1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 5

[ Page 7311 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Tej Kainth, who is a student at New Westminster Secondary School. She is job-shadowing me for the day to see what the life of a politician is like, as well as other jobs related to politics in this Legislature. She is from a family which are neighbours of mine -- the Kainth family. They live on Dublin Street in New Westminster. I understand that she is about to be acclaimed as the president of the student council at New Westminster Secondary School next week or next month. Will the House join me in making her welcome.

G. Campbell: I have heard today that Tong Louie, a well-known British Columbian -- and someone who has contributed greatly to our community, to our province and to our country -- has passed away. I am sure that you will know, hon. Speaker, that Mr. Louie was the recipient of the Order of Canada, and a recipient of the Order of British Columbia. He was involved in numerous volunteer activities, from higher education and community activities to the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Sun Yat-sen Garden. He was a real citizen and made a huge contribution to our province. I would ask that the Speaker send the condolences of the House to his family in appreciation of his years of public service.

The Speaker: I'd be happy to do that, hon. member. I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I say thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for bringing forward recognition of the passing of a very important Canadian citizen, Tong Louie. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined his numerous accomplishments, for which we will greatly miss him. But he also had a wonderful sense of humour and a very great joy about him, and an inclusiveness.

The last time I was with Tong Louie -- as people may know, he was the owner of London Drugs -- we were doing a dedication and he said to me: "Joy, make sure you tell them that they can get one-hour photo processing." He said that as a joke as we were having our picture taken together. His sense of humour, his vibrancy, will be greatly missed, and we would join with the Leader of the Opposition in asking you, hon. Speaker, to bring our condolences to his family.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I will be delighted to do that on behalf of all Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the pleasure today to introduce eight lawyers from the Ministry of Attorney General. I understand they are being coached by the Law Clerk, Mr. Izard, on the parliamentary system and how this House functions. He actually ordered me to do the introduction, so here it is; here are the names. The lawyers are: Nancy Brown, Louise Carvalho, Lone Erikson, Lauren Knoblauch, Katherine LeReverend, Jean Walters and Brian Young, and a co-op student, Nan Aulakh. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: In the gallery today we have seven community leaders from the Sea to Sky corridor: the mayor of Squamish, Corinne Lonsdale; the chair of the Squamish regional district, Susie Gimse; the mayor of Pemberton, Cathy McLeod; the mayor of Whistler, Hugh O'Reilly; the chamber's past president, Ron Anderson; and Wendy Magee, who is the manager of the chamber in Squamish. Mayor Broughton is there as well, I believe. I can't see her from here. Oh, there she is. I would like to ask the members to make this group welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House today two very special people in my life. Watching from the gallery up there are my daughter, Marlise, and her husband, David. They were married in the Legislature a little over a year ago, in the Ned DeBeck Lounge. I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Joining us today in the Legislature is my constituency assistant, Tina Bains. She is here on a course, and I would be pleased if the House would make her welcome.

J. Smallwood: Joining us in the House today is one of the people that care very much about education in Surrey, Mr. Jim Chisholm. He is a school trustee. I would ask everyone to join in making him welcome.

G. Hogg: It's my pleasure to introduce and welcome two residents of Surrey-White Rock who are in the precincts to receive their 25-year certificates for service to this province. Victoria Green has been a probation officer in this province for 25 years. Her partner, Bill Ellis, is the local director of the disordered offenders unit in Vancouver. I wish the House to make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I ask the House to help me welcome 55 grade 11 students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Vancouver. They are here for a visit to find out about our great decorum and the manners we have for each other.

Hon. C. Evans: On a tour of farms a couple of weeks ago in the Okanagan I was pleased to meet a peach- and cherry-grower named David Tauzer, who has come down here to see how politics work. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Robertson: With us in the precincts this afternoon is Chloe Burgess, my constituency assistant. Chloe is down taking courses in Victoria. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome.

B. Penner: Today I have the honour of introducing my staunchest supporter and most reliable volunteer worker. This person is also the father of three of my nieces and my little but very energetic nephew. It's my privilege today to introduce my brother, Reg Penner, who is in Victoria today to check up on his little brother. Would the House please make him welcome.

[ Page 7312 ]

Oral Questions

MEETING OF PREMIER'S PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY WITH ALC CHAIR

G. Campbell: Last week in the House, in response to a question with regard to interference in the Six Mile Ranch project, the Premier answered: "I have no idea whether my principal secretary engaged in discussions with Kirk Miller around this or any other matters." Yet yesterday the Premier admitted that he had in fact set up a meeting between his principal secretary and Kirk Miller to discuss precisely that.

My question is to the Premier: how can he deny that he knew anything about a meeting between his principal secretary and the chairman of the ALC to discuss Six Mile Ranch, when he set the meeting up?

[2:15]

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, the member once again erroneously gets his information from the Vancouver Sun , which is always very dangerous. If he looks at the Blues , he'll confirm that I said that I can't "confirm or deny" whether Adrian Dix met with Kirk Miller.

In recollection, what happened was that at the helijet one day, Mr. Miller was sitting next to me and said that we should get together to talk about the issue. It wasn't before the commission at that time, I don't believe. I said, "Phone Adrian Dix," which subsequently led to -- I gather -- a meeting.

It is a very minor point. We're not worried about it at all. We have been completely transparent on this. I would just remind the members opposite -- again -- that we've been completely transparent about the issue of Six Mile Ranch. We hired Murray Rankin. We put in the press release: " . . . to work with the Land Commission and the developer to try to make this project work within the confines of the Land Commission." We subsequently . . . . We know the opposition at that time said that we should invoke provincial interest. We were considering it.

The minister then did the due diligence to proceed with a public inquiry around this issue by the appointment of Mr. Perry to look into the question of Six Mile Ranch.

It's all transparent; it's all available. We're interested in pursuing this development. We think it works. We think it creates jobs in Kamloops, hon. member. We think the members opposite should be consistent. I say specifically to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson that he should rise up and defend this project.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his first supplementary.

G. Campbell: It may be dangerous to get your information from the Vancouver Sun ; it's far more dangerous to get your information from this Premier. This Premier said explicitly -- and I quote Hansard for this Premier's information: "I have no idea whether my principal secretary discussed it with the Land Commission. I have no idea." Yet the Premier himself set up the meeting between Mr. Miller and his principal secretary. Can the Premier explain why, after setting up a meeting between his principal secretary and Mr. Miller, he had no idea whether a meeting took place?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Mr. Premier, don't begin, if you please, until order has been restored.

Hon. G. Clark: The member opposite or others can try to read much into this, but every day or every couple of days I'm on the helijet. People sit next to me, and they discuss questions all the time. I quite often say: "Please phone my staff" -- on various subjects that come up. I did it in this case. I certainly had no recollection at the time that I rose in the House. I went on and answered the question by saying that I couldn't confirm or deny it. My principal secretary meets with people all the time. I don't keep track of all of his issues.

This is an important issue. We've handled it aboveboard. It has been completely transparent. I know the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has a loud voice. Please use it to defend the Kamloops project.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his second supplementary.

G. Campbell: The member for Kamloops-North Thompson does have a loud voice, and he will always use it to call for the truth.

Three times in this House the Premier denied any knowledge of a meeting that he arranged and set up. After his own office set guidelines to say that no one should interfere with quasi-judicial processes, the Premier goes and sets up a meeting between his chief political adviser and the chair of the Land Commission. Why would the Premier deny that he knew anything about a meeting that the Premier set up?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I know they're trying to make much of this, but I didn't know a meeting had actually taken place at the time the question was raised. These things happen all the time -- every day, dozens of times a day. The issue of having meetings and discussing it . . . .

I want to be clear once again that the act that we brought in, which prohibited cabinet appeals, gave cabinet the power to declare something in the provincial interest. We were clearly considering that. It was entirely appropriate to discuss with the principal author of the legislation, Mr. Miller, how and when we would go about doing that. I thought members opposite were in favour of that. I know the member for Kamloops-North Thompson wrote specifically to say that we should declare this in the provincial interest. He has a loud voice, but I can't hear it.

Let's hear the member for Kamloops-North Thompson defend what we're trying to do, which is create jobs in Kamloops, instead of trying to go on this wild-goose hunt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, what the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has done time and time and time again is defend his community and defend this project -- within the law. I know that's difficult for the Premier to understand.

The Premier's chief political operative had a meeting that was set up by the Premier with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission to discuss the Six Mile project. Can the Premier tell us how many times Adrian Dix met with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission? And when did he report his findings back to the Premier? It has now been a week. Do you have that information for us?

[ Page 7313 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I have no idea, hon. Speaker. All I can do is . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: This is very dangerous, hon. Speaker, because I'm getting my information from the newspaper. But I read in the newspaper that the chair of the Land Commission indicated that he met with Mr. Dix and that there was a discussion about provincial interest. He did not feel any pressure at all with respect to that meeting. Again, I'm being careful, because I'm reading what was in the newspaper. But that was my understanding, so I have no problem with that at all. Clearly it's appropriate for my staff or the staff of the government or of the Minister of Agriculture to canvass this issue fully and to proceed with invoking a

section of the act which heretofore had not been invoked.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on his first supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the Premier set up the meeting. The Premier has had a week since his first denial to find out how many times Adrian Dix met with the commission and what was done about it. He doesn't need to get his information from the newspaper; all he has to do is talk to his chief political operative. That's what he should be doing.

The Speaker: And your question?

G. Farrell-Collins: What the Premier doesn't get is this . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question is required.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll be there well within the same time as the Premier takes to answer the question, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. member, one moment, please. Would you take your seat for a minute. All members are aware of the many rules around question period. First and second supplementaries are to have very limited

preambles. I know the member knows that, and I just remind the member of that point and ask him to produce his question. Proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, when David Poole spoke, people knew it was Bill Vander Zalm talking. When Adrian Dix speaks to the Agricultural Land Commission, they know it's the Premier speaking. Will the Premier tell us how many times Adrian Dix met with the commissioner, what was said, and when he reported back to the Premier?

Hon. G. Clark: I know that the Leader of the Opposition nominated Mr. Vander Zalm to be mayor of Vancouver, but I find it insulting that he would compare David Poole and Bill Vander Zalm to myself and Adrian Dix. But I suppose that from the Liberals it's a compliment, so I should take it that way.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not worried whatsoever about Mr. Dix's conduct in this matter. It is quite clear; it is on the record. We've had discussions . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, I wonder if I could . . . . I hesitate to intervene, but we're hearing a lot of noise from the other side. I remind that side that one person at a time has the floor.

