party, for their very substantive contributions during these estimates. As well, I would like to acknowledge the work of my staff in providing briefings and assisting me during the debate.

The debate provided a useful opportunity to review some of the activities of my ministry, which has been given a new and expanded mandate under this government. That mandate is very much directed at establishing a new relationship with first nations in recognition that aboriginal peoples do have inherent rights and, as the Leader of the Third Party indicated, that lasting and binding agreements through treaty negotiations are the best way to recognize those rights.

That move toward treaty negotiations is a central focus of our activities, as is trying to find solutions, through cooperation and harmony rather than confrontation and litigation, to problems that have existed for aboriginal peoples.

The ministry has undergone a major reorganization over the past year, as the member for Vancouver-Langara noted. That has been a challenge for the ministry, but I think the reorganization has assisted us tremendously in preparing for the tasks that lie ahead. I'm very proud of the activities of my ministry, of those who work for it and of the progress that has been made to date.

In the estimates debate we had an opportunity to review some of that progress. In the area of treaty negotiations, we discussed the progress that has been made in the Nisga'a negotiations under a new negotiating team put together in the past year. I was proud to report concerning the interim protection measures agreement that was signed last November. That agreement takes a substantial step towards the conclusion of those negotiations and has achieved widespread support from members opposite as well as people within the community.

I also reported on some of the building blocks that we have put in place in preparation for comprehensive treaty negotiations elsewhere in the province, such as the B.C. Treaty Commission, which was debated in this House. I was able to review some of the thoughts and directions that I foresaw for the Treaty Commission and for my ministry in relation to the commission. Certainly the commission provides a very useful vehicle that will move us ahead by providing a process for trying to resolve many of these longstanding issues in a way that will promote stability and certainty for all British Columbians and justice and self-sufficiency for first nations citizens in particular.

The Leader of the Third Party made reference to the need to include third parties and others within the process. I think we have made substantial progress in that direction over the past year, and I was able to review those steps. We are in the process of finalizing arrangements with the third-party advisory process for an enhanced and far more effective sectorally based consultation process with federal government involvement. That will afford to third-party groups on a province-wide basis a very meaningful opportunity to be involved in treaty negotiations.

We have also taken steps to include municipalities in a formal way within the negotiating process, signing a memorandum of understanding with the Union of B.C. Municipalities that ensures that municipalities will be fully involved and consulted on issues of concern to them. In addition, the Premier and I have given an undertaking to municipalities to seek a role for them as observers during the course of those negotiations that impact upon them. So there has been progress in that regard. Local consultation will be a very important issue as we move towards particular negotiations.

In the Nisga'a claim area we have completely revised -- and I think substantially improved -- the local consultation process under the leadership of our new negotiating team. I'm very pleased with the direction that has been taken there. I think it points to a new direction in terms of local consultation as we move to other negotiations.

I take very seriously the concerns of the member for Vancouver-Langara that it's not enough to include formal third-party groups; we have to reach out to the community as a whole. We certainly intend to do that. We have done it in the Nisga'a claim area through open houses. Along with the Treaty Commission we will be engaging in a program of information-sharing to try to bring the public at large into the process.

Similarly, I take seriously the comments made by the Leader of the Third Party with respect to the need to promote openness in the process, although I must say

[ Page 7238 ]

that some of the provisions he agreed to in the Nisga'a agreement have hampered our attempts to promote openness to date. We are nevertheless striving to maximize the degree of openness in those negotiations and, hopefully, can negotiate some more favourable provisions in subsequent framework agreements so as to promote openness. Perhaps he has learned from his own bitter experience of the need to ensure openness. We will certainly do our best to promote information-sharing and openness, but we must be careful, of course, that by doing so we do not undermine the integrity of the negotiations, and that is going to be something of a balancing art.

The Leader of the Third Party also referred to cost-sharing. Certainly that is the third step that I think we would all like to see taken in order to set the stage for treaty negotiations. If we can establish a clearer sense of what the apportionment of costs will be, then we can evaluate more accurately what the benefits will be and how we can move forward into treaty negotiations. An agreement on cost-sharing with the federal government, which I am optimistic can be achieved in the near future, will be an important building block.

It won't tell us how much the treaties themselves will cost or what the settlements will be, but it will set the stage and help us to evaluate those costs as we move forward.

I agree that the cost-sharing agreement must be one that represents British Columbians and is fair for British Columbians. That has been our policy, and it was the policy of the previous government as well -- that British Columbia did have some responsibility in this area, but it must be a fair share, taking account of British Columbia's history. During the course of the debate, I referred to other provincial jurisdictions that have contributed sums in cost-sharing arrangements.

In the case of Alberta the sums were as high as 40 percent of budgetary costs; Saskatchewan, 49 percent; Quebec, in the range of 80 percent. I referred to those to suggest what is happening elsewhere but also to suggest that British Columbia is different. We must recognize and press the case with the federal government that our unique history in which negotiations did not take place means that the federal government bears a larger share of responsibility in B.C. than it does elsewhere.

In addition, the debate centred on some of the pre-treaty initiatives that the government is taking in a variety of areas to enhance stability and promote a new area of cooperation with first nations. I'm particularly proud of the steps we took last week to establish a new forum with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to discuss areas of policy concern that are of mutual interest. I anticipate that a similar forum will soon be established with the summit group.

[2:45]

In conclusion, I would say that the work of the ministry has been very full in the past year. It will be fuller in the year ahead. But I think we now have the organization and the mandate in place to move forward and ensure that British Columbians are included, and to build towards a new relationship that will promote self-sufficiency for first nations, acknowledging that first nations have historic rights. It will also promote for all British Columbians a new era of stability and certainty in which investment and other economic opportunities will be afforded to citizens of this province due to the benefits that treaty negotiations and the new relationship can provide.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

With those comments, I would like once again to thank those who participated in the debate. I learned much from it, and I look forward to the year -- and hopefully, years -- ahead working with members opposite to resolve many of these daunting but very worthwhile challenges.

Presenting Reports

J. Beattie: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move that the report of the committee be adopted.

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

It is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity today to present this first report. I'd like to thank those who made the drafting and presentation of the report possible. To begin with, I'd like to thank the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the cabinet for directing this to the select standing committee. Secondly, I'd like to thank all the members of the committee who participated and made information available through their research.

I'd like to make particular reference to my co-Chair, the hon. member for Comox Valley, and to the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara from the opposition, who participated with great zeal and drew our attention to many issues. I'd also like to thank the Clerk's office for their strong assistance in helping us organize the tours, and so on.

Finally, I would like to make reference to the support of the staff in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, and particularly to Hugh Hughson, who was a great resource to us, and directed us to finding out where we could best obtain the necessary information to make the report possible.

Hon. Speaker, I was honoured to have met with so many wonderful people during the months that we took to draft the report. We certainly got a feel for the great diversity, energy and enthusiasm that exists in the aboriginal community.

We were presented with a broad and quite detailed topic to consider. For those who may read Hansard, I would like to read into the record what the terms of reference were. With respect to the First Citizens' Fund program we were asked:

[ Page 7239 ]

"To consider the effectiveness of the current program design, delivery mechanism and benefit to the client; the appropriateness of the current program to address the barriers to small business development experienced by aboriginal people; and finally, recommendations concerning the design and delivery of the loan program, to ensure the established mandate of the fund and the changing needs of the aboriginal business community are being met."

As we went out into the community, it became obvious to us that this was a very important undertaking for the aboriginal community at this time. Although it is not a large program in terms of the dollars, it serves a very key function. It serves to draw into business enterprises people in the aboriginal community who have never before been exposed to the undertakings that are necessary to entrepreneurship. That is a very important aspect of this program, especially as the first nations move towards greater economic independence in the province.

We've just heard the minister and the opposition members speaking about treaty negotiations. The establishment of a strong economy is something that is very important, and will become more important as first nations move further down the road to greater autonomy and independence. So the whole question that we were given was a timely one in the history of the province, and particularly in the history of aboriginal people as they move into this transitional stage.

For the record, the First Citizens' Fund was established in the late sixties as a trust fund, and the interest that was generated from the fund was used primarily to support social and cultural programs. It was not until the late eighties that the previous government created a loan program out of the cultural program -- with the cooperation of the Native Economic Development Advisory Board, which is a body of aboriginal people who advised and still advise the minister. As it turned out, it was decided that there would be the ability to borrow money and, at the same time, to defer a portion which would be paid by the provincial government after 50 percent of the loan was repaid.

