1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th 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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3433 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 72). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 3433

Ms. A. Hagen, Hon. B.R. Smith, Ms. Marzari,

Third reading

Family Maintenance Enforcement Act (Bill 71). Committee stage. (Hon. B.R. Smith) 3435

Mr. Rose, Ms. Marzari, Ms. A. Hagen

Third reading

Mineral Tenure Act (Bill 66). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) ––

Mr. Guno, Ms. Smallwood, Mr. Vant, Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 65). Committee stage. (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) –– 3444

Third reading

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 64). Committee stage. (Hon.

Mr. Davis) –– 3444

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Election Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch)

–– 3445

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 3446

Prorogation –– 3447

Appendix –– 3447

FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1988

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure for

me to introduce this morning two very hardworking members of the

community of Parksville, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Lesage. Parksville, as you

know, is where the meeting of the western Premiers will take place in

May. Bill is the president of the chamber of commerce in Parksville.

They had the good fortune of winning dinner with their MLA at an

auction in Parksville, and we had a great dinner last night. So please

join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have a caucus birthday today. If March

11 is your birthday you are intuitive, a natural teacher, success via

unorthodox procedures. Your intuition is considered remarkable and

you'll gain access to a secret before this month is finished. You're

cutting your budget in half — that's the secret. Seriously, would you

join me in offering many happy returns of the day to the hon. Minister

of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen).

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think the member for Victoria is probably

responsible for the darkness in this place. I would like to bring some

light into the chamber by tabling, within a year of its creation, the

report of the Gaming Commission into the status of gaming in British

Columbia. It gives me great honour to do so.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to proceed to public bills.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 72, Mr. Speaker.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 72; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to make just a few

comments on

section 1. In this

section we are dealing with the director

of maintenance enforcement and the fact that that person is allowed to

delegate his powers to a private agency. With this, we have

privatization as a part of this bill. I want to put on the record some

very real concerns with this that were addressed in second reading as

well.

Particularly, women's shelters and transition houses are concerned

that any information about the whereabouts of spouses be kept strictly

confidential. It's an essential ingredient of their functioning. The

private agency is clearly involved here, because they will be

forwarding payments to women who may be in transition houses and

women's shelters. We should be requesting and ensuring that. At the

very minimum this requirement should be explicitly stated in the

contract with the private agency: that there is no question about that

confidentiality. The very fact that these proceedings are underway does

increase problems with the relationship between the separated spouses.

We've noted earlier the problems that come with this, since the program

in this bill is not mandatory but voluntary to the spouse to initiate,

unless she is in receipt of welfare payments.

I'd like the minister's assurances regarding that whole issue of

confidentiality, and, again, for him to revisit briefly the issue of

privatization and why he is moving in that direction with this bill,

instead of having this person a public servant.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, in the companion bill.... I'm

going to address the issue of confidentiality, because it really is an

issue for both bills. In the companion bill which we'll be committeeing

in a few minutes, I think you'll see that there are some pretty

thorough safeguards on confidentiality. But I can also assure the

member that confidentiality will be built into the contract that we

enter into. It will be a term and condition of the contract. As a

further assurance of confidentiality, the contractor who does the

collecting is not going to be the permanent recipient of data bases at

all. All those data bases are going to be controlled by public

officials under the director of enforcement, who will be a public

servant. I appreciate that point, and I think it's an important one.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 2 is made up of a number of parts, and

we have amendments to these various parts, so I think in the interests

of getting this done as expeditiously as possible, we'll deal with the

individual parts and the amendments to them.

Proposed

section 19.1 approved.

Amendments to proposed sections 19.2 to 19.7 inclusive, standing on

the order paper in the name of the minister, approved. [See appendix.]

Proposed sections 19.2 to 19.7 inclusive approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, this

section deals with the

filing of orders, and it makes that process in Bill 71 voluntary and

requires action by women to get their orders registered. Manitoba's

system is a universal one, and action must be taken only if parties

wish to opt out.