Hon. G. Clark: We're dancing on the head of a pin with respect to this question. The real issue is: should it be declared in the provincial interest or not? I want to hear the members opposite on this question, particularly the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. We are determined to try to create jobs in Kamloops, and that's what this is about.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT GUIDELINES

M. de Jong: I don't know what's more disgraceful. I don't know if it's the pressure that this government and this Agriculture minister brought to bear on the ALC, or this Premier's attempt to cover it up and ignore it. But I know that both are wrong -- both are very, very wrong.

In his report to this Premier, Doug McArthur, addressing what the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin did, said this: "This situation must be corrected immediately by developing specific and unambiguous guidelines on this question and it is my intention to do so on a priority basis." The Premier has been searching the canyons of his mind lately. Can he remember? Did Mr. McArthur ever get around to making those regulations? Did he ever get around to bringing them to cabinet? Because there is at least one minister over there who never read them, Mr. Premier.

The Speaker: Hon. member, through the Chair.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know what's more disgusting. I think it's the members opposite trying to create an issue where there isn't one. Let's be clear: they want to play politics; we want to create jobs in Kamloops -- and everywhere else in British Columbia.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui on a supplementary.

M. de Jong: History is laced with leaders and politicians who believed that you can justify the ends by the means, and all of them were scoundrels -- every single one of them.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's not appropriate. Hon. member, I'm sure you're not impugning motives.

M. de Jong: I asked the Premier if his deputy followed through on the promise that he made in the report to this Premier to table guidelines that could guide the conduct of ministers, like the Agriculture minister, who can't tell right from wrong on their own. I asked him if they were ever tabled.

The Speaker: Hon. member, please take your seat.

M. de Jong: Will he answer that? Will he table them here now today?

The Speaker: I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page 7314 ]

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO

HANDLING OF SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

G. Campbell: I don't find this an amusing exchange at all. I say to this Premier that we have gone for the last week . . . .

Interjections.

G. Campbell: For the last week we have had denial after denial after denial. Stories have changed virtually overnight. It is clear to anyone who is watching this that there is only one way to get to the bottom. There is only one way to find the truth about what took place here, and that is to have an open public inquiry where the Premier and his staff, the minister and his staff and the Minister of Environment and her staff testify under oath. Will the Premier call that inquiry today?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, we might need a public inquiry to find out what the Liberals' position is on this issue. I look forward to the testimony of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, because he's been silent in the House this session.

This issue has had more public debate and more scrutiny than any other issue on the land reserve in my memory. We've had Prof. Murray Rankin looking at the question. It's had public debate. We've had letters from the opposition demanding that we take action. We've had people in Kamloops demanding that we take action. We've studied it; we've looked forward to it. It's been rejected by the Land Commission. There was another application. We then put it forward and said: "Should it be declared in the provincial interest?" We hired Mr. Perry to review that.

There has been more analysis, more discussion and more open debate on this issue than on any other issue. There's nothing to hide; we have nothing to hide. We look forward to making the decision, and I can't wait to find out what position the opposition will take.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement. But before I do that, I seek leave from the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. I. Waddell: Up in the gallery today are Arthur Griffiths, chair of the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Olympics bid; Bruce MacMillan, executive director of the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Bid Society; and Rick Antonson, CEO of Tourism Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Minister, proceed with your statement.

Ministerial Statement

TOURISM INDUSTRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Hon. I. Waddell: Despite a challenging year in a very competitive tourism-marketing environment, I am very pleased to tell hon. members that not only did B.C. tourism revenues reach a record $8.5 billion in 1997 -- a $200 million increase from last year -- and not only did we reach 21.3 million overnight visits in British Columbia, but 11,600 new jobs were created in tourism and tourism-related industries last year.

[2:30]

To put that number in perspective, when we created Tourism British Columbia as a Crown agency last April -- with a high level of input from industry -- the Premier set the industry a target of 25,000 new tourism-related jobs by 2001. In just one year, we're halfway there. This is a terrific tribute to the hard work of Tourism B.C. and the industry professionals on the corporation's board, and I'd like to pay tribute to them.

Statistics show that more than 235,300 British Columbians are now employed in more than 15,700 tourism-related businesses in the province. That means the tourism industry now employs one in eight workers in this province. Employment in the all-important accommodation sector was up 5.6 percent, and strategic marketing in key markets like the United States will continue to help the industry create even more jobs for British Columbia.

Tourism is a major player in the government's three-year plan to stimulate the economy, make B.C. more competitive and attract investment. This year's provincial budget targets small businesses, including tourism operators and the important role they play in creating more jobs for British Columbians. Record numbers like these send a clear, positive signal that British Columbia is open for business, especially in the tourism industry.

The Speaker: Replying to the ministerial statement . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: First of all, let me say that the official opposition believes that one of the province's future development strengths is tourism. As a free enterprise alternative, the official opposition truly supports Tourism B.C. We support secure, known, multi-year financing, and we support a board truly independent from government.

This government has apparently just awakened to the fact that we have a tourism industry in British Columbia. In fact, we have untapped opportunities. This government must address the issues facing the tourism industry today. It's time for action. It's not time for more studies, and it's certainly not time for political rhetoric. It is time for action now.

The future holds significant opportunities for jobs in the tourism industry, especially when we have youth unemployment at 18.6 percent. But for . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat for a moment, please. It's very difficult for anyone to hear with the general hubbub that's going on. I encourage everyone to save their conversations for some other time. The member for Okanagan-Penticton continues.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I do appreciate that.

But for jobs and employment to grow, we need investment -- not investment maybes and not photo ops, but real investment now. Unfortunately, investment in B.C. is severely hampered today by excessive taxation, inflexible employment standards, excessive red tape and uncertainty with respect to land use. Instead of the minister discussing what happened

[ Page 7315 ]

last year, I challenge him to address the issues facing tourism today in British Columbia -- namely, excessive taxation, immediate resolution of the back-country recreation policy, the significant backlog in land tenure issues and the inflexibility with respect to the Labour Code. This is not the time for self-congratulation; it is a time for this government to commit itself to addressing the issues of the tourism industry in British Columbia, as the official opposition is.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 12.

MINING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading continued)

E. Walsh: Hon. Speaker, I would like to begin by talking about the Kootenay riding. The Kootenay riding has a rich history in mining. The Elk Valley embraces five coalmines. The province of British Columbia actually houses eight coalmines, so I'm quite proud of the fact that we have five coalmines in the Elk Valley.

These coalmines are: Fording Coal's Fording River mine in the Elk Valley; Fording's Greenhills operations; Fording's Coal Mountain, which is near the old mining town of Corbin; Line Creek, which was purchased in '91 from Shell Resources by Manalta Coal; and Elkview Coal, which is owned and operated by Teck Corp. near Sparwood. Collectively, these mines produced over 20 million tonnes of coal in 1997. With developments of new blends that are utilizing metallurgical coal products from mines in the Fording River and Coal Mountain areas, Fording Coal has been able to expand into new metal and new worldwide markets.

These new blends represent more than half a million tonnes of new export coal sales, coming from the Elk Valley.

Where does all this coal go? Well, we ship to more than 35 countries globally. Fording Coal has investing in the Elk Valley and in the economy in the communities in the Elk Valley and in the province by rebuilding their raw-coal breaker. For those of you who don't know what a coal breaker is, it's a 52-metre-diameter thickener. They also invested in a new magnetite-mixing building. In 1996, Coal Mountain underwent major enhancements to its coal-breaking, transport and computerized processing systems. Mines are using space-age technology in the Elk Valley -- and, more importantly, it's being used to increase revenues for this province.

GPS locational systems to monitor drilling patterns for blasting overburden, to establish mine grades and to monitor the location and the productivity of mining equipment are also being used in the Elk Valley. Huge new graders are being used and have been purchased by Fording River. They sweep over 50-foot roadways in two sweeps.

Hon. Speaker, what does it mean for the Kootenays? Well, to begin with, it means over 2,500 jobs for the Kootenays. This means economic stability for the Kootenays. It means thousands of direct and indirect jobs for those people who live in the Kootenays. It also means millions of dollars in return of revenue to the province and for the Kootenays.

These investments that the mines put into the Elk Valley, and for the province of British Columbia -- do they look like the bleak picture that the opposition has been painting about investments in British Columbia? I don't think so. The Mining Rights Amendment Act is intended to attract investment and to create jobs. The opposition may not very well like that, but that is exactly the intent of the Mining Rights Amendment Act. This act, along with other mining initiatives, demonstrates this government's commitment to mining in British Columbia.

It ensures access to lands for exploration and mining, and it ensures compensation -- that is, pay for mineral tenures that are expropriated in order to create parks. It addresses those recommendations that are outlined in the Mining 2000 initiatives. It addresses a mining advocate and a mineral exploration code. These commitments and our action are significant for the mining sectors of British Columbia.

At this time, I would just like to read a couple of quotes from industry and from those involved in the mining association. "Our industry is a significant contributor to the economic and social stability of B.C.," said Livingstone. "With joint government-industry cooperation, we will continue to be a driving force behind a prosperous British Columbia." Another quote from the industry: "The mineral exploration code's one-agency approach to the management of exploration and its exploration-specific standards and procedures will greatly simplify the administration and the mine-finding process," adds McKnight.

Yet another quote: "The recognition of compensation rights due to park creation is a milestone that has a major positive impact on investor confidence in British Columbia," said Doug Horswill, chair of the Mining Association and vice-president of environment and public relations for Cominco Ltd. And also, from information from the Mining Association: "How can we help" -- and this is information that was given to us -- "support the government's intent to bring in legislative changes for mining, as promised in the budget speech?"

Mining is important to British Columbia, and through continued consultations with labour, with the industry, with government ministries and with stakeholders, we will continue to show our commitment to this very valuable, vital industry and resource, its employers, its employees, its communities, our communities and our province.

I did want to add that though we have tried to oversee and tried to deal with many of the challenges that we have had in the past with mining, especially in British Columbia, this isn't to say that all these challenges have been met -- far be it. We still have many more challenges that we have to meet and to discuss. In the continuance of our discussions with industry, employees, environmental groups and communities, I anticipate that the outcomes will be very positive.

I support the Mining Rights Amendment Act, and I hope in all sincerity that the opposition will also support it. I believe that they realize and that they do know that this is a very important act for the industry, the communities and the province.

J. Weisgerber: This legislation, Bill 12, appears to be well received by the mining industry. The fact that it was introduced on a day when the Mining Association was here in Victoria, the fact that we had an opportunity to discuss this bill with executive members of the Mining Association, indicates that it is certainly a step in the right direction. I believe the mining community feels somewhat relieved by the introduction of this bill. They believe that the government is at least extending a hand to them and attempting to build confidence in British Columbia as a jurisdiction where they can do business.

It is certainly a welcome departure from the position taken by the previous government, the Harcourt government.