It hasn't had a long time to establish itself in the province. As I said, it's a new program as of 1988. To some degree, that guided the considerations of the committee. We recognized that during the first few years there were questions of how the program should be delivered and which agencies should deliver it. In the initial stages the program was delivered by a credit union, and it was only delivered in later years by aboriginal capital corporations. That's the trend that will be continued into the future.

At any rate, our approach toward the review of the effectiveness of the program was determined to a great extent by the Native Economic Development Advisory Board, which felt very strongly that we should see all parts of the province and make our decisions based not on rural or urban natives particularly, but as a result of input from all sectors. That's what we did. I think we did a fairly unique thing, and I'd like to thank the members of the committee for being so cooperative and flexible. We broke into small groups, and we toured the province from Castlegar to Dease Lake, Vancouver Island up to Fort St.

John and all those areas in the middle -- but only in small groups instead of as a large committee. I think it was an effective way to garner a great deal of information about what's happening in aboriginal communities across the province.

It was a very interesting undertaking, and I could talk for a long time about what we did and what we heard. I hope that not only the members of the House but also the public will read the report. I would like to go over the major thrust of the report as designed by the committee, with the input from those people I've already referred to.

We think that in order to do that, there has to be better service in terms of delivery mechanisms. There has to be a greater promotion of the program in a way which is appropriate for both rural and urban natives, and we felt that oral ways of delivering the program were important. We felt that getting better information and more service was a way that the fund would become accessible to more people in the province.

We also felt that the aboriginal capital corporations which service almost the whole province were the appropriate people to be delivering this program. We've made some firm recommendations about contracts with aboriginal capital corporations to give them greater stability in planning ahead. We've recommended three-year contracts. We've recommended fixed sums of money so that aboriginal capital corporations can establish a long-term relationship with their clients, and also have the security of being able to offer particular services based on the funding that the province might be able to provide through the trust fund.

The question of developing a healthy native economy is of prime importance to this government. With the help of the opposition parties, this report will give some food for thought to the Native Economic Development Advisory Board, to the ministry and to all those people who are actively supporting the efforts of our aboriginal people to establish an autonomous and strong economy.

On that note, I would again like to thank the committee for their support and their efforts. I am very pleased to present the report today.

V. Anderson: I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to be on this legislative committee. I would like to thank the member for Okanagan-Penticton for his excellent chairmanship of the committee. We had a fair bit of discussion and finally came to a consensus on the report that is now before the people. I think one of the chief learning experiences for me and many others was the

[ Page 7240 ]

opportunity to visit with the aboriginal people throughout the province and to hear from them firsthand their concerns and interests, and also to become more aware of the financial expertise that many among the aboriginal community have, not only in the capital corporations that we've already heard discussed today, but in other business and planning activities. On the other hand, we also heard about their frustration with having to work with different branches of the government and find that there is confusion and disorientation between them as they try to work on their own economic development.

Part of the recommendations -- if not implicit in the report -- are comments included with the recommendations that there be a more effective cooperation in the economic aspects of this government. Instead of this particular loan fund being administered by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, perhaps it should now be administered by the Minister of Economic Development. Other aspects of the program dealing with the scholarship funds for aboriginal people are to be maintained within the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

We discovered that although the fund was effectively used by many people, the majority of the people we talked to were not aware of the fund; and when they were aware of it, they often had problems accessing the fund. So there are recommendations to first of all improve their awareness of the opportunity for this fund, and then to improve the manner of accessing the fund itself.

We also became aware of the larger context in which we sit. In meeting with representatives of national banking institutions, we found that there was a greater interest in being related to aboriginal funding -- involving themselves in consultation and in working with these groups. There is a new approach on the part of the federal government, in some ways withdrawing from the historical role which they have taken, and therefore a need for the provincial government to carefully consider their relationships in these undertakings.

[3:00]

I want to particularly express our thanks to those who conducted the tours -- the people from the aboriginal community who met and hosted us and made us very much at home in their communities and in their institutions. It was a privilege to work on this committee and to be part of it. As it goes back to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for consideration, I trust that before too long we will hear the results of the minister's consideration, and of the review I know that the ministry is also undertaking, because there is a concern in the community at large that after such a study is undertaken they should hear very quickly about the process before them.

J. Weisgerber: I have had an opportunity to sit for a short while on the select standing committee that was considering this issue. I have had a considerably longer relationship with the First Citizens' Fund and the privilege of associating for a number of years with members of the Native Economic Development Advisory Board.

The recommendations that I see here are designed to improve the delivery of the First Citizens' Fund -- a fund, as the member indicated in his opening remarks, that has been in place since the 1960s and available to Indian people, aboriginal communities and others around the province for economic development. It also encourages further education of aboriginal students.

Essentially, I support the changes that we finally agreed on -- which is not to suggest that there weren't some changes I might liked to have seen dealt with in a slightly different manner; but that's always the case when you have 15 or so people considering a relatively complex issue. In fairness, we came to a reasonable consensus on the changes that are to be made, and I too would join in encouraging the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to consider the report and implement it as soon as he possibly can.

J. Beattie: I just want to say thank you to both the members of the opposition for their support and cooperation.

Just with regard to a specific about the report, over the last number of years since the program was first introduced, we have seen a tendency for the size of the loans to drop -- not substantially, but from about the $50,000 range down into about the $42,000 range. I just want to have on the record, on behalf of the committee, that one of the important thrusts of the report is to make smaller amounts of money -- or at least adequate amounts of money -- available to a larger number of people, specifically to those very important small businesses in their initial stages that need to have access to small amounts of capital.

One of the important recommendations in the report talks about allowing an individual to borrow up to the maximum amount of money for the same business, but in a number of loans. That first loan would start off at $20,000, say, and there would still be $55,000 of funds that could be accessed at a later date. That was an important part of the committee's undertaking. I wanted to mention that at the beginning, but I'm taking the opportunity now.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I hope that tone will mark the rest of our deliberations for the balance of the day. With that said, I wish to advise all hon. members that the Douglas Fir Room will see the convening of Committee of Supply A to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways this afternoon. Secondly, I would like to call committee stage on Bill 26. Thirdly, I wish to advise all hon. members that the House will be sitting tomorrow, commencing at 2 o'clock.

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the Chair of Committees, the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon on a matter....

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction, please?

[ Page 7241 ]

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker....

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, hon. member. Was there a point of order by an hon. member?

G. Wilson: The point of order was simply to get the riding correct.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Okanagan-Penticton, not Vernon. Please proceed, hon. member.

J. Beattie: To confuse you even further, hon. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the member for Shuswap, who happens to not be in the House today; she's in her riding.

Interjection.

J. Beattie: That's right, we're taking over the whole Okanagan today.

From that hon. member's constituency, we have some grade 7 students from Parkview Elementary School in Sicamous. I believe that the class is up here. Their teacher is Mr. J. McDonald, and I see that they are accompanied by some parent chaperons. I'd like the House to make them welcome today.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 26; F. Garden in the chair.

section 2, 20.1 as amended (continued).

J. Tyabji: Before we adjourned for the noon break, we had canvassed "contaminated site" under the

interpretation section. The next definition in the

interpretation

section that is causing the opposition great difficulty is "government body." It states in this bill: "...'government body' means a federal, provincial or municipal body, including an agency or ministry of the Crown in right of Canada or British Columbia or an agency of a municipality." The one phrase that seems to be glaringly missing is the reference to the first nations and the aboriginal level of government -- what this government is calling the third order of government.

It's a strange omission, in that we spent some time during the briefing, and certainly in second reading, dealing with the fact that the opposition is very concerned that Bill 26 will not be applying to land under the jurisdiction of aboriginal people or the first nations. We didn't get a response to that from the minister.

We know that under Bill 32 -- another piece of legislation of this very ministry -- "first nations" is adequately defined. It causes us a lot of concern that in the environmental assessment process the aboriginal order of government has not only been defined but has also been included as a participatory agent at the table, yet in Bill 26 there's not even a reference to that under the definition of government body.

To rectify that, I would like to move that

section 20.1 be amended to read: "`government body' means a federal, provincial or municipal body or first nation, including an agency or ministry of the Crown in right of Canada or British Columbia or an agency of a municipality or an agency of a first nation."

Also, a supplementary amendment must be made that is contingent on that. I'm not sure if this in order, but the other part of the amendment is: "...'first nation' means an aboriginal governing body, however organized and established by aboriginal people, within their traditional territory in British Columbia." So that definition will be moved as well.

I understand that both amendments will be taken together. We have taken the definition of first nation from this government's definition of first nation in the Environmental Assessment Act. We have added the definition of first nation under that of government body. It is the very strongly held opinion of the opposition that the fist nations land should be included in the contaminated-site legislation, because we know that parts of this bill talk about downstream contamination. As we mentioned in second reading, if we are going to have the potential for downstream contamination to be dealt with in this bill, we must also include land which is under aboriginal jurisdiction.