There are a couple of reasons for arguing for a universal system,

and again, recognizing that the Attorney-General has looked at those

bills, I know we will perhaps be commenting on both. There is the

matter of fairness. Why shouldn't all spouses in need of this

assistance automatically receive assistance? We believe that in B.C.

the turnover between GAIN recipients will be covered by an

automatically delivered program into the voluntary program administered

by Bill 71

[ Page 3434 ]

and is going to happen. It would appear that

possibly here the government is more concerned with those orders that

it wants to enforce, because it will save money under the GAIN program.

If the program is not universal, how will women find out about it?

Will the government have a public program to let them know? Will a

private agency have an interest in getting more people enrolled in the

program, and will the contract pay for running the service on a

case-by-case basis? Is this something which is in the interest of the

private operator rather than the program itself?

The other point besides fairness is the issue of neutrality.

Automatic enforcement takes away the idea that women are taking action

against their spouses, and we've spoken about the tensions that occur

very often in these relationships. Perhaps the Attorney-General could

comment on why the government is not moving to make this an automatic

program, rather than a voluntary one in this act.

[10:15]

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think it should be clarified that this is

a universal model, but it's not an automatic model. That's the

difference between this and Manitoba. It's universal in the sense that

any spouse can avail themselves of the program, and enforcement is

taken without the creditor having to request enforcement or associate

with their ex-spouse on the matter.

The difference is the way the creditor enters the program. Instead

of coralling persons automatically into this program, this requires a

decision to opt in. The result of that, I think, is that we're going to

have a better result. If we had an automatic, everybody-in system, we

think, from studying the other provinces, that the results would be

higher volumes, passive clientele, inflated success and a lazy program.

We think that the opt-in model demands a positive but simple action

from the creditor to request the service. Therefore we should have

vigorous recruitment, an interested clientele and realistic measures of

success. It is not going to be difficult to opt in. It's going to be

very easy to opt in, because in every government agent's office and in

every courthouse around this province, we're going to have forms, and

to opt in is going to be to fill out a form — not to go as a suppliant

to an office, not to go and appear in court, not to take some direct

action against your spouse, but to fill out a form.,

We think it's a better system. If there are problems with that

system when it's up and running, hon. member, we'll look at what you

say. But we did carefully study Manitoba, and we think this is a better

system. Experience will prove us right or wrong.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in the name of the Minister of Social Services and Housing on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in the name of the Minister of Social Services and Housing on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, this is where we're having some

difficulties. You know that 71 and 72 generally meet with the approval

of this side of the House. We have some concerns, and we're going to be

monitoring those concerns, as you have said you are too, Mr.

Attorney-General.

On this amendment to

section 6, we ask: why put this in a

legislation; why not put this in regulations? This amendment basically

suggests that this program is going to be implemented differentially

throughout the province, that in different locations in different

regions you'll be bringing in this program.

It's obvious that when women are on GAIN, they're going to be

automatically registered anyway. Their maintenance orders are already

in the record; it's not a question of them applying. Their maintenance

orders are on the record, and you are dishing out welfare dollars. If

you bring in this program differentially in different regions of the

province, it means that your ability to collect from the spouses here

is going to be that much more jeopardized. Why would you want to do

this in the legislation, rather than in the regulations? That's our

question to you. We have very serious reservations about bringing in a

program such as this and then applying it differently in the lower

mainland than in Prince George.

I must say that women on GAIN, who are single parents, very often

fluctuate between living off maintenance payments and small earnings

and living on welfare. Very often there's a go-between: the women will

shift from welfare one month perhaps to living on maintenance payments

the next few months. I think we've got to make it very easy for those

women to be guaranteed of receiving an income. This amendment

jeopardizes that. Could you speak for just a few moments as to why you

are leaving it in the legislation rather than putting it into

regulation?