[ Page 7316 ]

I look back at Bill 32, which was introduced a few years ago in this House by Colin Gabelmann, in his role as Attorney General, which would have deprived mining interests of any right to compensation for land lost to parks, to aboriginal land claims or to any other whim or decision of government. So let's be very clear, when one looks at this bill in contrast to Bill 32, which was taken to second reading and withdrawn by the government -- one of the few pieces of legislation where industry and public outrage actually caused government to back down and withdraw the legislation . . . .

So one has to put a framework on this legislation against Bill 32. Again, I want to make it clear that this is a much better piece of legislation, a much fairer piece of legislation, and one that is in large measure supported by the mining industry and those people who are interested in mining in British Columbia.

[2:45]

It is important to understand that the legislation is a first step and it doesn't go far enough. There are two areas particularly where I think the legislation needs to be improved. One is with respect to retroactivity. We surely can't bring in legislation that moves from this day forward and relies on the goodwill of the Premier with respect to retroactivity. If, indeed, there is that intention, it should be clearly spelled out in this bill.

It was only yesterday that this government was outraged by the federal Liberals' unwillingness to go retroactive to 1986 with respect to compensation for hepatitis C victims. One wonders if a deal signed by the Minister of Health, criticized by the Premier -- but, more importantly I think, criticized by Canadians as being patently unfair . . . . Here's a government that's chosen, on this hepatitis C thing, to hide behind the flimsiest legal argument and to deny Canadians a right to compensation.

When I look at a piece of legislation coming out of this House, coming out of this government, that deals with compensation and brings in a very artificial time line . . . . There is nothing magic about the introduction or the proclamation of this bill. Someone who's property is confiscated subsequent to that is no more entitled than a person who lost their claim in the Tatshenshini and has to rely on the goodwill of someone to process their claim for compensation. So that's the first thing.

This legislation should be amended to clearly deal with, and to clearly outline the Premier's verbal commitment to, retroactivity. I must say that I think that is a major, major flaw in this bill. I'm not going to vote against the bill, because I think it has the support, generally, of the people who are affected by it. On those grounds I am going to, albeit reluctantly, vote for the bill. I make no apology for that.

The other area where this legislation needs to be improved -- cries out to be improved -- is in the area of the appointment of a single arbitrator to deal with clients. First of all, I'm not really comfortable with an appointment of a single individual to make a judgment which is binding on all of the parties. There is no outline for an appeal mechanism. One assumes there may be an appeal to the court, although if you read this legislation, it would suggest not. I wouldn't want to have my investment riding on the chance that I might get to court if I disagreed with this arbitrator. That is wrong.

The fact that you have one individual makes it a much greater roll of the dice than a tribunal, which is often the preferred method of bringing some stability, some wisdom and some cross-section of interest into this thing.

What I am most concerned about is the way the appointment is going to be made. The appointment of this single arbitrator is going to be made entirely and solely by the minister. Now, one would assume that Mr. Barrett may well indebt himself greatly, because I suspect he sees many little $725-a-day jobs coming down the road. And others who depend on this government's largesse may well expect to have a toss at becoming a mining arbitrator. One could say: "What would Mr. Barrett know about the mining industry, other than that he drove it out of the province once?" Would that be the qualification?

Well, for a fellow who says he can't saw a board straight, and who is now the person inquiring into leaky condos, driving the mining industry out of the province may make him far better qualified to be an arbitrator on mining claims than to be the lone investigator on leaky condos.

So in all seriousness, if there must be a single arbitrator -- and I regret that the government has chosen that route -- then it is absolutely essential that there be an official list of approved arbitrators. Someone going forward to arbitration should have the comfort of knowing that there are five or ten or 15 British Columbians -- preferably British Columbians, at least . . . . One wonders who in Ontario or Manitoba might need a job or who in the Yukon Territory may find themselves unemployed and needing work as an arbitrator. Let us hope that this single individual is going to be a British Columbian.

Let us hope that the government will seriously commit itself, by way of an amendment to this legislation, to create a mechanism to identify qualified arbitrators.

I believe that there should be a list of arbitrators developed by the B.C. Mining Association, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, and the province of British Columbia. The province shouldn't have foisted on them an arbitrator that they wouldn't be comfortable with. Neither should a mining interest, perhaps a prospector or a small claim holder have foisted on them someone whose only qualification is that they meet the criteria of the minister. We need to have a list of arbitrators.

Someone placing themselves in the hands of that arbitrator -- putting their interests in the hands of that single arbitrator, whose decision is binding -- must have the comfort of knowing that there are qualified, objective individuals identified in advance from whom the minister is obliged to select the arbitrator.

As I speak on this issue, I find my commitment to the bill weakening. As I stand here, I find myself talking myself out of support for the bill, because indeed these issues of retroactivity, these issues of how the arbitrator is selected and what qualifications there are for that arbitrator, seem to go to the very heart of this legislation. They seem to go to the very heart of what is important to bring mining stability back to this province.

As the Mining Association of B.C., prospectors and miners around this province consider this issue, one wonders: if they were to come back next week and host another reception, would we hear the same level of enthusiasm for this legislation, now that they've had an opportunity to consider it?

I suggest to you and to all members of this House that this bill would get far more acceptance, far better approval, if the issue of retroactivity were brought into the bill. An amendment like that would have to be considered a friendly amendment, given the comments made by the Premier. And this issue of the selection of the arbitrator needs to be addressed.

I will leave it at that point. I will go and mull over my commitment to this bill between now and when the division bells are called. But I want to tell you that I believe this is a very, very serious issue that needs the attention of . . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 7317 ]

J. Weisgerber: I'm going to listen very carefully and closely to the minister in his closing remarks, because I know he is glued to every word that I'm saying and will not be tearing himself away or at all distracted from these comments.

P. Nettleton: I would be remiss if I were not to take full advantage of this opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents that I have the privilege of representing in the riding of Prince George-Omineca, which has two mines -- one active and one in the works. So I will do just that, and speak in support of mining generally and specifically of the two projects within my riding.

Looking in the gallery, I see a number of young people. My guess is that they're probably somewhere in the range of grade 6 or grade 7. Am I right?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

P. Nettleton: Right -- and bright-eyed, probably with hopes and dreams in terms of their futures. It may even be that some of them have given some thought to what they would like to do with their lives, in terms of a career.

The question comes to mind: will there in fact be any jobs in the mining industry for young people such as the young people who are in the gallery? Certainly it is my hope that in fact there will be jobs in mining here in British Columbia. It is our hope -- I'm sure it's the government's hope as well -- that this piece of legislation to which we are speaking will go some distance to doing just that: creating some opportunity within the mining industry for young people such as the young people here today.

The first mine I would like to refer to is the mine in the community of Endako, which has been sold recently by Placer Dome to Thomson Creek Mining and a Japanese minor partner. It directly employs 240 people and has a considerable impact not only on Endako but on Fraser Lake and the surrounding area. It is my understanding that this mine, which has been in operation since 1965, has at the present time a minimum life expectancy of some ten years. In terms of dollars and cents, it injects somewhere in the range of $50 million into the economy, not including wages, in goods and services.

So it has a significant impact not only on the community of Endako-Fraser Lake but on the whole region. It's a significant player in terms of the economy of Prince George-Omineca.

The second project that is currently under consideration is the Mount Milligan project. I would hope that I could be something of an advocate in terms of the government's involvement in this particular mine, in terms of their ongoing discussions and negotiations with Placer Dome. It is a 60,000-tonne-per-day open pit copper-gold mining operation. The project is located 155 kilometres northwest of Prince George and 86 kilometres northeast of Fort St. James. Fort St. James, then, would be the closest community to this mine. I have the privilege of living just outside of Fort St.

James, and I know from talking to the residents of that community that it is certainly their hope that this mine will go ahead.

It will cost an estimated $444 million, with a mine life of approximately 14 years. The primary product of the mine will be a concentrate containing 18 percent copper and 37 tonnes of gold. Hydroelectric power and natural gas play a major role in the ongoing discussions with the hon. minister -- discussions between Placer Dome and the government involving power. Hydro power will be transmitted along a right-of-way that will connect the electric power line of the B.C. Hydro Kenney Dam substation with the minesite.

[3:00]

I should say as well that the project will employ between 500 and 750 people during the construction phase and approximately 350 people during operation -- a significant number of people involved not only in the construction of the mine, if in fact the mine goes ahead, but during the operation of the mine as well.

I can emphasize the obvious, which is that communities situated within the vicinity of the project will benefit from the company's policy to hire locally, and both the mine and mill will operate 24 hours a day, on a two-shift schedule. Again, it is my hope that this mine, which is presently under consideration, will proceed.

Speaking to the question of mining in British Columbia generally, which would include the Milligan site, I know that there are a number of significant challenges to the current government. To name a few, the high cost of operations, which would include hydro and transportation costs, is certainly a challenge for the current government. Markets are a consideration in terms of whether or not a mine goes beyond consideration and enters the construction phase. Markets fluctuate.

For any of the young people who follow commodity markets or stock markets -- perhaps they have heard their parents referring to the stock markets at times -- I'm sure they are all familiar with the fluctuation of the dollar relative to the American dollar and other foreign currencies. But markets are something which affect the economic viability of mines such as the Milligan mine in my riding, next to the town of Fort St. James where I live. So that's something that the mining industry must consider in terms of whether of not to proceed.

High taxation is again a critical factor. When mining companies that have opportunities not only here but in other parts of the world compare taxation structures, British Columbia hasn't been particularly competitive globally. That is certainly something that needs to be addressed -- and needs to be addressed sometime soon.

Costly regulations. It has been the view of the mining industry that it has been overregulated. It's highly taxed and overregulated, and this has been a real problem in terms of whether or not to proceed at a number of sites.

Of course, last but not least is the whole question of native land claims. There is a lot of uncertainty in and around the issue of native land claims. That's particularly critical, I would say, in light of the recent Delgamuukw decision, which again has cast something of a question over the whole question of land claims, treaties and the role that first nations will play in the development of resources -- mining, in this case -- throughout our province.

I recently attended, prior to the Delgamuukw decision, an aboriginal mining conference in Whitehorse. Again, it was my sense that there was, at that time, no real consensus from the point of view of first nations in terms of what role first nations would play in terms of economic development, particularly mining. That the conference was set in Whitehorse, which is within the Yukon Territory, which is some distance ahead of us in terms of addressing this whole issue, was particularly of some interest. But again, young people will certainly be . . . .

This will be an issue that your generation will face, as does ours, in terms of working through the questions that surround the whole question of native land claims. That is something we would like to see addressed.