The Chair: We will allow discussion on both amendments, but when they come to a vote, we will vote on them separately.

On the amendments.

Hon. J. Cashore: The first thing I want to say in response to these two proposed amendments is that I take the point the hon. member is making in good faith. I believe that the point is being made on the basis of a legitimate concern. In opposing the amendment, I want to make it very clear that the legitimate concern being expressed in seeking to put the amendment forward is understood. However, given this legislation, at the present time there is a definition covering Indian lands that comes under the federal Indian Act. It is the definition that exists at this time in Canadian law.

At the present time special negotiations are taking place in two parallel processes involving first nations organizations: the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. The discussions and negotiations that are taking place at a very significant level are such that we should not be, at every moment that we are drafting legislation, prejudging the outcome of those negotiations. The negotiations are delicate. They are being done in good faith. It is the intention of this government, upon the completion of that very sensitive process, to introduce amendments to those statutes where the

definitions that are coming out of the negotiations in those parallel processes at that time will apply. Therefore, to begin as a one-off to incorporate a definition -- or indeed to include a government body that does not yet fit that definition -- would be to

[ Page 7242 ]

prejudge the process, and in some ways it would be an affront to both parties to those negotiations.

I want to make it very clear that the principle behind this initiative on behalf of the Liberal Environment critic is an appropriate principle, and I commend the hon. member for having raised the issue. However, this is not the way to do it in terms of this legislation at this time. But I give this member my assurance that the government intends to make the appropriate amendments to legislation following the appropriate processes that are underway in negotiations between the government and those two first nations organizations, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit.

G. Wilson: This amendment is critically important for a number of reasons. It has indeed been offered in good faith and with good reason and good cause. I find it strange, to say the least, that this minister introduced Bill 32, in which the first nations are provided not only a definition but a direct role to play in environmental assessment. I find it interesting that in the Environmental Assessment Act this minister doesn't seem to think there's any kind of affront to or prejudging of or movement in advance of first nations governments being involved in the environmental assessment process.

In fact, they're given a role and a seat at the table; they're given direct input into it. Yet when it comes to Bill 26, the Waste Management Amendment Act, the minister says that it doesn't apply because there are two processes underway -- one under the Summit and the other under the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs -- that shouldn't be prejudged.

[3:15]

If the minister knew anything at all about the two issues under the Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, he would know that they're simply facilitators of land claim discussions. It's got nothing to do with the jurisdictional questions that will ultimately be determined. Therefore the argument put forward by the minister is, I think, fallacious in the extreme.

There is absolutely no reason why the duly constituted government of the province of British Columbia cannot enact in this legislation a definition of, and an inclusion of, first nations government as constituted in the province of B.C. in a process that will govern them under the Waste Management Act.

In fact, one could argue that it is to our collective advantage, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to have that inclusion now, prior to any kind of negotiation that may take place between the three groups that sit in negotiation -- the aboriginal community and the federal and provincial governments -- where those negotiations could exclude or preclude them from such

an act, particularly in light of the direction that this government has taken with respect to government-to-government status.

So I think that the minister is going to have to do better than what he's just come up with to convince us that this is not only a sensible and meaningful amendment on this question, but something that British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, would like to see to maintain the kind of protection needed in an orderly and sensible distribution of authority over waste management matters.

Hon. J. Cashore: I realize that we are straying in discussing Bill 32 during a

section of Bill 26. However, if the Chair will indulge me, I feel that because this reference was made I need to repond to it. In responding to it, I would point out that this is really an apples and oranges comparison.

The reference to first nations in Bill 32 is to a specific role the first nations would have in a review process. Bill 26 is a land-specific bill. We have no problem with the reference in Bill 32. It is not a parallel example, in any way, shape or form. I would just reiterate that the points I made before are points that are significant in terms of the reason that this amendment cannot be accepted in this form at this time. But I have given my assurance, and it's on the record, that after this government concludes its negotiations with those two parallel processes, it will be doing the appropriate thing in updating the statutes of this province.

G. Wilson: Notwithstanding the commentary, we don't need to get into any elaborate discussion on Bill 32, because clearly we're here in committee on Bill 26. To summarize what the minister is saying, he has no problem with members of the aboriginal community sitting at a table determining an environmental assessment on development projects that are being proposed in British Columbia. But he does have a problem with a law that will apply equally and evenly to all British Columbians with respect to contaminated sites, whether they should be on aboriginal land or not. That is a major inconsistency.

I would suggest that if you look at this bill, and look at the number of times the government body is introduced, and the definition of government body, that it is a sensible amendment to include now aboriginal first nations as a government in this bill. What that does is provide a reasonable level of protection for all citizens -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- who live in British Columbia.

In the amendment, in this great host of ten pages of amendment dropped on our desks this morning, with which we're supposedly going to amend this act, which we only got a few days ago.... If we look under

section 20.4, which we'll be getting to and will talk to in more detail, where there is a reference to a government body, it talks about those that are excluded from the processing: "...a government body that involuntarily acquires ownership interest in the contaminated site...." Then -- this is a critical point and needs to be addressed here -- it says "...other than by government restructuring or expropriation...." I can tell you that if in the land claim process there is a significant restructuring over jurisdictional questions, that's going to have an impact.

This minister simply cannot give this assurance that we're going to amend the act for inclusion, because by the very nature of the substance and direction of negotiations, those negotiations themselves may preclude this government from taking the kind of action that this minister is promising he's going to bring in. So he has to know that if you're going to put in those

[ Page 7243 ]

kinds of protective measures, the time to act is now. You close the barn door before the horse has bolted, not afterwards, when you say: "Well, that's true, it may be out of the barn; but don't worry, because we've got a team of people who are going to go out and try to round it up." So I think the minister has to come up with a better explanation as to why it's not appropriate in this bill to include first nations in the definition process,

whereas first nations people are included in virtually every other bill on land use and environmental assessment. This one seems to be a case of exclusion.

J. Tyabji: The amendments have been put forward with a view to closing a loophole with regard to land use in the province. We know that there are some negotiations going on in B.C. about aboriginal land. We also know that there are existing aboriginal jurisdictions, such as the Westbank Indian band and the Sechelt Indian band, who may themselves have a problem with regard to downstream contamination from non-aboriginal jurisdictions. They may also have a problem, in that land under their jurisdiction may be causing a problem downstream.

We know from numerous other debates that there are a number of land use decision processes in action throughout the province on behalf of not just this ministry but other ministries. This legislation with regard to contaminated sites only covers non-aboriginal lands, and that doesn't make any sense. I understand the minister's point when he says that we are not sure, as we sit here today, what will or will not be considered aboriginal jurisdiction. But we also know what is currently aboriginal jurisdiction. We know there are land claims that have been settled.

We know there are self-government provisions for some aboriginal people around the province which are accorded a special legal status by this government. We don't know the extent to which this government is going to be abrogating its own legislative jurisdiction on those aboriginal lands.

I think it should be mentioned that if we don't close this loophole now, after those negotiations this government may not have the opportunity to do that, because the negotiations may preclude any future closing of the loophole. This minister may not ever be able to legislate contaminated sites on aboriginal lands if we end up adopting a third order of government that doesn't allow Ministry of Environment jurisdiction over such sites. That's a major problem. It's a major problem as well in that aboriginal people may want to be included in this legislation.

I think it comes down to the whole question of equality. How is it that we are so sensitive as to include first nations government in all the other legislation that comes forward? In fact, we have legislation coming before the House that is specifically tailored to the new concept of first nations government, even though we haven't defined it. We know that we have bill after bill coming before the House with reference to the yet-to-be-defined aboriginal government; in fact, it's defined as best the government is able right now. Yet in something as important as contaminated site legislation we don't have any reference to the first nations. I think that's unfortunate.

As we said yesterday in the Bill 32 debate, there is only one map of the province; there is only one pie. We know it's going to get cut up into some pieces: an aboriginal piece, a protected areas strategy piece, a mining piece, a forestry piece. We know that there are pieces already in place as it exists now. So why is it that the pieces referring to land under the jurisdiction of first nations are completely left out of the Waste Management Act? Is that a deliberate action by the government? If so, what legislation will cover contaminated sites on first nations land?

Currently, first nations have jurisdiction over large tracts of land in the province. They may be having a problem, and they may want to be under the provincial legislation.