HON. B.R. SMITH: That was on the basis of legislative counsel

advice. I wouldn't have any problem with it either way. That was the

reason we did that.

You want me to speak on the merits of your issue. Our concern on

implementation simply was that we can't deliver the service immediately

right across this province, and rather than give an aspiration that we

could do that, we want to be able to do it as we're ready. But I will

tell you that there is a total commitment to serve women and spouses

all over this province and to get the thing up and going as quickly as

we can, and not to have a program in place for six months or a year in

the lower mainland and not somewhere else.

MS. MARZARI: I would suggest that it isn't necessary to

elevate this to the statute itself. It would be much easier to leave

this in regulation and then implement your program. This makes a

statement, and I don't think I like the statement, and neither does

this side of the House. I would feel much more comfortable voting for

this bill if that was reduced to regulation, Mr. Attorney-General.

[ Page 3435 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm making the statement that whether it's

in the act or in regulation — and the decision to put it in the act was

on the advice of legislative counsel, not to make a philosophical

statement to this House which we're not making, that there is going to

be one system of maintenance enforcement for the lower mainland and

another system for the north.... There isn't going to be. But the fact

remains, hon. member, and you know, that we've had a pilot project

system in force in the lower mainland. Therefore it will be easier to

be running there. But I make the statement that this is legislation to

benefit spouses all over this province.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 72, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. B.R. SMITH: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 72, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 71; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. B.R. SMITH: We have incorporated a number of amendments

into the bill. I gave them to my critic some time ago. Those amendments

do include some of the constructive changes that were suggested in this

chamber by members, including the change of time-limits, the security

provisions and other suggestions made here during the course of debate.

I very much appreciate the constructive comments that I've had on this

bill from both sides. I want to make a very short statement, and then

I'm going to sit down because I know everybody is anxious to move

quickly today.

The sort of person whose name is on this bill is a woman in this

province who I will call Mary. That isn't her real name, but I just

want to give you an example of the kind of need there is in this

province for this legislation. Mary is a 33 year-old single mother of

two children. Those children are both under the age of 14. Mary has

been on her own for 11 years supporting her children by herself and by

her own labour. Mary is a proud woman. She works in the public service

in this province, not in the private sector, and she does not have a

large income. Her take-home income is about $950 a month. She has been

supporting herself on her own income and has not been on social

assistance. She has had some maintenance payments from her ex-spouse;

they haven't been great but she has had some. The maintenance she has

received has been somewhere in the neighbourhood of $125, $150 a month

for the two children and then eventually an order increased maintenance

for these children to the not-very-large sum of $250 a month.

From 1978 to the present her ex-spouse has been in arrears many

times, and she has gone into court time after time to try to enforce

arrears: 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and again today.

Always it has been a battle in the courts for her to try to get the

very small amount of maintenance that she has asked for and was to

receive for these children, and every attempt has been made by her

spouse to avoid paving for it. She still has not been able to collect

adequate maintenance, even though her spouse is employed — he is

usually employed, and well employed — and has an income of over $1,800

a month, twice what she has; and she supports her children.

So I make a statement on behalf of the government and on behalf of

all members of this House that it is people like Mary who are finally

going to get their just result in this province. And Mary's children.

because they're the ones this bill is passed for.

section 1.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

MR. ROSE: I have a very general question for the

Attorney-General about Mary and her husband. What would be the status

of the maintenance order should Mary's husband suddenly decide to give

up his $18,000-a-year job and go back to university and plead that he

has no money because he's attending school?

HON. B.R. SMITH: The enforcement problems would be lifted

from Mary’s back and placed on the operation of this act. The

collection of assets and the realization and sale of assets to pay

these arrears is something she would not be bearing the burden of.

Also, if he had any income we would be able to attach it, but you

cannot get income where there isn't income. That is, I guess, a

weakness of all collections. If somebody elects to do as you say,

you're left with seizing their assets and monitoring their financial

situation. And if they don't have income, it's hard to get a part of it.