In closing, the only comment I would make to the minister is that I would certainly like to see an admission by the

[ Page 7318 ]

minister responsible, on behalf of his government, that the onerous taxes, suffocating regulation and anti-business rhetoric by him and his government are the root cause of the mining industry's woes. I think that the legislation that is in front of us today, Bill 12, certainly addresses that in some small measure. But I have yet to see an admission by this minister on behalf of this government that in fact it has been the policies of the current government that have led us to the place where we are today, where the mining industry is in crisis in our province.

Presently there is very little in terms of opportunity within the mining industry for young people such as the young people here today. We hope that that changes. I certainly hope that changes, on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Omineca. We certainly hope that the Milligan project does proceed, creating long-term, well-paid, family-supporting jobs.

J. Sawicki: I just want to rise to speak briefly about Bill 12. Actually, what motivated me to do it is that I'm quite disappointed at the debate that has happened thus far from the opposition side. That is because what I have heard thus far addresses a very narrow range of concerns around a piece of legislation such as Bill 12, which, let's face it, gives the right to mine and gives private rights to public resources. I think that we in this House need to debate that.

The member that spoke before me alluded to the young people that are here in the gallery. I think that that is a good reminder, because what we do here when we pass legislation like this is try to plan for the future. But I'm sure that while those young people are extremely concerned about having jobs in the future, about being able to stay in their rural communities if they happen to live in rural communities. . . . Mining can certainly be part of that future. Young people are also concerned about the big picture of what kind of world they're going to inherit from us.

Whether we are talking about mining, forestry or any other extractive industries, I think that we also need to keep in mind that broader picture of sustainability and the environmental impact of these extractive industries.

Interjection.

J. Sawicki: Most definitely it's the same with the ALR.

Some of the broader issues in second reading . . . . I'm only going to allude to them, because I know that I'm going to have an opportunity during committee stage to ask the minister some specific questions. One of the points that I had to remind myself of when I read this legislation is that this does affect exploration and that we're not talking about changing the environmental impact process that we go through to actually move from exploration to mining. I think that's an extremely important one.

I will have some specific questions at committee stage in terms of those access issues, because -- while not wanting to get into specific sections of the act, but speaking to the general purpose of the bill -- the purpose is the ensure that those companies which have legitimate claims are actually able to get access to those claims. I support that principle. But I will ask some questions on the checks and balances, as to what the public input is into the access and the conditions under which that access takes place.

On another general matter -- and this is a little by way of the comments that I started on -- when we're talking about the general purpose of this kind of legislation, we need to put it in the context of the other land use discussions we are having every day in this province. In the last several years . . . . I am very proud to be part of a government that brought in tables around this province to work out land use conflicts and to work out who gets to use resources and for what purpose. People sat around those tables representing all of the stakeholders.

I'm sure the mining industry was there, as were the forestry industry, community groups, environmental groups and several other stakeholders. They had been sitting around talking, through LRMP processes, about how to share those resources and how to make sure that use can coexist with other uses.

I want to make the point that this act . . . . While I certainly support the intent of this act to give some security and stability to the mining industry and to promote exploration and job creation in our communities, I'd like to hear the minister -- either in his concluding comments or when we get to committee stage -- put this act in the context of those land use discussions that are talking place and that have taken place. While this act applies to areas outside protected areas, we know that in your community, hon. member, and in mine and in many other communities there are still lots of concerns as to how these activities will take place outside protected areas.

I will close my comments with that, hon. Speaker. I haven't mentioned the

section that deals with compensation. It's always important to have due diligence when we're talking about public resources, and I don't think we are unaware that there are many British Columbians who have real concerns about the public having to buy back public resources. I will leave those specific questions, which I'm sure the minister will be able to address during committee stage.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to enter into the debate on this bill this afternoon. First of all, I think we should put a couple of things into perspective in our minds this afternoon. If you've ever driven on a road or you have a cement foundation in your home, if you wear any jewelry or you wear glasses, you are wearing something that is a product of mining. Mining isn't just minerals. It is also gravel; it is also sand. It is the extraction of materials that we are taking into our communities and that we require as part of our growth and development as a society.

What we have to understand here today is that the environmental impact of mining on a landscape in today's society, with the stewardship we have with the mining industry, is somewhat less than what people might think it is. I have now toured six minesites and have seen how they're reclaiming their properties and doing their stewardship of the land. I must say that in British Columbia we probably have the best mining technology in the world. We export that, unfortunately, to many countries around the world because we are not doing enough mining here.

Let's put it in perspective. Mining is the number two resource industry in this province. It's a $4 billion-a-year industry, and it earns $208 million for the companies within this province. But, more importantly, it pays $480 million in taxes to government, taxes that are used for schools, education, health care and those types of services. In British Columbia, there are 30,000 people who are supported directly or indirectly by mining jobs. The average salary in mining is somewhere over $70,000 a year, so let's put that in perspective. That is equivalent to around half a million jobs at minimum wage.

What we have here is an industry that is a pinprick on the environmental landscape of our province but that creates a

[ Page 7319 ]

huge amount of wealth for our citizenry, which supports things that we as citizens believe we have to give to all the members of our society. And what's mining facing today?

First of all, mining is facing today a difficulty getting investment into this province. I'll give you an example. I was at a meeting with some people from the mining industry. They gave me their example, and their example was very simple. They said: "You know, we don't have security of tenure. We don't have security or comfort of investment when we invest in British Columbia." We were down in New York recently, and we sat in the room . . . . You know, there are only a few majors that really can finance the building of a mine in the international marketplace.

They made their presentation, and about three-quarters of the way through it, one of the people that was there to make an investment decision asked the question: "Did you say that this mine was in British Columbia?" The answer was yes, and he said: "Thank you for your time. We don't invest in British Columbia because you do not have security of investment for us. We do not feel comfortable going there."

[3:15]

We did that, unfortunately, by sending some international messages. I won't judge the decisions today of somebody from the past, but I want you to understand the international message you send when you make a decision, because an action often has some effect on investment. We made a decision on the Windy Craggy mine in the Tatshenshini. Now, when we made that decision, we sent the world a message that we would step in and remove the opportunity for investment that had been made and that we would use our taxpayers' money to pay back the investment of other people.

What we also lost at that time was 500 direct jobs, 1,500 indirect jobs and an expenditure of half a billion dollars, plus a $150 million annual expenditure. We lost a mine that would have worked for a life span that was predicted to have been 50 years, with $1.6 billion in tax revenue. If you remember the debate yesterday with regard to the tuition freeze and post-secondary education, that $1.6 billion would pay for the operation of all colleges and universities in this province for an entire year.

We have to realize that we're talking about an industry that has impact on our communities. We're talking about an industry that . . . . When you're making a wage of $70,000-plus, you're able to take out a mortgage and buy a home, to buy a car and the big-ticket items. That then creates other jobs within the community and within our society, because there's a trickle-down effect in direct reference to that as well.

It is important that we understand that this industry does want to be an industry that participates in this province's future, to the extent that they've actually gone out and worked out how the future of mining in British Columbia, including mining jobs in this province, could be dealt with. They predicted they could generate 22,000 direct and indirect jobs if certain things were allowed to happen for them. Some of those things are contained in this bill -- and some of them aren't.

The mining industry wants to be assured of access to land. They want to know that there's some security of tenure -- that when they are able to find an ore body, they have the ability to make the investment and go forward with their project. They want to know that there's security of mineral tenure -- that when they do find an ore body, we are going to work with the environmental issues of the day to try and make the ore body work for all of us.

They want the creation of a competitive tax structure. Taxes which discriminate against investment, such as the corporation capital tax and non-profit-related taxes, need to be eliminated to improve the competitiveness of their industry, which is a global price-taker. That's their analysis on it.

The development of an efficient, transparent permitting process. You know, everywhere we go, we keep hearing . . . . I know that as legislators we would love to stand up in debate and say that we're going to have another hearing or put in another regulation, because we're going to react to some press conference or some statement made by somebody. But every time we do that, we put that burden on industry, and we create more difficulty for them to do their jobs.

Obviously, native land claims is one of their issues, which is an issue that I'm sure we'll debate in this House in this session and in sessions to come.

Competitive electrical rates -- we've dealt with some of that, relative to how we're attracting or want to attract industry into this province.

They want us to see streamlined regulations, so that we can all move forward. The result of this would be $60 million to $75 million a year of exploration, which would find one new mine. Exploration expenditure, if it were to grow, would exponentially find more mines and then create more jobs. We would hit the 22,000 jobs.

I think the message here today has to be this: the mining industry has a place in British Columbia's future. It has an absolute place within our environmental regulations. And it has a place with us as legislators, to stand up and work with the mining industry for the success of our province. It is important that we put in a tax structure and that we look at how competitive we are worldwide and how we're going to secure the tenure for people, because that's how we're going to make this one stabilize.

Before I close, I just want to do a couple of little quotes. These are survey results that have been done by Angus Reid and different agencies; one of them is from the Fraser Institute -- okay? One of them is on what is specifically driving away investment in British Columbia. It was found that uncertainty about land use was rated as the most serious problem. A full 92 percent of the companies surveyed indicate that land claims uncertainty is a strong deterrent to new investment, and 89 percent consider uncertainty about protected areas a strong deterrent to new investment. Obviously we have to be aware of this.

We can't hide under some rug and say: "Oh well, here we go again. This is just some survey from the Fraser Institute." The fact of the matter is that uncertainty in tenure of land and uncertainty of access to the resource that you're investing in are deterrents to investment.

In addition to that, we need to include government policy, including legislative clarity,

interpretation and administration of regulation. That was another thing that 70 percent of respondents were concerned about, and why they don't want to invest in British Columbia.

But I think one of the most disturbing ones was a survey for the Vancouver Board of Trade. That survey indicated that 24 percent of the participating firms in that survey, from a wide spectrum of industries, plan to move out of British Columbia in the next two years. I don't know where they're going to move, but I'd like them to stay here and to keep their jobs here.

So it's vital that we stand up and make a point today as we move through this legislation, to realize that this can't be

[ Page 7320 ]

just a piece of paper. It has to be followed through with action -- so that as we move from here, we move it forward to even more aggressive movement -- so that we can bring industry back to British Columbia.

I was sitting the other day with a member of my constituency whose family has been involved in the mining industry, in equipment and drilling bits and that sort of thing, for the last 30 or 40 years. Their biggest business now is export out of Canada, simply because they had to make that move a number of years ago when the industry started to die here. We need to bring that industry back. We don't need him to be able to tell me how wonderful Santiago is. We need him to be able to tell me what a great thing it is to do business in this province -- in the north and in the resource sectors of this province.