I hope the minister will be responding to this. From my perspective of having dealt with environmental issues and the first nations land jurisdiction problem, if we don't account for this under this bill -- as we had an amendment defeated this morning that tried to talk about the receiving site for the contaminated or toxic waste -- we could end up, for example, with aboriginal land being the receiving site for the toxic waste. There's nothing in this bill to preclude that. In effect, we could end up with a large toxic dumping ground on first nations land.

The minister would have no legislative ability at all to prevent that from happening, because he didn't allow for the remediation plan to be amended as we suggested. He seems to be blocking an amendment to this

section to include the first nations people and to give them a definition under this bill. I look forward to the minister's response.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll be very brief. There are very significant negotiations going on between this government and the two parallel processes representing aboriginal persons. To preclude that process now would not do justice or give sufficient respect to either of the parties that are presently involved in those discussions. Legislation can be amended at the appropriate time. That is the time to put in the correct wording as agreed to by those parties out of that process. To do so at this time, without having reference to those parties, would be paternalistic and inappropriate.

G. Wilson: It's really hard to keep one's cool when you hear it's paternalistic. What a lot of utter nonsense. This parallel process that we're talking about may take anywhere from ten to 15 to 20 or even 30 years. Hopefully it won't, but if we look at the Yukon as an example, that process took 25 years. For 25 years there were lands that were under negotiation. Some of them, under the jurisdiction of federal statutes, can receive and have received disposal of toxic material. There are processes now underway on those lands where toxic material is leaching out into water systems and affecting communities.

This minister and this government are not prepared to make a simple amendment that would protect the first nations citizens of this community, as well as non-first nations citizens, by including first nations government in the definition of government. Yet in every other bill, such as this Environmental Assessment

[ Page 7244 ]

Act, there is no problem with it because it's a process bill. This deals with the reality of land use.

[3:30]

I have just checked, and will have coming to me the federal statute on Indian lands. This minister has said that there are federal regulations on these lands. I defy him to show me where they are. To my knowledge there are none, and I'm fairly familiar with the Indian Act and how the Department of Indian Affairs regulates these processes. I'd like to hear this minister explain why this government isn't prepared to accept this kind of sensible amendment, and include in this process those lands that are currently under jurisdiction and may, in fact, after the negotiation process, be managed by a third order of government.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a constitutional fact that we cannot apply this legislation to Indian reserves at the present time. That's a simple constitutional fact. Our government is diligently working on dealing with this through the negotiation process that I have described.

I think it would be helpful if the hon. member could try not to sound so angry in his comments. I don't see how that's useful to the process that we're involved in right now. I think he can make his point in a somewhat more considered tone, but it's up to him how he wishes to express himself. I think that we've canvassed this very thoroughly, hon. Chair, and that it's about time we voted on this opposition amendment.

G. Wilson: I'm going to use a much more conciliatory tone because I certainly wouldn't want the minister to think that I was angry at him as an individual. That's not at all the case. It's just a question of frustration with the lack of inclusion of first nations governments in the definition of government put forward in this bill. I am well aware of the Canadian constitution and the regulations within the Canadian constitution on what can and cannot be applied to reserve lands. However, it is quite clear that we are now entering into negotiations with aboriginal people on a government-to-government basis.

Indeed, there was a rather glossy little press release put out by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs with respect to a new process of discussion and negotiation with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs on the weekend. That process provides an opportunity for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to meet on a regular basis with ministers of the Crown to talk about these issues. As a result of that, I'm anxious to know where in the federal Indian Act this minister believes that we can have any degree of protection. I've just asked for that review.

I'm fairly familiar with that act; in fact, I've had the relevant sections provided to me.

I'd like to see if the minister can tell us where we can have the protection he's talking about, because he says that it is covered under the federal statutes. If we take a look at the federal statutes, which I just very quickly reviewed in the library and had photocopied, we can see that under

chapter I-5 of the Indian Act, which deals primarily with possession of and legislation and jurisdiction on reserve lands, the issues that this minister is trying to introduce simply aren't there.

Could the minister tell us how a community such as those in the Fraser Valley or in the interior or on the Island that may find that land is being used for the disposal of hazardous or toxic material, or which may have contaminated sites as a result of past action on those reserve lands, can have some confidence that the same rules and regulations that will apply to those non-aboriginal communities may be applied to aboriginal communities in British Columbia, especially in light of the fact that we are moving toward joint stewardship agreements on industrial activities and developments that are going to allow aboriginal people to be included in a government-to-government process, by virtue of this government's approach and direction to that question?

Hon. J. Cashore: When we get to subsection 20.4, there will be exemptions that deal with that issue.

J. Tyabji: I want to address my remarks to the minister's comment that by constitution, this government cannot legislate the first nations with regard to their land. First of all, if this government had accepted our amendment this morning with regard to the remediation plan having to file the site profile of the receiving site and the processing plan, that would have taken care of having aboriginal lands used as potential receiving sites, because this ministry can definitely legislate on non-aboriginal lands.

As soon as the minister receives the plan to take the contaminated soil and move it, through their remediation plan, to aboriginal land, the minister could say that this is not an acceptable way of doing things. That would have been a simple case of jurisdiction.

The second point is that in the definition of government body, there could easily be a clause added that recognizes those areas where the provincial government has limited jurisdiction. However, we know that government body means a federal, provincial or municipal body, agency or ministry of the Crown, just by the very fact that we're listing all the levels of government. We know that the provincial government can't legislate the federal government, for example; we know that there are different line jurisdictions. All we're saying is that in the definition of government body, we recognize that a first nations government is a legitimate government body.

This government, in making that same recognition in its other legislation, is, by ignoring it here, in some strange way exempting the existing first nations jurisdiction. We know that once you get within that jurisdiction, the provincial government has limited legislative powers; however, the provincial government definitely has the power to recognize that as an order of government, which is exactly what it has done in other legislation.

I don't understand why they wouldn't do it here, unless there is some inequality that's being developed where first nations are encouraged, welcomed and assumed to be part of positive processes, but where it has to do with something that might be perceived as negative, such as fines or payment for contaminated sites, we don't want to touch it, because that might jeopardize the negotiations. That seems to

[ Page 7245 ]

me to be an unequal and very unfair way of dealing with things.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member referred to the concern about soil being moved onto Indian land.

Section 20.81 deals with that. We'll be getting to that later. It will be able to prevent contaminated soil from being moved to reserve lands, since any such transfer would require a soil relocation agreement between the persons responsible for the originating site, the receiving site and the ministry. That is therefore dealt with in a generic sense, which is the appropriate way to deal with it.

J. Tyabji: This minister has already said that he is more or less abdicating jurisdiction on aboriginal lands. We will get to that and canvass it in greater detail, but as far as the government body

section goes, would the minister be prepared to say no in the event of that coming forward? We can canvass that in that section. The whole point of having it in this definition, from my perspective, is that

section 20.81 does not preclude aboriginal land being a receiving site, by any stretch of the imagination. This minister has already said that he is not prepared to interfere in something that the first nations people are pursuing, so I don't see that happening.

I still don't understand why this minister wouldn't simply include a reference to first nations. All we are asking for in the

definitions is a recognition that first nations are a recognized order of government, which we know this ministry and this government have done repeatedly.

Hon. J. Cashore: The first point the hon. member made would be dealt with in a generic sense by a soil relocation agreement. The other point the hon. member has made before, and I have responded to it.

G. Wilson: I have a more technical question. If this amendment doesn't take place, what is to require the provincial government to be involved if government does include in the definition...? In this set of

definitions, we are talking about "government body" including the federal government and the jurisdiction and authorities that are provided through the federal government. Given that the Indian Act requires that the federal Minister of Indian Affairs can directly intercede on behalf of proposed economic activities -- I am reading now from the Indian Act -- what is to preclude agreements being made between people involved in investments here that require them to relocate or deal with contaminated soils or materials; or even more, with respect to the disposal of contaminated materials that are being generated?

Why wouldn't somebody simply relocate, through an agreement between the Indian band, the federal government and the entrepreneur, in the initial stage an activity that may be providing material that under this bill would be considered toxic? This minister wouldn't even be involved in it. Can the minister tell us why it wouldn't happen? It is already happening right now in the Fraser Valley with respect to air emission standards.

Hon. J. Cashore: The soil relocation agreement is a three-party agreement that would involve the first nations people.

G. Wilson: I understand that. That wasn't my question. My question is this: if we do not include the first nations in the definition of government body, then how can this government not be precluded from those initial investments in the first place by an investor who simply deals with the first nations government, the federal government and the investor? They could just bypass you altogether.