[10:30]

MR. ROSE: But Mary's husband has elected to spend his money

on education rather than on maintenance payments. You can't go to

school for nothing.

HON. B.R. SMITH: If he has income or assets in the bank that are paying for his living and for those fees, yes, we

[ Page 3436 ]

can attach them; but we don't have a paycheque to

garnishee — that's the only thing we don't have — because he doesn't

have a paycheque. If he has the money to go to university, we can find

where that money is — what bank account it's in or who is paying it to

him — and yes, we can attach it.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. MARZARI: I think it's useful at this point to bring up

the concerns of this side of the House. This side is very pleased that

government has listened to our recommendations and our suggestions

about this legislation in bringing in security amendments and the rest

of it, but we must put on the record — and

section 3 is probably the

best place to do it, because

section 3 deals with the filing of orders

— that we would still prefer to see a universal program. We would

prefer to see a program in which every woman is guaranteed that monthly

cheque and doesn't have to file. No matter how easy that process is,

whether you're signing a card or going down to a local office, they're

still filing a statement against a husband who's not making payments —

and incurring his wrath, no doubt. We would rather see a universal

program, not just for GAIN recipients. We just discussed that in Bill

72. But we would prefer to see that for a completely fair system in

which everybody is guaranteed they're going to be receiving their

monthly living allowance.

The other thing that we're very concerned about is the privatization

of the maintenance enforcement. If this goes ahead, we'll be the only

province in Canada that does that, and it concerns us greatly. It also

concerned us about the previous bill — the business of putting out

contracts for private entrepreneurs to be going out and acting

basically as collection agencies. This is not something that should be

taken out of public hands. The confidentiality comes into this; how

those people are bonded; how they are expected to be confidential; what

action can be taken against a private company if that confidentiality

is breached.

My colleague for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) has referred to

confidentiality on the basis of transition houses — addresses that

shouldn't be handed out. I think it's basic to this program that it be

kept in public hands, because the type of information that's being

pushed about is not the kind of information that should be contracted.

So those are our main concerns. I bring them up under

section 3 because

it seems that

section 3 deals with fairness and equity.

HON. B.R. SMITH: A very short response on this because we've

all made our statements on it. I'll just remind the hon. member that

the director of enforcement and her staff will be public servants, and

they will oversee the delivery of the program to see that it meets all

standards, not only of performance but also of bonding and of

confidentiality. They will control the database and ensure that the

program operates in a highly professional manner.

All those considerations will be taken into account when the

contracts are entered into. Based on the experience that we have had in

corrections and other branches of government, where we have had

societies and organizations outside of government run these programs,

it can be done this way, provided you're careful with the contract and

who you contract with. I already made remarks before to try to show

that the program, while not automatic, is universal. It's just simply

not automatic.

Section 3 approved.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

section 10.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

section 13.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

section 14.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the two amendments standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

section 20 as amended.

[ Page 3437 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to comment briefly on this particular

section, which provides for an automatic imprisonment without further

hearing for up to 30 days for the failure to make payments that are

ordered in a default hearing. I want to query the Attorney-General

about his knowledge of a similar provision in the Manitoba legislation,

which was struck down in the Queens Bench judgment very recently on

February 23 of this year in the case of Schnell v. Schnell. He found

that

section 30(4) of the Manitoba maintenance act offends both

sections 7 and 9 of the Charter and amounts to arbitrary imprisonment.

Mr. Chairman, I have that judgment, and I just want to quote briefly

from page 21:

"In effect, the judge or master is given authority to

impose an indefinite sentence of incarceration. Assuming that there was

a continuing default for a specified amount for which a term of

imprisonment could be given, the judge or master would have the right,

without a hearing for each successive default and without affording the

debtor an opportunity to make arrangements....