I think it's absolutely vital that, as we move through the debate and some of the discussions we have, we remember this: mining, to this province, is half a billion dollars towards health care, education and social programs. Mining in this province could create another 22,000 direct and indirect jobs. Mining in this province is producing the equivalent of half a million minimum-wage jobs today. Let's wake up, smell the roses, stand up for this industry and work with them -- within the stewardship of what we require them to do environmentally -- to make it a success in the future.

F. Randall: I just want to take a few minutes on this matter. I might just say that I certainly agree with many of the comments of the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. He certainly mentioned all of the major issues. Before he leaves, I was going to suggest that he join our mining caucus; but obviously he's gone.

I just want to say that I strongly support Bill 12.

An Hon. Member: Where have you been up until now?

F. Randall: Where have I been? Well, here and there.

Hon. Speaker, I think one of the biggest problems that we continue to have is the perception created by elected representatives in this Legislature being very negative on so many different kinds of legislation, which are endeavouring to improve this province as much as possible. It certainly gets out in the media. People are negative, negative, negative. I think a lot of the problem we've got in this province is perception. I think we are doing a good job. I think the next few years are really going to show an awful lot of activity in this province.

I just want to mention, on mining, that we're all aware that the world prices determine an awful lot of what's going to happen in British Columbia. If the prices are down, there are lots of mines that are not in a position to operate. I agree with the comments about well-paying jobs.

I'm personally a strong supporter of the mining industry. I've certainly done all that I can to listen to their complaints. I can just think back a year ago to when we had comments about having to go through two environmental processes; they had both the provincial and federal to go through. The minister has been able to work out an arrangement to harmonize the two processes. Currently in this province, in fact, Prosperity is the first mine going through the one environmental process, which is going to substantially reduce the amount of time it takes for approval. The approvals take years. That has to be reduced substantially in this province, because time is money.

Also, on the matter of roads, one complaint that made a lot of sense, going back, was that if they were going in to drill, they had to put in a road up to the Forest Practices Code standards, which I felt was ridiculous. The minister agreed with that. That will be or is being changed now. There's no need, in my opinion, to spend that kind of money putting a major road in if you're just going in to drill. So there were certain things that were raised, and we've made an effort to try and deal with every one of these problems. I might say they're legitimate concerns and common sense.

Also, I think the mining industry is very supportive of having a minister responsible for mining and energy; that was certainly an issue. The Mining Association felt neglected because there was no mining title in any of the ministry names. That has been changed. I can tell you -- what's in a name? -- they are certainly very happy that they have got recognition with a good minister, a strong Minister of Energy and Mines in the province. There's been a lot of comments from the other side of the House with regards to this being just a little step. I think it's a pretty big step, and it's taken a lot of work to get to this particular point.

On the matter of compensation for claims, this also is being dealt with. I feel very strongly on this issue. I think if individuals have claims and those claims are eliminated, then certainly there has to be compensation. I've argued with many people that parks aren't free. If you're going to make a park, it costs money. And you'd better figure out what it's going to cost before you make it a park.

There were comments made by the member for Peace River South . . . . I notice in the bill that the arbitrator has to have prescribed qualifications. So they can't just put anyone there. A person has to be familiar with dealing with that kind of arbitration, have arbitration experience and be familiar with the industry.

I just want to read a letter I received by fax from the Mining Association, which is the organization that we're certainly all concerned about endeavouring to make things much better for. It's addressed to the editor of the Times Colonist . They were very upset about the negative reporting in the Times Colonist with regard to this matter. Again, the media contribute a lot to the perception of what goes on in this province.

[3:30]

It's a letter from the president, Gary Livingstone, and it was sent to the editor of the Times Colonist . It says, "Dear Editor," and it's headed up: "Re: What a Lode of Garbage."

"In addressing some serious issues threatening the future of mining in B.C., Premier Clark and his government have come down on the side of real people, real families and real communities -- without compromising the environment. Environmentalists are upset, claiming betrayal and predicting ruin. Nothing new there. But what is new is a welcome change in attitude by a government that now recognizes the needs and desires of real people and is prepared to take action on their behalf.

"Jobs and the promise of greater economic opportunity may not fit the future vision of the Sierra Club et al, but it is what most British Columbians want and desperately need -- a chance to get ahead, to build a better life for themselves and their families. The government is responding accordingly and I say, 'good for them . . . they're on the right track . . . people do come first.'

"Government policy and attitude play a big

part in creating investor confidence in our industry. Sadly, that confidence has been lacking" -- and we know where a lot of that comes from. "To boost investor confidence, our industry developed a seven-point plan to create 22,000 jobs over ten years. Your editorial scoffs at such a notion, which is unfortunate. Sincere efforts to

[ Page 7321 ]

create wealth, opportunity and jobs deserve better treatment. True, we may not get there, but at least we're trying, and so is government.

"Working with the earth, respecting its magnificence and beauty, and putting its resources to use to better the lives of all who live here, including those who actively protest against it, are honourable endeavours. The mining industry has been making a positive contribution to the betterment of people's lives for over 140 years in B.C. We're proud of what we have accomplished and the contribution we have made. The government, through their actions earlier this week, has given us a fighting chance to continue that legacy."

I just want to give a lot of credit to the minister responsible, who has worked his butt off to endeavour to . . . .

Interjections.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, I can hardly hear myself over the chatter across the way. Is there a problem?

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

F. Randall: I just want to give credit to the minister responsible for doing a lot of work on this. He is very, very understanding. I just want to say that I support this bill, and I would certainly urge all members of this Legislature to vote in support of it and not just say it's a teeny little bit. It's a big bit.

T. Nebbeling: I will indeed be brief, and brief means speaking short on this issue. The reason I want to rise is that I'm really amazed how the members on the government side have the ability to take something and give it a spin that would give people who are not familiar with all the details of the bill the idea that something revolutionary is happening, that something very different is happening.

When the member opposite, who spoke last, opened by saying: "My biggest problem is the creation of a perception of doom and gloom by the members opposite . . . " And for him to then go on to create a perception of well-being in the mining industry and with the people who work -- or used to work -- in the mining industry . . . .

That gives me a reason to stand here and briefly talk about the fact that one of the biggest problems we truly face is when this government does something, and it is small, and tries to present it in such a manner that the rest of the world has to believe that this is the big turnaround for the mining industry. Well, for the member opposite, Madam Speaker, I can tell you that this little step will not create the jobs that have been lost over the last number of years under this government. It will not open up mines that have been closed over the last number of years while this government was in place.

This government talks constantly about creating opportunities for the mining industry, but when it has an opportunity to do something real, moneywise, they're not home. I want to give one example as far as opportunities for the mining industry to come out of the hole a little bit. I want to give one example where the government could have done something for the mining industry and, because of greed, it failed to do so. That was when we were discussing Bill 6. Bill 6 was triggered in part by the mining industry, by the same people that the member opposite used when he read a letter from the president of the Mining Association.

The mining industry went to this government four months ago and said: "Government, you have been overcharging us $170 million for hydro. You have charged so much that we are at the brink of failure in certain mines -- Huckleberry, Gibraltar. We think it is time that you refund us, as a mining industry, the dollars that you have overcharged us over the last years." They were looking at a total of about $55 million for all industries, be they mining or pulp mills.

When this government found out that the mining industry was asking for a refund -- not a rebate -- and a downgrade in rates so that it would be more competitive, so that it could keep more money to cover the cost of the operation, this government took away the authority of the one true commission that could have dealt with that request by the mining industry. It took away the Utilities Commission's right to look at that issue of overcharging the mining industry. It looked at the mining industry and said: "Sorry, we're not going to allow the Utilities Commission to make a decision.

We will, through order-in-council, determine how much you're going to get as a rebate." Rather than getting that 7.5 percent reduction in rates they were asking for, the government gave them a rebate of 1 percent -- a fraction of the dollars that should have stayed in the mining industry.

So when I hear this government saying: "Look at us. We're doing so well for the mining industry. We've given them the breaks they need to flourish again as an industry . . . . " It's paper; it's nothing but paper. The time when you had an opportunity to do something for the mining industry was in November and in February of this year. And the government said: "No. Forget it." They took the money that they overcharged the mining industry -- it is not that they were asking for a freebie; they had been overcharged -- and they manipulated the Utilities Commission out of power and took the money.

Today they claim that they are the saviours of the mining industry. I think that's the true perception of what is happening here. The members opposite should be ashamed of it, because they are not the friends of the mining industry or of the people who work in the mining industry. That's the key. We're talking about jobs -- true jobs -- and you are not willing to participate in the process to save these jobs.

Madam Speaker, that is what I wanted to quickly say. I said I was going to be brief, but I had to get it off my chest. The phoniness of the arguments opposite really offend me and are offending a lot of people in the mining industry.

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly appreciated the grace and tact of the previous speaker with respect to some of these questions. My goodness, the distortion of public policy contained in that short speech was truly mind-boggling. Perhaps I can try to deal in a rational way with some of the issues that did arise in second reading debate. Obviously I'm very, very pleased by the enthusiastic support of all members of the House for this bill. Certainly it makes my job easier, as the Minister of Energy and Mines, knowing that all members of the House are eager to see the bill pass. I look forward to its passage through committee stage.

I'd like to touch on a couple of points that I think are of general interest to the public with respect to the mining sector -- first of all dealing with the issue around energy costs. It is a well-known fact -- I would have thought that most members of the House were aware -- that the energy costs in British Columbia relative to most other jurisdictions in the world are amongst the lowest in the world. I didn't know that the member didn't know that.

But when I was in Japan last year talking to people, I discovered that for the consumer and industry alike, the energy costs over there -- your electric bill -- are about ten to 15 times higher than they are here in British Columbia. That is truly one of our competitive advantages.

Notwithstanding the fact that the major industries were lobbying for a significant reduction in their energy costs, we

[ Page 7322 ]

took the position that if there were savings, they should apply to the general public as well. We did offer a rebate to everyone in British Columbia, including industry and commerce. It varied depending on your circumstance. But the rebate cheque to industry was pretty good. On top of that, we did bring in the virtual 25 percent on a market basis. I don't know if the member objects to anything with respect to market-based pricing.

In any event, that's been one of our historical advantages in this province. I don't think you should get too carried away, because if you do a quick check in terms of energy costs in other jurisdictions, you'll quickly come to the realization that we have a very distinct competitive advantage. We're not really bragging about this, but we enhanced that. I was the minister who brought in a bill last year called Power for Jobs. I'm not certain what position . . . . I just can't recall where the opposition was; they seemed to be all over the map.

Our idea was that we had 1,400 megawatts of power coming back from the Columbia River Treaty, and we wanted -- and gave it force in a bill -- to allocate that power to try to attract industrial investment in our province. I think the members opposite had all kinds of wild ideas about what ought to happen with that power. And so, consistency . . . .