Hon. J. Cashore: If we don't have a three-party agreement in the soil relocation agreement, then we don't have an agreement. One possible scenario would mean that we cannot go past the border of the first nations reserve land. That is the way in which the law presently functions. We are hoping to address that through this delicate negotiating process that I have referred to. But we do not, as a provincial government, have the power to go beyond that border if we do not have a third-party agreement. That's a simple fact.

G. Wilson: I'll try once more. Let's just put soil relocation aside for the time being. Let's look at a contaminated site, industrial development and activity that is generating toxic material that requires disposal. Under this, there has to be a contaminated site designation and procedures put in place, which are spelled out through the latter sections of the bill, that provide the government an opportunity to have input.

My question is this: unless you include first nations in the definition of government, what is to preclude an investor developing a project that would produce toxic material which would come under the Waste Management Act? What is to preclude the location of that initially on land that is governed by the Indian Act -- and therefore enter into a negotiation with the federal government, the entrepreneurs and first nations people without any inclusion in this act whatsoever, despite problems that may exist with downstream effects in neighbouring communities?

Hon. J. Cashore: The simple answer is that we can't. The province doesn't have the power. Recently, there was the issue of Bennett Remediation Services at a native Indian reserve in the valley. The Ministry of Environment did not have the authority to go onto that land. Therefore what we are doing at two levels -- both within this bill, with the soil relocation agreement, and in the delicate negotiations and consultations between our government and the two aboriginal bodies that I outlined -- is addressing this issue with a view to resolving it. But at the present time we don't have that authority. That is a simple fact.

What we can do, though, and what has happened.... In various instances, bands have invited the Ministry of Environment to come onto aboriginal land in the province to work on a remediation issue with them. That has been very worthwhile where that has happened, and we seek to continue to work in that cooperative way to try and get that cooperative result.

[ Page 7246 ]

I've given a very straightforward answer: we don't have the authority. In accepting this amendment, we would be giving a unilateral definition and a decision that would set back the negotiation process. We need to be doing this step by step; we need to be doing the appropriate thing.

[3:45]

I have tried very hard to respect the concern that the hon. Liberal Environment critic has identified, but I believe that I have done a more than adequate job in outlining the reasons for taking the approach that we are taking on this. We are doing everything that we can humanly do in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to work with aboriginal people where there are contamination issues in their areas. But we must have permission from them in order to go onto their land. We continue to work with them. I believe that after these processes have come to an appropriate conclusion, we will have resolved many of these issues.

Hon. E. Cull: I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. E. Cull: On behalf of my colleague, the member for Kootenay and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I'd like to introduce 50 students from Highlands Elementary School in Cranbrook. They are accompanied by a number of adults and their teacher, Mr. Ron Tomicki.

G. Wilson: This is my last point on this amendment, because clearly we are going around in a circle. But it needs to be clarified.

I am fully cognizant of the Canadian constitution and the

definitions and distinctions within it on the authority of the province and the authority of the federal government. I understand completely that you cannot amend a bill that would essentially be counter to the Canadian constitution. I am also fully aware that the provincial government has a limited amount of jurisdiction with respect to authority over Indian land as defined in the Indian Act. I have that act in my hand. I've read it, and I understand the minister's concern.

Notwithstanding that concern, the point is that we are moving into a new jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction provides for a "third order of government." In that new jurisdiction a negotiation is being made on lands that are outside the lands currently determined as reserve lands in the Indian Act.

We in the Liberal opposition are suggesting that the government needs to amend this bill to make it very clear that the rules and regulations with respect to hazardous waste management, the Waste Management Amendment Act and the amendment here -- toxic sites, relocation of toxic material, the application and determination of contaminated sites and how we deal with those sites -- should apply equally and fairly to all British Columbians.

We're saying that this government should take pre-emptive action in those negotiations to make sure that in any final negotiation, no jurisdiction is created or determined within the province of British Columbia. Right now the third order of government isn't even constitutionally defined, as the minister knows; that's what last October was all about.

We have to start putting in place a regulation that simply includes in the definition the first nations as a part of government structures, so that the provincial government, the federal government and any other jurisdiction -- however it is determined by the first nations of this province -- are equally bound with respect to waste management. It's a simple, intelligent and proper amendment to make. I recognize that the minister may have a difficult time with enforcement in the initial stages. That question needs to be looked at, and we can deal with it in subsequent amendments if necessary.

Clearly the definition of first nation and first nation involvement in the question of environmental assessment is included in Bill 32 because the minister is fully aware that the policies of his government are creating a third or new jurisdiction in this province, which is essentially first nations administration.

We have to make sure that both first nations peoples and non-first nations people are fairly, adequately and properly treated in legislation coming out of this House, because it could be many years before that new system is finally in place. That's what we're attempting to do, and we believe that this amendment can accomplish it.

Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, where Bill 32 refers to first nations, it is referring to a review process and to participation in that process. This bill is land-specific, so it's an apples-and-oranges argument.

The hon. member referred to the third jurisdiction. We are moving towards the definition of a third jurisdiction and towards having it included in government statutes. We're not there yet. We will do that in due course. The hon. member made the point: how can we be discriminating...? The fact that we have this generic process that I've referred to, which is a soil relocation agreement.... As a generic process it treats all people equally, with the proviso that I identified a moment ago relating to the jurisdiction that we do not have on aboriginal reserve lands.

J. Tyabji: Just a last very brief point about this amendment. Throughout this bill there are references to government bodies, and that includes federal, provincial and municipal. What we were trying to do was to introduce into that definition the recognition of a fact. We already know that the first nations are one of the orders of government.

When we get to some of the sections, such as the one on immunity and the ones with regard to responsibility, highway rights-of-way and those kinds of things as they pertain to a government body, we know that this ministry is going to be regulating federal government jurisdiction. We know that this ministry will be regulating other jurisdictions. To accept these amendments would simply be to recognize the fact that first nations government is already one order of government.

The Chair: There are two amendments to

section 20.1 before the House. The first one is on the definition

[ Page 7247 ]

of "government body," and the second one is contingent on that passing or failing.

I'll read out the amendment: "'government body' means a federal, provincial or municipal body or first nation, including an agency or ministry of the Crown in right of Canada or British Columbia or an agency of a municipality or agency of a first nation."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 6

Dalton

Wilson

Symons

Tanner

Anderson

Tyabji

NAYS -- 39

Petter

Priddy

Edwards

Cashore

Barlee

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Conroy

Miller

Smallwood

Hagen

Gabelmann

Sihota

Clark

Cull

Zirnhelt

Barnes

MacPhail

B. Jones

Lovick

Ramsey

Pullinger

Evans

Doyle

Streifel

Lord

Randall

Simpson

Serwa

Weisgerber

Hanson

De Jong

Janssen

Neufeld

The Chair: I'm going to call the question on the second amendment. I've been asked to read it, so I will read it for the record. The second amendment is: "`first nation' means an aboriginal governing body, however organized and established by aboriginal people, within their traditional territory in British Columbia."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[4:00]

YEAS -- 6

Dalton

Wilson

Symons

Tanner

Anderson

Tyabji

NAYS -- 39

Petter

Priddy

Edwards

Cashore

Barlee

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Conroy

Miller

Smallwood

Hagen

Gabelmann

Sihota

Clark

Cull

Zirnhelt

Barnes

MacPhail

B. Jones

Lovick

Ramsey

Pullinger

Evans

Doyle

Streifel

Lord

Randall

Simpson

Janssen

De Jong

Neufeld

Serwa

Weisgerber

Hanson

F. Jackson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Jackson: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine who is here working with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Ms. Christine Casimir. I would ask the House to make her welcome.

section 20.1 as amended.

J. Tyabji: In the definition

section of the amendment we have passed we've got the amended

definitions of "operator" and "owner." The opposition is a little bit concerned about and would like some clarification on, the definition of "operator." Does it include a labourer or an employee -- someone who is neither an owner nor an operator under the Waste Management Act?

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to ask the Chair for clarification. It's my understanding that we are debating

section 20.1 as amended; that an amendment was passed at the beginning of the debate on

section 20.1, which is the amendment standing in my name on the order paper; and that that amendment included this

section that this proposed amendment now seeks to amend. I'm seeking direction from the Chair with regard to whether or not this amendment to a

section that has been approved is in order.

The Chair: There's no amendment on the floor yet, hon. minister. The member continues.

J. Tyabji: For the clarification of the minister: although he has been provided in advance with an amendment that we're proposing, if in our questioning we get the answers we're looking for, we may not move the amendment. That is why I've asked a question on that

section as amended. The question is: does the definition of "operator" and/or "owner" -- but most particularly "operator" -- include an employee or labourer who may be acting on instruction?