"In considering the full implications of this

authority, one is readily reminded of the Dickensian horror to which

this could lead. Clearly in any democratic society this is an

intolerable and despotic authority which cannot be countenanced or

justified as a 'reasonable limit prescribed by law."'

Accordingly, he declared that the case "offends and is in

contravention of sections 7 and 9 of the Charter as depriving the

debtor of his life, liberty or security in breach of the principles of

fundamental justice."

This is a very heavy-handed piece of legislation, and it has now

been challenged in the courts. I think we've had some expectation that

that might happen here. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General to comment

on the Manitoba judgment in respect to this particular clause of his

bill.

HON. B.R. SMITH: What we have here is really the reenactment

of the old Family Relations Act,

section 67(2.4) so this is not some

new Dickensian enactment. This is indeed an enactment that we've had

for some time in this province. Imprisoning someone for the non-payment

of a debt is one thing. Imprisoning someone who is in disobedience or

contempt of court orders in respect to payment is a second thing. Where

you have procedures set out in an enactment like this which provide for

personal service and proof of service, provide for a warrant of

committal, and provide for an opportunity for someone to be heard on

the issue, it would seem to me that you are taking reasonable

safeguards that would meet the test of the Charter.

The Manitoba legislation, I think, is a little different than ours.

But I'd be quite happy to say that before proclaiming the section, I'll

certainly get a constitutional opinion on it. I thank the member for

raising that point, and maybe she'd give me a copy of the reasons for

judgment.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 44 inclusive approved.

section 45.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Section 46 approved.

section 47.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

Section 47 as amended approved.

Sections 48 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 58.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 58 as amended approved.

Section 59 approved.

section 60.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 60 as amended approved.

Sections 61 to 72 inclusive approved.

section 73.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[ Page 3438 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 73 as amended approved.

Section 74 approved.

section 75.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 75 as amended approved.

Sections 76 to 81 inclusive approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. It's a new section. [See appendix.]

Section 81.1 approved.

Sections 82 and 83 approved.

section 84.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 84 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 71, Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. B.R. SMITH: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 71, Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 66.

MINERAL TENURE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 66; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order. Just before

we start, hon. members, the second member for Victoria has asked leave

to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.

Would the House this morning welcome Don and Jan Wallace of

Georgeville, Quebec. They're visiting their son-in-law and daughter,

Steve New and Jean Wallace, here in Victoria. Would the House please

make them welcome this morning.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Briefly, there were a number of amendments

standing in my name. They are largely editorial and technical in

nature. They resulted, essentially, from comments received from other

members in the House and from concerned individuals in the industry.

I'll be moving these technical amendments as we proceed clause by

clause.

section 1.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[10:45]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

[ Page 3439 ]

MR. GUNO: This

section outlines the land on which a free

miner may enter. A free miner may not enter land occupied by buildings,

a fenced yard, house, an orchard, cultivated land, lands occupied by

mines unless specifically permitted, or lands in parks. I'm just

wondering if the minister can clarify what expansion of entry is

incorporated in this section.

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is no expansion of right of entry from

the previous act — the existing legislation. There are no additional

rights of entry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: A question to the minister. Is this not the

section that deals with the ability of free miners to use Crown land in

addition to placer land as previously under the act?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There are no new powers or rights granted to

free miners in this legislation. If anything, there's been concern in

the industry that their rights were being restricted. When it comes to

Crown lands, the Minister of Forests and Lands, who is responsible for

Crown lands also, has to decide whether or not the applicant for a

claim can obtain the surface rights. So it then reaches into another

ministry which is concerned with multiple use or other uses of the

surface rights.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

MR. VANT: This

section regarding use of right-of-way is of

some concern, especially to the miners in the Cariboo. I must say that

initial development of many access routes was done by miners, and we

have to recognize the surface rights of others, but when it comes to

open Crown land, a free miner feels very uncomfortable having to give

notice to someone before using such a route, so they find this

section

completely unacceptable. Often the miners are the first into the

country, and after them the loggers came along, and indeed in some

cases they've ruined the original road built by the miners. So they

feel very strongly that no miner should have to give notice to a

logging or forestry company in order to get access to leases or claims,

and they often like to very discreetly do their exploration and

development work.