I do know the issues around the Huckleberry mine and the Mount Polley mine very, very well. I've had many discussions with the principals of those operations. I attended the opening of those two new mines. If you listened to members opposite, you'd think there hadn't been a new mine opened in B.C . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Last year there was more investment in mining in British Columbia than there had been historically for years. Last year the investment in British Columbia . . . . Two brand-new mines opened: Mount Polley up in the Cariboo country and Huckleberry south of Smithers -- 100 direct jobs per mine, hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, spinoff jobs.

We've got a major project, the Kemess project. I just got a letter from Peggy Witte, and she tells me she's aiming for May. I say more power to her. That's a significant investment -- more jobs in this province. Those naysayers over there . . . . On top of that, when this government took direct action and sat down with Princeton Mining and the four Japanese houses and made a decision to make a $15 million public investment in the Huckleberry mine, who did we find opposing it? The opposition. If we had listened to them, there wouldn't be a mine there. I don't know. It's a bit hard to take sometimes.

By the way, if I could pass on a literary tip . . . . If members are interested in an outstanding novel, it's fictional, but it quite correctly deals with the early coal-mining days in Great Britain. It's called The Rose by Martin Cruz Smith. I highly recommend it; it's a very good book.

I want to acknowledge the work of my parliamentary secretary, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. That member has spent his life working for working people in the trade union movement. He's done an outstanding job. He's interested in jobs; he has devoted his life to that. I can tell you that as my parliamentary secretary for Energy and Mines, he's done an outstanding job. He has an outstanding reputation in mining circles, and he deserves a lot of the credit for some of the work that we've put together here today.

In all candour, we did not bring this bill forward with trumpets blaring. We made an announcement with the mining industry. If you read what we said, we said the mining industry had issued a challenge to create 22,000 jobs over the next ten years if we could do certain things together. If you read what we said, we said we wanted to work with the mining industry to help them realize their goal of creating 22,000 jobs. I know that the members quoted the mining industry and 22,000 jobs. And I know that, on another topic, they're dead opposed to quotas. They're dead opposed to people standing up and saying: "We think we can create so many jobs if we do certain things." But again, consistency.

[3:45]

I think the bill is fair and balanced. I think it achieves objectives that we, the government and the mining association, sat down together to try to construct. This bill, this mining initiative, is the product of discussion and negotiation with the Mining Association. We had a defined table. I've met with them once. They said: "We like the package that we have put together and that is reflected in this bill." It is fair and balanced.

Mining responsibility is in everybody's interests. And one of the members described, I think very well, the fact that we do mine very, very well in this province. Some outstanding examples of the best mining you'll see anywhere in the world are here in British Columbia.

When we made our announcement, I used as a backdrop a very large blown-up photograph of the Eskay Creek mine, which is up in northwestern British Columbia in the Tahltan traditional territory. One of the things I like about that project that is it does leave a very soft footprint; it's not a huge scar on the landscape. In fact, it's very tidy. It's not a deep underground mine. It's a very rich mine; it's about twice as rich as any other gold mine, I think, in Canada. The people at Homestake, the company that runs the operation, have done an outstanding job.

They've entered into a very respectful agreement with the Tahltan first nation. There are obvious opportunities. They are the largest employer of first nations people, I think, on a per-capita basis, in the province. There are agreements. For example, the Tahltans have the catering contract; they have direct employment. There's a road into that project, and I think it's important that we remember that, because roads are opposed by some people. It's a gated road; only people who are authorized can get through and use the road.

The Tahltans are involved in every aspect so that you don't have illegal poaching and those kinds of activities on the land.

It's a model, in my view, for what we should be doing, not just in mining but in other resource sectors: entering into those kinds of respectful agreements that make sense and that provide jobs and opportunities, where they can be realized, for first nations. That's one of the objectives I have; it's one of the objectives my ministry has as we proceed to work with the mining sector to try to see if we can't expand the economic pie and look at new projects.

We have, by all accounts, on our environmental assessment process . . . . Certainly the principals of Redfern's Tulsequah Chief project have been very straightforward in their comments about the process and also about what they see as kind of a change. And I think it's fair enough for opposition members to say: "Well, you've changed now." We'll get into some debate, I guess, about too little, too late. The fact is that mining is a very important part of this economy, and it's one that we want to see expand. We're working with the industry, and there is a cooperative attitude. I think that is important . . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 7323 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I understand; it's fair enough for the opposition to go back and talk about history. But I want to make this point. I do think that if we continue to describe the conditions here in British Columbia as being absolutely the worst, then that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By saying that, I'm not suggesting that we simply gloss over criticism -- not by any means whatsoever. What I am saying is that we have some work to do to overcome perception with respect to investing in our province. It seems to me that that's a shared responsibility.

The mining industry has taken up the challenge that I've offered: "Let's work together. Let's go to those capital markets. Let's go to those places where sometimes decisions are made, and together let's both describe the kind of working relationship that we've developed, the policies, the stuff that's contained in this bill and other issues like the MX code, which are not specifically in the bill, because it's in our interests to try to attract capital investment into our province."

We've been working for quite some time on those things. It's clear we have some competitive advantages with respect to the VSE, which is the capital market for mining. Despite their reputation in the past, my discussions with the VSE lead me to conclude that the regulatory framework around the VSE and mining juniors is as good as you're going to find anywhere. This goes to the issue of investor confidence, which is critical in the resource sector. To some degree, we can see that investor confidence has been shaken by factors that are beyond our control.

Certainly anybody that I talk to in the mining business refers to Bre-X. They refer to that, because that has cooled off and dampened people's willingness to invest in mining. They're leery of it. These kinds of things do inestimable damage in terms of our objective.

So we've got to work together. I've talked to people in the VSE and in the mining industry and others about promoting B.C. as a very stable environment. We are very, very good at extracting very low-grade ore in a competitive manner. I don't think members should automatically, sort of by rote, go through the things that they've heard and don't like. Rather, look at what we do. Look at how good we are at extracting very low-grade ore and at being competitive and selling that internationally . . . .

An Hon. Member: What does that have to do with the bill?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, perhaps nothing, but I think everybody was wandering.

This bill will not solve every problem that everybody can identify with respect to the mining industry. What this bill does is make a statement of principle -- and I think it's a very important one -- that we think mining is an important part of our economy and that we want to encourage that. Then it deals with a couple of ways that will improve the working climate out there on the fiscal side.

I look forward to committee stage. I know that members have lots of questions about the bill and its construct. Hopefully, we can answer those in a reasonable manner, and we can go on to pass this legislation and work together -- to have our differences in the appropriate forums but to work together when it comes to B.C.'s interests. No MLA in this House should do anything but consider working for the interests of this province. We can have our political differences in this forum, but when it comes to British Columbia, let's all put it first.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Second reading of Bill 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 69

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Goodacre

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Sihota

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Janssen

Weisgerber

Penner

Nettleton

Anderson

Jarvis

Whittred

Neufeld

Reid

Abbott

de Jong

Farrell-Collins

Campbell

C. Clark

Gingell

Sanders

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

Hansen

Thorpe

Symons

van Dongen

Barisoff

Dalton

Masi

Krueger

McKinnon

J. Wilson

Reitsma

NAYS -- 1

G. Wilson

Hon. D. Miller: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, by leave now.

The Speaker: Shall leave be granted?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

An Hon. Member: Nay.

The Speaker: A nay has been heard. In view of the fact that the motion has to be unanimous, we need another motion.

[4:00]

Hon. D. Miller: I move that Bill 12 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 12, Mining Rights Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 10.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, if I may, in this chamber I call Committee of Supply instead of second reading of Bill 10. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Doyle in the chair.

[ Page 7324 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES

AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 31: minister's office, $380,000 (continued).

R. Neufeld: We had left off our last estimates talking about regulation and how it affects the industry and what movements the government is making in that direction.

Hon. D. Miller: Are you talking about oil and gas now?

R. Neufeld: Yes, oil and gas -- the energy part of the oil and gas industry. Maybe just for the minister's information, we'll continue that and get that finished and slip into the mines part here in a bit.

We had discussed the impediments of overregulation and uncertainty in the northeast as it relates to the industry. Although the industry is doing well, I don't think that means we should rest on our laurels. I think we can improve it and can in fact do better. If you look at anything the Premier has said on record . . . . The minister himself said that it's going to grow in the next few years, but from every facet of the oil and gas industry, we read reports -- and they're not condemning reports -- that say that one of the biggest hindrances are (

a) aboriginal land claims, and (

b) the regulatory process that has to take place within British Columbia.

In the throne speech, the government talked about reducing regulation. In fact, as far back as 1996, they put out press releases about reducing regulation. Just recently they have formed a business task force to cut red tape; it is comprised of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and a number of other people. I had asked the minister . . . . I had shown him the handbook for British Columbia's oil and gas industry -- I don't have it with me again. Maybe the minister could tell me: are there portions of it that you're seriously considering removing?

It's fine to say, on one hand, that we're going to reduce regulation. Okay, we'll buy that. On the other hand, what regulation is coming out of the system that will enhance oil and gas activity in the northeastern part of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: I do recall the member having the handbook and trying to make the point that because it was rather thick, somehow that represented cumbersome regulation. In fact, I don't believe that was the case. We pointed out in response that the book was developed in consultation with industry and contained a number of sections that could be pulled out, depending on the type of activity that the people using it were engaged in. I think there were copies of all relevant acts and handbooks dealing with specific elements of the oil and gas sector. I think the real challenge on the regulatory side, is to some degree, implementation.

There are ways in which you can approach the issues of regulation. One way is the bureaucratic way. My description of a bureaucracy is that when someone comes forward and says they'd like to do something, the answer they get is, "No, you can't do that," and they're left to themselves to find out how they can do it. My view of a situation that's non-bureaucratic is someone coming forward to ask that question, and the response is: "No, you can't do it that way, but if you take this section, you can do it."

In other words, it's facilitating. It's not using regulation to delay, stall and not make decisions but is using it to assist people to realize their objectives. It's really that kind of attitude and approach that we want to take in the oil and gas sector in order to have a more streamlined process, so people can get those applications processed in a timely way and get decisions. It's not so much what's written on the paper all the time, but what's critical is the people that are doing it, how they're doing it and how that is constructed in an organizational manner. I believe that the discussions we've held with the oil and gas sector will result in a change that will be widely applauded.

R. Neufeld: I have a KPMG report here, "Overview of the British Columbia Oil and Gas Industry," prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Westcoast Energy and the B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines. Page 2 of the report says, "The regulatory framework governing the upstream oil and gas industry in British Columbia is complex," indicating that there is some difficulty with the regulatory system. On page 3 it talks about the regulatory environment, and it says: " . . . by establishing a stable regulatory environment."