Hon. J. Cashore: As a general principle, this does not encompass employees.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister then point out to me where in this bill there is a reference that says the definition of "operator" does not include an employee? I haven't seen it in my reading of the bill.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a very basic common law notion, and it's implied by the common law.

J. Tyabji: I know that when we were debating Bill 84 in the fall, we did make a distinction between an operator, an employee and a labourer. There were different classes of managers versus employees. Knowing that this government has moved toward more plain language legislation, I'm concerned that I don't see in my reading of "operator" that it doesn't include employees. If the minister will give me his assurance that it doesn't, I won't move the amendment.

[ Page 7248 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a principle of common law that the legal company on the site is held liable. It is not the employees; it is the company that is held liable. That is a legal principle in common law.

J. Tyabji: Under the amended section, then, there's a new subsection added that says, "A government body is not an operator only as a result of...." and there are (a), (b), (c). Why did the minister choose to refer to "government body" rather than "person"? We'll deal with the definition of person later, but under this section, why is it only a government body that is excluded?

Hon. J. Cashore: Those words were taken out of the original definition of "operator" and moved down there for clarification.

J. Tyabji: I don't think that that could be possible, because what I'm talking about here -- and maybe I haven't been clear -- is under the amended

section 20.1(

c) under "operator," where we've got "...a government body is not an operator only as a result of (

a) exercising regulatory authority with respect to a contaminated site" -- I can understand that's a government body -- "(

b) carrying out remediation at a contaminated site, or (

c) providing advice or information with respect to a contaminated site...."

Why I'm asking is that if it's a person -- as this bill is defining person -- who ends up in the position of being in the process of remediation of that site, you don't want that person to incur further liability by being considered an operator. I'm just wondering why it would only be a government body that would be excluded from incurring extra liability.

Hon. J. Cashore: For the record, I give the hon. member my assurance that that won't happen. That cannot happen, because of the provisions of the common law, and it will not happen under this act.

J. Tyabji: Okay. I'll leave that for now.

I'd like to go to the original bill on the definition of "person." I think this may be a technical problem. I'm not sure how this happened, but you've got a circular definition here that doesn't work, because within the definition of "person," you refer to person.

For example, if we wanted to put this in an algebraic equation and you let person equal X, you've got X equalling X, and it doesn't make any sense. You've got "`person' includes a government body and any director, officer, employee or agent of a person or government body." That doesn't work. Beyond that, I don't know how it deals with individuals. Could the minister clarify that for me, because that definition doesn't seem to work in terms of addressing the needs of the definition of person in the rest of the bill, at least not in the way that I've read it.

Hon. J. Cashore: This is fairly standard in

definitions. For this definition it is broadly construed. The hon. member said that this does not serve the definition where the term shows up in the other parts of the bill. While I realize we should not be getting into future sections, I wonder if she might be able to share an example as to how that is the impact.

J. Tyabji: Of course, we don't have the regulations to go with this bill. But if we assume that the person who might be incurring the liability, for example, might be a farmer.... I don't know how a farmer fits into government body, director, officer, employee or agent of a person -- person, being a circular definition, goes back to the beginning -- or government body. I don't know how that fits into the bill. It seems to me to be a bit of a technical problem.

Hon. J. Cashore: This is commonsense language in the basic use of the word "person." Therefore the definition does not exclude the dictionary definition of the term "person." This clarifies some aspects of a definition that need to be clarified for the purpose of this bill, but it does not identify the dictionary definition as not applying. The common definition still applies.

J. Tyabji: I do understand that this doesn't preclude the definition in the dictionary, because it says that person includes these things. However, it doesn't go any further, and it also doesn't make any reference to an individual who may be liable. Because there's no reference to an individual being liable, it seems to me that for the purposes of the bill you want to at least state that "person" is defined otherwise.

From my perspective I'm trying to save the ministry some money in terms of legal fees. I can see a lawyer standing up and saying: "Well, you didn't include individual in your definition of `person'." Although it doesn't preclude that.... I'm sure the minister understands what I'm saying.

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't have a dictionary in front of me, but I would say an individual is included in a dictionary definition of the term "person." As I said before, this definition does not deny the definition that you would find in a common-usage dictionary; it simply adds to it.

J. Tyabji: I think that the ministry would be well advised to amend that before the end of the bill. I stated that it doesn't preclude the dictionary definition, but the way it's defined here is a bit problematic -- particularly because you have a circular definition where the word being defined is included in the definition. I'm just pointing that out. I know one of our members has run off to get his dictionary. Maybe he can help the minister out with that.

I would say that you've got enough legislative drafters in the Ministry of Environment that you might want to tidy that up a little bit. It doesn't do anyone any good to leave something like that vague enough that somebody can argue about it.

Hon. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister about the definition of a "secured creditor," which is defined as "a person who holds a mortgage, charge, debenture, hypothecation or other security interest in property at a

[ Page 7249 ]

contaminated site, and includes an agent for such a person." We were in the midst of a very complicated discussion with regard to the role of the first nations in the government body. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was talking about joint stewardship arrangements. Would, as this minister has mentioned in the past, the first nations be recognized as a secured creditor in the event of industry getting into a joint stewardship arrangement on a site that may turn out to be contaminated?

Hon. J. Cashore: The definition of "secured creditor" is as stated within the bill. With regard to first nations persons, it would only be insofar as the definition found within the bill applies. Therefore we do not seek a definition that goes beyond this one.

J. Tyabji: I don't know that the minister answered the question. I'm trying to find some clarification of the role of first nations. Is this an area where they would be recognized as a "secured creditor," and how then would the ministry deal with the first nations in the event that they did fit the definition of "secured creditor," in terms of dealing with potential financial liability?

Hon. J. Cashore: If a first nation holds a mortgage, then they would fit into the definition of a "secured creditor."

[4:15]

G. Wilson: Actually, that last response elicited a question. One can argue -- and I imagine the first nations people would argue one way and there would be others who would argue to the contrary -- that if the land is under claim and there is an agreement on joint stewardship, then, essentially, that negotiation process may constitute a right or claim to some form of credit against the resources that can be extracted from the land. I assume that some form of ownership or even a lien against the property currently under development could be extrapolated. I wonder what the minister's opinion is of that situation.

While there may not be a mortgage in the classic legal sense of the term as it exists in the statutes, clearly it may be advanced as though, in a joint stewardship arrangement, first nations were deemed to be in a creditor position without actually having the formal paper on fee simple title.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a giant leap of logic to suggest that a land claim is tantamount to a charge. That is simply too far-fetched. With regard to this issue, as we said during an earlier debate, there are some very important negotiations going on between this government and the two representative groups of first nations people. The questions that they're asking with regard to these issues will be dealt with through that process.

Section 20.1 as amended approved.

section 20.11.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, on

section 20.11, I move an amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

This amendment clarifies the scope of application of the legislation in two respects. First of all, a site profile pertains only to information which is known or reasonably should be known to the person with the duty to provide a site profile. Secondly, site profiles will only pertain to industrial and commercial properties. Site profiles will not be required in applications for building permits or temporary commercial or industrial permits.

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: I notice that in the amendment, we have a real emphasis on industrial and commercial activity. Does this include agricultural activity? If so, under which of the two

definitions?

Hon. J. Cashore: In most cases the answer is no, it won't include the land referred to by the member, but subject to the regulations, there could be some instances where there could be an inclusion.

J. Tyabji: So depending on the regulations, some agricultural land or businesses will fall under this definition. Will they be perceived as industrial or commercial?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's one category: industrial and commercial.

J. Tyabji: In the first part of the bill this morning, we spent a considerable amount of time talking about the remediation plan having to deal with a site profile for the receiving site. I would like to at least raise the point that under

section 20.11(1)(b), we've got all of these sections that refer to.... For example,

section 20.11(1)(b)(iii) says: "removal of soil from property that the person knows or reasonably should know is or was used for industrial and commercial activity," and

section 20.11(1)(b)(iv) says: "a demolition permit respecting a structure that the person knows or reasonably should know is or was used for industrial or commercial activity...." Just as we asked in the very first section, what is going to happen to the soil or structure that has been removed? Where is that allowed for in the legislation?

Hon. J. Cashore: There's a site investigation. If it's a bad enough case, remediation will have to take place.

J. Tyabji: It's not the remediation that I'm asking about; it's the receiving site or what happens to the soil or structure under sections 20.11(1)(b)(iii) and 20.11(1)(b)(iv) once they've been removed or demolished. What happens then? Is that going to be treated as regular landfill waste?

Hon. J. Cashore: The site profile is a very early and embryonic part of the process. It's really

[ Page 7250 ]

information-gathering. The detail the hon. member is getting into with regard to what happens in situations (a), (

b) and (

c) is covered in future sections.