To me, when I read those, it's not perception that I'm working on; it's actual . . . . There must be something that's changing within the ministry, I would think. Are we looking at changing something within the Forest Practices Code to encourage more investment? Are we looking at the Ministry of Finance and the area of taxation that would help this industry, or at the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks? Are those the areas we're looking at?

I hear from most people in the industry that they do want to see some of the red tape gone. When I listened to the throne speech and to all the ads by the government on TV and radio talking about cutting red tape . . . . Is it the opinion of the minister that when we're talking about cutting red tape, it means that we're just going to leave all the regulation that's there -- all those processes -- in place, but we're going to bypass them? Or are we actually going to remove some of the regulation that is hindering the advancement of the industry? That's where I want to come from.

Is there really some meat and potatoes on the table about which regulations are going to come out of the handbook or all the other regulations associated with the legislation that governs this industry?

I'm not saying for a minute that we should remove it all. I understand fully and know well that there have to be some regulation and legislation that govern this industry. But if we're talking about trying to get investment into British Columbia being such a positive thing -- and the minister talked earlier about how we should be talking about getting investment into British Columbia -- then I don't think just saying "removing red tape" is good enough.

What we really have to demonstrate to the industry is that within a year or a designated time period, there's going to be a whole bunch of pages missing out of this handbook, and there'll be a whole bunch of pages missing out of the regulations -- much the same as with the Forest Practices Code, which I spoke about earlier. I'm told by your own government that it is actually going to save industry $300 million a year from unnecessary regulation. Those kinds of things are where I'm coming from.

Maybe the minister has something coming forward. Maybe if I read in between the lines, there's something that's coming in the future that you can't tell me about but that's actually going to mean there's going to be a reduction in the paperwork, a reduction in the actual regulations as they exist today for this industry. Maybe you could just clarify that for me a little bit more, please.

[ Page 7325 ]

Hon. D. Miller: In my last answer, I tried to give kind of a general description of the approach we're taking, and I repeat that it's not always the fact that the regulations themselves are inappropriate. In fact, I think that in most cases, leaving aside forest practices, because there's a particular argument around that question . . . . Let's look across the piece at regulation that applies, say, to industrial activity on land.

My sense of most regulation is that there's a reason why it was put in place -- to protect fish or whatever the reasons. But the hon. member must receive correspondence from constituents. I know I do. I certainly knew, particularly when I was a member of the opposition with not a lot of staff. You know, sometimes you got a big volume of letters in, and quite frankly, sometimes it took you a long time to get to the last letter that came in because of the sheer volume of work you had.

[4:15]

That's really how you prioritize your work and how you approach these questions. I think that's a common example I could use, and surely every member can understand that. There's only so much output you can deliver in a single day or week or month or year. You pursue issues. You're writing away to try to get answers, and you've got a delay when you're waiting for those answers to come back. All the while, your constituent's probably saying: "How come I can't get an answer to my letter?" But that's just . . . .

An Hon. Member: Free enterprise works.

Hon. D. Miller: The member from North Vancouver talks about free enterprise. One of the industrial people I talked to in the oil and gas sector said: "Look, if you really want to see bureaucracy at work, go inside a major company. That's where you'll find more bureaucracy than you can shake a stick at." It's not exposed to the light of day, but by their own admission, very large corporations are as bureaucratic, if not more bureaucratic, than government. It's always, to my mind, a more invigorating debate when you free your mind. I try to do that and don't accept by rote. I'm trying, in a rather oblique way, to respond to the member's question.

Can we, by the way in which we construct the regulatory framework -- not necessarily the rules, but the process -- improve it? Can we make it speedier? We are engaged with industry. We are at the table in discussions. They are identifying from their point of view where they think improvements can be made, and we are taking their advice and seeing ways in which we can change our processes to meet the issues that they've raised.

I fully expect, as I indicated last week, that in the reasonably near future we'll see the end result of that process. I do think it's an approach that's new, one that people, and the industry particularly, will really like. I really am a little bit prohibited from speaking too much more about that, since it is the subject of these discussions with CAPP.

R. Neufeld: I accept the minister's explanation about what's taking place. With all the fanfare about cutting red tape that went around -- all the TV ads and radio ads that I've heard since the throne speech and the budget -- I'll look eagerly in my in-basket, as the member for Peace River South says, to see the announcements on a regular basis from the Ministry of Energy and Mines in regard to the removal of roadblocks from this industry as you continue negotiating with CAPP in the near future.

I'm sure we'll look at them again next session, when we deal with estimates and how far we've come from the book that's about this high. Are we down to one that's really a handbook or a shirt-pocket book that we can actually work with? We'll leave that one for the time being.

I briefly want to ask a couple of questions around WCB regulations as they relate to the oil and gas industry and drilling rigs. The minister is well aware that there's not one drilling rig that's based out of British Columbia; they all come from Alberta. We've had experiences in the last year where rigs that have been working in Alberta hit the border to come into British Columbia to go to work and required a huge amount of upgrade, not just in safety but in some other issues surrounding the operation of those rigs. In one case, they turned the rig around and sent it back to Alberta.

They wouldn't allow it in, because the company said they couldn't afford to upgrade it. Those are probably some impediments that we have in British Columbia also that I think we have to look at closely.

The minister talked about an open border and being able to try to work a little bit closer with Alberta. I don't think I'm advocating that we should not be taking safety as a serious issue, but I had the occasion to find out whether Alberta . . . . It's mind-boggling the number of wells they drill in Alberta in a year, compared to British Columbia, and their rate of injuries in the workplace doesn't seem to be much different from ours. I wonder if that's an area that we can maybe seriously look at: allowing that equipment to move back and forth.

Unless that particular rig had a history of a lot of accidents, that's a different story. But apparently it didn't. It was just the makeup of the rig, how it was structured and those kinds of things, that made it very difficult for that rig to operate in British Columbia, because it would have to upgrade a huge amount.

Hon. D. Miller: Just going back to the previous question, one of the keys to cutting red tape is to make sure you don't do it lengthwise. [Laughter.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's very seldom that I get that kind of appreciative response to my jokes.

Interjection.

An Hon. Member: Oh, don't go there.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I won't. I'm tempted, but I won't.

I'm not personally familiar with the issue the member describes. I really just have a couple of comments. I do believe that our system here works reasonably well. I understand that the injury rate in the oil and gas sector is at the bottom with respect to all other industries, and I think that's a good testament to the men and women in the WCB and the people in the industry. Certainly that's true in mining. Mining, I think, is absolutely the lowest.

If you compare mining to forestry or to any of those other heavy activities, our safety record -- even though it's marred by tragic accidents, as we saw up the Island here recently -- is very, very good. So without knowing the circumstances, I'm quite prepared, if the member has more information, to get the reasons or the rationale used with respect to that particular incident.

In other areas we have moved to look at harmonizing with Alberta where we think it's appropriate. We have, in many instances, harmonized some of our regulatory frameworks and those kinds of things with the province of Alberta. To the extent that that makes sense for the industry, which moves back and forth across the border, I think that's a good trend. We'll continue to look at opportunities where we can do that.

[ Page 7326 ]

R. Neufeld: I'll attempt to get some more information and get it forwarded to the minister.

I want to go on to the Mediation and Arbitration Board. Maybe the minister could, just for my information before I even start asking some questions about it, inform me of what changes were made recently to the Mediation and Arbitration Board and the reasons surrounding them.

Hon. D. Miller: I will be getting just a touch more information, but I do know that we have added a staff position to have the people who actually do the arbitrating free to do that, rather than processing applications and those kinds of things.

There was a review in 1996 and a number of recommendations that came out of that review. The one I just talked about is the hiring of the board administrator. In other words, we are trying to make the process work a little better. I understand from all reports that the board is running smoothly and is actually meeting the needs of landowners and industry. I'm not aware of any major issues around the board, but perhaps the member has other questions he'd like to pursue.

R. Neufeld: Can you tell me who the present members of the board are and how they're appointed -- what qualifications they had to have to be appointed to the board? What qualifications does the administrator have, to have that position?

Hon. D. Miller: My assistant deputy minister is actually writing -- we don't have a briefing note with the names -- the names out for me. We'll give them to you as soon as we have them. So if the member wanted to pursue additional questions.

R. Neufeld: Okay, we'll just leave that for a few minutes.

The other issue that I would like to know about the Mediation and Arbitration Board . . . . If there an annual report? If there is one, could I have a copy of it?

I'll just go on to a few things about what happens to landowners specifically as it relates to the oil and gas industry -- that being mostly farmers in the northeast. In the process, when a well is drilled on site or when it is being produced afterwards, there is an agreement in place between the landowner and the oil company or whoever it happens to be. If there is a major spill on that land of whatever -- oil from the well or things of that nature -- and there is some environmental damage, who is actually responsible for the cleanup of that? And who enforces it and makes sure its done?

Does the landowner have any input into whether they are satisfied, at the end of the cleanup, that it's been done properly or not?

Hon. D. Miller: The offending company is responsible for cleanup. That is enforced by my ministry. Prior to my ministry giving a release that the work has been done properly, we consult with the landowner. They have to be satisfied.

R. Neufeld: I understand from the response that the landowner actually does have some input at the end of the day as to whether they will accept the cleanup or not.

If we go back to the Mediation and Arbitration Board, when an arbitration takes place and the oil company actually appeals the arbitration, is that in fact possible? If it is, who is responsible for the costs that the landowner would incur in going to court to deal with that issue?

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: In that case, the court deals with the apportionment of costs.

R. Neufeld: The court deals with the cost? In the case I'm talking about, the costs actually went back to the landowner. The ministry refused to deal with the costs. The landowner had to expend a fair amount of money and time to deal with an arbitration that had been appealed. Is there anything in the new process, with the way you've changed the Mediation and Arbitration Board, to deal with those issues -- if they come again?

[4:30]

Hon. D. Miller: I understand that in the case the member is referring to, the court in fact made the decision that the costs would go to the landowner and that the issue of the quantum is one that the Mediation and Arbitration Board is now in the process of determining. A special member has been appointed so that there's no perception of bias from the first people who made the first decision.

There generally are some issues around the question of landowners. I know that last year, when I brought forward the new Builders Lien Act, we did have a brief discussion on some issues that the member is familiar with. In other words, if you are a private landowner and a gas company gets the rights to drill on your property, yes, we do have a process of determining through the Mediation and Arbitration Board what might be fair compensation to you.

In the case as I recall it, if there was some reason why the private drilling company was to default on moneys owing to other people, the landowner could conceivably be in the bite or become responsible for those kinds of costs. It's a very, very tough issue to try to deal with in legislation, and unfortunately -- despite a lot of effort -- we weren't able to get that resolved or clarified so that we could have a

section of the Builders Lien Act that deals with it. It's still in the same kind of process. No one has yet determined what an appropriate legislative framework would be to resolve that question.