C. Tanner: When the minister introduced this extensive, detailed bill on May 19, why did he bring in such extensive amendments just two or three weeks later? It is a little disheartening to this side of the House when we look at a bill that is complicated and important, and we see an entirely different and more intrusive set of

definitions just two weeks later. Could the minister explain how this came about?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, the question is out of order in that we're debating a specific portion of a

section of this bill. But the answer is that we said we would consult; we did consult. The amendments reflect the consultation.

C. Tanner: Could the minister indicate with whom the consultations took place? Mr. Minister, you've had a year and a half in office to put this bill together. It's an important bill; it's important to every member who lives in this province. It's a little flippant for the minister to hide behind the process of this House and not explain why he should suddenly bring all these heavy-duty amendments to a bill which he's worked on for a year.

The Chair: We're kind of strained, hon. member, but the minister is on his feet to answer. But keep the questions specific to the section.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Urban Development Institute, the Bankers' Association, the West Coast Environmental Law Association and many others.

Amendment approved.

section 20.11 as amended.

J. Tyabji: In

section 20.11(3), we've got: "Subject to the regulations, an owner under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act shall provide a site profile to a division head where the owner applies for a certificate of restoration respecting a well, test hole or production facility in accordance with

section 96 of that Act." The division head is from Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. How does that bridge with the Ministry of Environment? To what extent is the Ministry of Environment monitoring that, and what is the mechanism for it?

Hon. J. Cashore: We're having an initial assessment by officials in that ministry to enable an appropriate interface between the two agencies of government.

J. Tyabji: In my reading of the bill, I don't see what the mechanism is. I understand the preliminary investigation is done by the division head of the other ministry. What is the mechanism for bringing it to this ministry, and how does it occur? How does the Ministry of Environment receive the site profile from the owner under EMPR?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is in

section 20.11(5):

"A municipality, approving officer, division head or district inspection shall (

a) assess a site profile received under subsections (1), (2), (3) or (4) in accordance with the regulations, (

b) if the assessment of the site profile under paragraph (

a) indicates that a manager should review the site profile to determine if a site investigation is required, forward a copy of the site profile to the manager, and ((

c) forward a copy of the site profile to any other person specified in the regulations." That encompasses it.

J. Tyabji: No, it doesn't. That doesn't tell us at all how it gets from Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to the Environment ministry, because we've got a division head.... I might as well go to

section 20.11(4) as well, where we have a district inspector getting the agent or manager of the owner providing a site profile to the district inspector. Is the minister telling me that when they talk about the regulations under

section 20.11(5) that "any other person specified in the regulations" is therefore the Ministry of Environment? Is that correct? Or are we looking at regional managers when they talk about a site profile to a manager?

Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps I can clarify this. If the hon. member would refer to the last line of

section (b), there is a reference to forwarding a copy of the site profile to a manager. A manager is an official within the Ministry of Environment.

J. Tyabji: If the site profile is forwarded to the manager, in what way does that become something that...? We've got the site registry later on and the ministry is involved in that respect. What can we expect from the regulations in monitoring that? Is there an assessment process? Are we looking at regional managers there? Which manager is that?

Hon. J. Cashore: It is the regional manager, and it is the term as defined in the act. The answer to part of the question is in the

definitions. Some of the questions the hon. member is asking would be answered more appropriately in subsequent sections of this act.

J. Tyabji: If we can assume that site profiles are being compiled around the province which are going to division heads or district inspectors of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and those site profiles are being referred to the regional manager, where is the funnelling of those site profiles? At what point do the regional managers coordinate their site profiles and pass them onto the main officer? How does the administration coordinate?

Hon. J. Cashore: They have the statutory authority to make that decision in reviewing the site profile. In their professional judgment, when that work has been completed, it is forwarded.

[ Page 7251 ]

J. Tyabji: Will there be an automatic forwarding at some point in the site profiles? Later in the bill we talk about the site registries, and I am assuming in the later canvassing of the bill that the site registries will be compiling all the regional information on site profiles. Is that correct? Is that mandatory, or is that at the discretion of the regional managers?

[4:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

J. Tyabji: Under subsection (6): "A municipality, approving officer, division head or district inspector may impose reasonable fees for an assessment under subsection 5(a)." Subsection 5(

a) states that there might be an assessment of a site profile received in accordance with the regulations. Are the coming regulations going to define what a reasonable fee is? How thorough an assessment will be done? Is that also going to be coming in the regulations? The reason I'm asking is that if you have a potential investor who is looking at a site, to what extent are they going to be encumbered by subsection (6)?

Hon. J. Cashore: The fee

schedule will be set in the regulations. I would point out that this is a very pro forma and embryonic phase of the process. Site profiles are not expected to be highly complex, lengthy documents.

J. Tyabji: On the following page, under subsection (8):

"A trustee, receiver and liquidator or a person commencing foreclosure proceedings, who takes possession or control of real property for the benefit of one of more creditors, shall provide a site profile to the manager immediately on taking possession or control, if the real property has been used for (

a) an industrial, commercial purpose, or (

b) a purpose or activity prescribed by the regulations."

Under the list of people who have to provide a site profile, how will they...? If someone inherited a piece of land, ended up with title to a piece of land, or if there were foreclosure proceedings, I'm assuming that the ministry.... Does the ministry initiate the contact or communication indicating to them that a site profile is necessary? If someone inherits a piece of land, how will they know that a site profile is necessary? How will they know that by law this is something they're supposed to follow up with?

Hon. J. Cashore: Inheritance is not one of the triggers that would bring this process into effect.

J. Tyabji: I don't know how a receiver of land is defined. I assume that someone who inherits land is therefore a receiver of land. If a trustee or a receiver ends up with title to a piece of land, how will they know that they're supposed to perform a site profile on that land, particularly if the status quo is retained? How does that work?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think there's a misunderstanding with regard to the definition of "receiver." It refers to a person who has been assigned the role of receiving, following on liquidator. It's in that genre of terms. It doesn't mean somebody who has received an inheritance. When we get into the exemptions section, the point that the hon. member is concerned about will be dealt with, and it will be made clear that the scenario she is describing will not be encompassed in this net.

J. Tyabji: As I say, it is very difficult to canvass this bill in the absence of the regulations.

Section 2, 20.11(10) states: "If a manager orders the preparation of a site profile respecting land that is subsequently determined not to be a contaminated site, the manager is not liable for any costs incurred by a person in preparing the site profile." I understand that the government would want to do this, but the other side of the coin is that a manager could unreasonably ask for site profiles at considerable expense to the person being asked. Is this something that will be addressed very thoroughly in the regulations?

Hon. J. Cashore: A site profile is a pro forma process that should take only a very few minutes to complete, so I don't think we're dealing here with an issue where whopping amounts are concerned.

J. Tyabji: Is a significant amount of the regulation going to outline the site profiles in more detail? Is it something that will be well defined?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

J. Tyabji: This might also come up with the regulations, but I'm a little concerned about what triggers the request for a site profile. If you look at 20.11(11), it says: "Except for the duty of a vendor to provide a site profile to a prospective purchaser under subsection (7), the duty to provide a site profile does not apply if a person...." and then it lists them. How do we know that we understand when a site profile is required and when it isn't? Is it mainly at the discretion of the manager with a few exceptions?

Hon. J. Cashore: The triggers are all outlined in

section 20.11. It's all spelled out. That's the purpose of the section. I think it's very clear.

J. Tyabji: Under

section 20.2, is there going to be some auditing mechanism by the Ministry of Environment in the regulations to keep track of how many site profiles are being initiated and requested, and is there going to be some kind of...?

Hon. J. Cashore: On a point of order, hon. Chair. For the efficiency of our discussion we are seeking to approve one portion of

section 20 at a time, and I don't think we've voted yet on

section 20.11 as amended. We need to do that for clarity and to keep ourselves organized on this section. So if the hon. member is ready to move onto

section 20.2, I would suggest we first of all vote on 20.11 as amended.

[ Page 7252 ]

The Chair: Your point is well taken.

Section 20.11 as amended approved.

section 20.2.

J. Tyabji: I go back to the question with regard to some kind of internal auditing process on the activities of the site profiles and whether or not the managers will be providing some statistics to the central administrative office of the Ministry of Environment so that the minister will understand how much monitoring is going on. Is there going to be a reporting process to government on this? I hope that the minister is not trying to trivialize the role of the site profiles by saying that it's a pro forma process. We know that it's going to require some cost on behalf of the public.