R. Neufeld: On the issue of how landowners are compensated for well sites, when the Mediation and Arbitration Board does go in to mediate that kind of disagreement, how are the rates arrived at? Are rates paid to the farmers? Do you take the average of what the market's been paying for the last while, or is there a rule of thumb that the Mediation and Arbitration Board goes by as to the quality of the land or where it's situated or those kinds of things? How do they arrive at that basic figure?

To my knowledge, I don't think that rates for farmers -- specifically for land that oil companies use -- have changed over time. I could be badly mistaken, but to my knowledge, it's much the same as it has been for years. Is there a way that . . . ? Does the minister think that maybe it should change? How would you do that?

Secondly, how do we compare to provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan when it comes to many of these same issues? Of course, with the number of wells that are drilled there, they have a huge amount of knowledge and background as to how those rates are set.

Hon. D. Miller: Just to go back to a question the member asked some time ago, the members of the board are: Ivor Miller; Connie Shortt, the vice-chair; Ray Rutherford, the chair; Bud Hosker; and Ewart Loucks.

[ Page 7327 ]

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act does contain a checklist. There's a list of issues that are to be considered with respect to the impact on private landowners. Land, inconvenience, land values and those kinds of things are all contained in there. I don't pose as -- nor will I make an attempt to try to become -- overly familiar with that. It's a well-defined process. It works, in my view, reasonably well, and it is very similar, if not exactly similar, to the kinds of processes that are used in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

R. Neufeld: The minister talked briefly about pipeline issues as they relate to the northeast. I'm sure the minister's staff are aware of the number of questions that I've had asked of me about compensation for pipeline access over the last year. There have been an awful lot of pipelines being built, and quite a number of landowners have contacted my office, saying that the paltry amount -- that's how they put it -- that they receive for access doesn't cover the inconvenience that they have over time.

Many in the oil and gas industry say that once a pipeline is buried and covered back up again, it doesn't affect the value of the land. I think, in one case, one fellow close to Taylor has something like 30 lines running across a quarter

section of land, he said, and it does affect the price of the land to a great degree. How do we deal with those issues? I can't remember the dollar amounts that clearly, but it's really not very much compensation that those people receive for a pipeline going across their land -- other than restoring the land to what it was before.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, those are issues that are negotiated by the landowner with the companies. Normally, if there are huge complaints, they find their way into my office. I'm not suggesting that everybody's perfectly happy, but it doesn't appear to be the topic of significant letter writing or those kinds of things.

But landowners enter into those agreements themselves, and if they feel that there are violations, they do have recourse, either through the courts or through the Expropriation Compensation Board -- or through the Agricultural Land Commission if there have been some violations with respect to agricultural land. I'm always happy to look at problems that individuals might have, but it's not something that's been drawn to my attention as a general problem.

R. Neufeld: Well, I guess that for the number of pipelines that are built -- if you take it in relation to that -- maybe there's not a lot. But there are some specific ones that do have some problems.

In the case of pipelines crossing farmland, does the Mediation and Arbitration Board deal with that also? The minister said that these are all generally-agreed-to costs or prices. That's not what I've been led to believe. Some of these folks have said that some of these costs have been thrust on them without their ability to do anything about it.

Hon. D. Miller: The Mediation and Arbitration Board deals with what are called the flow lines -- short lines, generally, to wells. The Expropriation Act deals with the major pipelines. So they're handled under two different sections.

R. Neufeld: So the major lines, then . . . . Let's take, for instance, Alliance Pipeline. You would classify that as a major line; the Mediation and Arbitration Board wouldn't deal with that. If a landowner got to the point where he or she could not negotiate with Alliance, they would go to expropriation. Is that the process the government would follow on behalf of Alliance Pipeline? Is that how the process would work?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I'm not familiar with the various provisions of the Expropriation Act, but the issue would be dealt with under the Expropriation Act. Again, I'm not familiar with the act, so I can't really give you a recitation of the provisions dealing with this kind of circumstance, but that's the act that would apply.

R. Neufeld: Okay. I'm not familiar with the Expropriation Act either, but I'll explore that a little bit more.

The last issue -- and we had some discussion about it last year, and you alluded to it a bit -- is liens on property as they relate to pipelines and the effect that that's had on some property in the northeast. I know that there were some changes to the Builders Lien Act, but as I understand it, it hasn't taken care of it yet. Are we actually looking at something for this session so that it can be looked after?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't believe we are. While I am no longer the minister responsible for the Builders Lien Act, I've not been engaged in any work on that point. I know I did describe it, in an answer I gave a few moments ago, as being a very complex issue, one where we were unable to come to some ready and simple conclusions with stakeholders with respect to the language that could be used in the legislation to deal with the problem. It's a matter that's going to have to be pursued over time, and hopefully, that can be dealt with and eventually included in the Builders Lien Act.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that the Builders Lien Act is not in the purview of the Minister of Energy and Mines and petroleum resources. I'm not too sure that something that has to deal with pipelines is not within . . . . In fact, that is within your jurisdiction. I'm hoping that you, as minister, will continue to push the minister responsible so we can get some resolution to this little piece of red tape and so those people that have been affected negatively by liens on their property because some pipeline company hasn't paid its bills . . . doesn't take place anymore.

I know that it's easy enough for us to stand in the House here and say: "It's not my responsibility; it's someone else's, and we're trying to deal with it." This isn't a new problem; it's an age-old problem that was there before the NDP came into government. But it is an issue that affects people. As we see the industry increase and see a lot more pipelines being built, it could become more of an issue all the time for landowners.

Far too often in these cases we take for granted the chaos that's caused for someone who is trying to sell their land but can't because there's a lien against it, and it has nothing to do with the person that actually owns the land. In fact, it upsets the lives of some people dramatically.

The other issue is sour-gas wells and their proximity to communities. I know that there has been a major issue around Fort St. John in that instance. Also, farm families, wherever they happen to live in the northeast, are affected by sour gas. There's also been a study on one of the reserves -- the Blueberry, north of Fort St. John -- in regard to sour gas and what effect it has on people. I'm just wondering where that process is. The last news release that I saw on the issue was March 19 of this year -- from your ministry. Maybe the minister could bring me up to date a bit on where we're at.

As I understand it, we're looking at a lot of the recommendations that were made in Alberta as they relate to sour gas, because of the experience that Alberta has had in this area. Maybe the minister could bring me up to date a little bit on that.

[4:45]

[ Page 7328 ]

Hon. D. Miller: There was quite a bit of work done. We did put out a release in March of this year indicating that we were accepting the recommendations to revise the sour-gas operating guidelines. I won't bother going through the recommendations, but we do have a

summary response to each of the recommendations that were made. There are ongoing issues there. There was a 1994 Alberta report that was part of the review. Seven recommendations were made in that report. At this time, we are studying that a little bit more to see which one of those could be used in British Columbia, which ones we can build on to fit our needs, and where we might have to do some additional work. I would think that we would see some action being taken this year on some of those recommendations.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Chairman, we clearly have to deal with the outstanding issue of the Kaiser application. Since we now have the report, we will be examining Kaiser's application in light of the report.

R. Neufeld: I look forward to seeing the final report on this issue.

I want to go into the estimates book and get a quick explanation of the resource revenue sharing agreements, 1997-98. It's $810,000 this year -- it's doubled. It has to do with the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act. Does this also include some of the other bands that the ministry has negotiated with? Is that why the increase is there, or what has taken place to increase that amount?

Hon. D. Miller: No, the agreement pertains to the Blueberry River and the Doig River Indian bands and Fort Nelson. The agreement is specific and unique with them. The increase that the member noted is as a result of increased activity and is therefore their share, if you like.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that answer. The reason the question came up is because all that's listed in the estimates book is the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act. I'm not taking exception to it or anything; I know it's been there for a long time. Why wouldn't the explanation include the Blueberry and the Doig, and then a person could actually understand it? Is there some reason why those two bands can't be named in here?

Hon. D. Miller: The answer to the specific question is simply that at the time this was printed, there was some potential for other agreements. So rather than limit it, it was left open-ended. The Fort Nelson agreement goes back quite some time, to 1980.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response. Just a couple of things, and then I think the member for Peace River South has some questions on energy and so does the member from Vancouver.

One thing I'd like to ask is: what effort has gone into training in our colleges on behalf of the Ministry of Energy as it relates to working in the oil and gas field -- those kind of things? I think there is a program in place; probably there are some recommendations for some added things to take place. I think they're excellent programs. They work well within our colleges -- in Fort St.

John specifically and, I believe, in Dawson Creek -- to try and train young people from the north in as close a setting as possible to what actually takes place in the field so they can actually access some of the employment and the good job prospects that are out there. Maybe the minister could tell me a little bit about what his ministry does to promote that process through the college system. Is the ministry working on any new programs that are going to take place in this coming year or in the future to encourage that in the colleges?

The other

part is to start getting into the classroom, long before the kids graduate out of grade school, the importance of the energy industry in the province of British Columbia, so when they come out of school at grade 12, there is a different perspective on the value and benefit of the industry. That is not just for the northeast but for the province as a whole. Those are things that go a long way towards what the minister talked about before: the positive part of British Columbia and the positive things that can happen if we look at some of these industries in a positive light.

Hon. D. Miller: Very good question; in fact, it's an issue that I feel very strongly about. In other words, broadly described, the opportunity for young people in northern British Columbia to gain the kinds of skills they need so they can have access to the jobs that exist in northern British Columbia. I don't say that to discriminate in any way, but it seems important that we provide as many opportunities as possible to our young people in the north. There are some very, very good jobs -- technical jobs -- across all kinds of industries in northern B.C., and certainly in the oil and gas sector.

My view is that we ought to do more on that as well as in capacity-building on the aboriginal side. I strongly believe that the more of that we do, the better off everybody is.

I'm encouraged by some of the work that has taken place in northern B.C. When I was in Fort St. John -- well over a month ago now on the first visit -- I went to Northern Lights College. I sat in on a meeting that was being held with various stakeholders -- industry and others -- to develop a training program for oil and gas workers. That's a good example of the involvement of the college. My ministry has been fairly active in terms of trying to make material available for the classroom, so that people are aware of the energy and mines sector of our province, and they will continue to do that.

I had a very good discussion last week -- not extensively at this point -- with the president of UNBC, Charles Jago, about these ideas. He was describing some of the work that the university is doing in conjunction not only with the colleges but also with various aboriginal bands, and he is meeting with considerable success. I think that's an area that I want to talk -- once we get there -- to the northern commission about, beca