When you look at farmers and some of the people who might have a low ability to pay for a site profile, I think there should be some internal monitoring and perhaps an internal audit on site investigations or profiles.

Hon. J. Cashore:

Section 20.21, which is forthcoming, deals with the site registry. So the question the hon. member is raising is dealt with within the bill. It is a pro forma that is registered. If the question is on the issue of monitoring, certainly the registry facilitates monitoring in the sense that it is available.

J. Tyabji: I happen to disagree, but we can deal with it in the next

section if the minister would like.

I find it interesting that the minister keeps downplaying the cost of a site profile, yet in

section 20.2(2) we again have a reference to the fact that if the manager orders the preliminary site investigation, the manager is not liable for any costs incurred to have the investigation and the related report, just like the site profiles. That's why I think there should be some accountability on the other side with regard to how many times the manager is requesting these profiles. If there's a discrepancy in one region as opposed to another, it might be reasonable to assume that someone is being a bit overzealous in their requests for site investigations or profiles.

Is that something the ministry is considering? To what extent are they expecting people to be asking that their costs be incurred by the regional managers?

Hon. J. Cashore: Technically we should not be debating site profiles in this section, since that was dealt with in the previous section. This is the

section on site investigations. The hon. member should understand that we have now made the transition in this bill from site profiles to site investigations.

However, for clarity, I would reiterate that site profiles are a very preliminary stage, and they are not costly. The very purpose of site profiles is to avoid cost, so that it can be dealt with at a very preliminary level. If there's a need to move on to the process, having received a site profile -- in a sense as an early warning that contamination might exist -- there is a need to ascertain whether or not it is warranted to require a more detailed investigation. So in the determination of the transition between site profile and site investigation, the manager has to have adequate authority, where warranted, to require that more detailed investigation. That is what this

section is about.

J. Tyabji: I referred back to the site profiles as another example. But 20.2(2) states that if a manager orders a preliminary site investigation or a detailed site investigation and it's subsequently determined that it's not a contaminated site, the manager is not liable. That's almost identical to the clause referring to site profiles and a manager's liability. There should be an accountability process for the manager as well, so that the public feels some safety in the fact that there's not going to be an unreasonable number of site investigations or profiles ordered.

I will stop talking about site profiles, because we've moved on. But it's the same principle -- the point being that there should be some way of monitoring what the regional managers are doing, so that there isn't a feeling on the part of the regional managers that they can continue to order site investigations. We know that in the past there has been a preference by the government to err on the side of caution, at the expense of the taxpayers. So you could have somebody being dinged with a bill that was incurred unnecessarily.

Although it is reasonable that you want to be somewhat cautious, there could be some regional managers who are a bit overzealous, as I said before. They could be taking things to an extreme.

Where is the safety net for the public so that they won't be overburdened with site investigations and/or site profiles by the regional managers? Where is the accountability mechanism?

Hon. J. Cashore: There are two things. First of all, constraints will be built into the parameters of what the manager may do, and those constraints will be built in in regulations. Elsewhere in the act there is an appeal provision whereby, if an individual feels the manager ruled unfairly, that would also be an opportunity for appeal.

J. Tyabji: For the record, I would just like to say that if the site has been proven, on technical basis, not to be contaminated, it has little to do with whether or not the manager ruled unfairly. The manager may have acted in good faith but was overzealous. Anyway, that's enough said on that.

[4:45]

Section 20.2 is another

section for which we will be need the regulations in order to understand the implications of this bill for the public. I have no more questions on this section.

L. Fox: In entering into the debate on this section, I must say that I'm sure the legal profession is going to be extremely pleased that this document has come forward.

As I understand

section 20.2, this would only would apply if a site profile investigation identified that a further process was needed. My only real concern

[ Page 7253 ]

with this particular

section is that if I, as an innocent party, had purchased a piece a land, and because of my application to develop it a site profile indicated that there had been some contaminants there, this

section of the bill really leaves it up to me to meet the costs of the investigation process. My only option would be to initiate a civil action against the individual responsible for contaminating that site, which could be extremely difficult, depending on the circumstances. Perhaps the minister would want to respond to that.

Hon. J. Cashore: That's an excellent question; it helps to clarify the process of the bill. The process is -- and again, it's consistent with this kind of legislation in a number of other jurisdictions, which we find is working well -- that you cast the net broadly and then later on you bring in exemptions. That is not in regulations; it is in the act. There is an exemption for innocent purchasers, with regard to the example the hon. member used, in

section 20.4 (1)(d). It might be interesting to read that

section in tandem with some of the concerns that are raised where it appears the net is cast too broadly. The purpose of the exemptions is to protect the innocent. It's a very valid concern the hon. member raises, and it is contained within the legislation.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Section 20.2 approved.

section 20.21.

J. Tyabji: One question that was brought up in second reading and that we have also talked about a little in the estimates is the coordination of mapping and the inventory of lands under Environment, Lands and Parks. We have the site registry here. I'm hoping that the site registry will be cross-referenced with existing Crown lands, that there will be some kind of overlapping grid, and that there will at any rate be indications of regional mapping, including contaminated sites, site investigations or the process that has been covered under 20.2. Is that the case? Will there be cross-referencing with Crown lands?

Hon. J. Cashore: The short answer is yes. Discussions are underway with the people who operate the land title system in order to facilitate that cross-referencing in the best way.

J. Tyabji: That's very encouraging, and that's a big plus. I'm not sure how to visualize the site registry. Is the site registry going to be some kind of GIS mapping system as well?

Hon. J. Cashore: It could eventually be. That technology is not in place yet, but that could actually be the way that it emerges in time.

J. Tyabji: That's also very encouraging. I hope that there will be proper cross-referencing on the new mapping system.

With regard to the regional managers' inventory of site profiles and site investigations, I'm assuming that all of these will be sent to a central registry. Will there also be regional registries, and are these going to be computer-based registries that will be modemed into a central location?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

J. Tyabji: Will an information system be networked with other levels of government so that they can access the same information?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to the question is yes. To another question that could be asked -- will the public have access? -- the answer is yes.

J. Tyabji: I was going to get to that a little bit later. But I have to say for the record that I'm really happy to hear that there is going to be information cross-referencing, especially with other levels of government, because information on contaminated sites is going to be critical for the other levels of government in trying to keep an inventory when we deal with clean water and clean air -- things that are coming on later.

I was asking the minister about audits of the site investigations and site profiles that are asked for by the regional managers. Is there going to be some kind of statistical monitoring of how many investigations and/or profiles are requested and how many of them subsequently prove to be contaminated sites? Most specifically, will that statistical monitoring be done on a regional basis per manager?

Hon. J. Cashore: The system would be able to produce that kind of information. But the specific answer to what the hon. member is suggesting is not implicit within the act. The system could facilitate that happening at some future date, but we are not saying that that will happen by virtue of this act. I would say, however, that it's an intriguing point the hon. member raises. I think that such information could have value, and I would certainly look at that with careful consideration. It's a thoughtful point.

J. Tyabji: For the public's sake, I hope there will be some kind of audit and monitoring in the regulations. In

section 20.21(5), we see that there will be "reasonable public access to information," and, quite reasonably of course, there will be some fees. I'm assuming that those will be nominal fees just to cover the costs of receiving the information. We'll have to wait until the regulations come out.

In what way will the public have access to this information? Will there be computer terminals at regional environmental offices? Will they be at the public library? If the minister is saying that local levels of government will have access to this information, will it be through computers? What I'm visualizing is a situation where computer terminals in post-secondary institutions can access the site registry.

[ Page 7254 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, this will be very accessible. One of the very positive aspects of this bill is the access-to-information part. I'm pleased to hear the hon. member affirm that that is a worthwhile part of this bill. Certainly those are good suggestions. It will be accessible through access centres, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks offices and wherever there is the ability to gain access through modems and other such processes.

J. Tyabji: My last comment on that

section is that I would hope that the ministry would use the same computer network process for land use gridding when it comes to Crown lands and the designation of land throughout the province. Obviously that's beyond the scope of this bill, but since we were on that, I just wanted to make that one comment. That's it for that section.

L. Fox: I have one or two questions with respect to process. I'm sure the minister will concur that once a piece of land is identified as a contaminated site, it will obviously devalue substantially. So one has to be a bit concerned about error in the process which puts it into the registry. Before I ask any further questions, perhaps the minister might want to enlighten us on the kinds of measures that would be in place to eliminate the possibility of error.

Hon. J. Cashore: The process that is being referred to here is covered under

section 20.3. It might be better to canvass that concern at that time. But with regard to the concern about error, if he would glance at 20.3, he would realize that that is addressed there.

Sectio