I would like the minister to comment on this

section 12.

HON. MR. DAVIS:

Section 12 has been the subject of considerable discussion

with the industry since the bill was tabled. The free miner does have a right

of access, but the free miner must first do his or her utmost to determine who

owns or maintains the route of access which he uses. If another person is put

to any expense in further maintaining or repair in a the route he or she uses,

there is an obligation to share in or offset that cost.

Further, if no settlement is reached, there is an arbitration

provision provided elsewhere in the Mineral Tenure Act. The hon. member

from the Cariboo is right in that the free miners certainly were among

the first people in the province, after the fur traders, and they have

had substantial rights of access to properties other than really

private, private property, and they will continue to have that right of

access. But where someone else has either built a road or is

maintaining a road for whatever reason, they have to reach some

understanding as to how they will compensate that individual — who must

have some rights for any losses that that individual incurs.

MR. VANT: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I'd just

like to emphasize, too, that we as a government seem to be promoting

multi-use of our Crown land and that also we have to be concerned about

freedom of access not only for free miners but for everyone.

MS. EDWARDS: I would just like to follow up a bit, because I

would like the minister to clarify who you mean by "the person having

responsibility for maintaining it." Is that all? I ask on behalf of the

range-users, because frequently there could be some problems with free

miners entering property where a road is not maintained by the

range-user but where the range-users are there. For example, leaving a

gate down or something would create a major problem for other

range-users. I also recognize that there is a great conflict of

interest with recreationists as well, but would you clarify this for

the range-users in particular? Does the free miner have to notify

someone who has the right to use the range?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think the simple answer is yes.

MR. GUNO: Given this kind of notification, and other

responsibilities given to it under this act, is the Mediation and

Arbitration Board going to change its size, structure and methods of

holding hearings as a result of its additional responsibilities under

this act?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes. As the hon. member undoubtedly knows,

the arbitration process.... The people who have been doing this work

have been primarily concerned with oil and gas situations in the Peace

River area, and we're now extending the appeal process and the

resolution of disputes process to mining generally. So there will be

additional requirements and they'll be met.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

MR. GUNO: This

section says that when reserve Crown land not

being used for something other than mining is, in the opinion of the

minister, needed for mining, the Minister of Lands can sell the surface

rights to the owner of the mineral rights at a value he considers

adequate. My question is: is the Minister of Lands required to make any

sort of evaluation of whether the land in question could be put to

better use than mining, or does the Minister of Lands make the decision

to sell surface rights based solely on his own judgment? What sort of

process is there for evaluation?

[ Page 3440 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: I assume that the Minister of Lands, who is

responsible to the Crown for the disposition of Crown assets, must —

certainly should — have a good, sound idea of the value of those

surface rights for any and all purposes, must be concerned with

multi-use, for example, and should essentially require a market value

price in order to conclude any disposition of those surface rights

surrounding a claim.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

MR. GUNO: According to this section, when a person applies

for and receives surveyed Crown land, the surface rights have priority

over subsequently claimed mineral rights. If a person stakes the

unsurveyed Crown land and is granted surface rights, then the surface

lands have precedence over subsequent mineral claims. Is that the

correct

interpretation of this section? If so, can we have

clarification on that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm told that is a correct assumption.

MR. GUNO: On the same section: if at the time the surface

rights to the Crown land are awarded the land has a mineral claim

already established, then the granting of surface rights should not

lessen the rights of the mineral-holder except as decided by the

mediation and arbitration board. Again, I want confirmation as to

whether that

interpretation is correct.

HON. MR. DAVIS: That is a correct

interpretation.

MR. GUNO: In light of those confirmations, if the surface

rights to the Crown land are granted where a mineral claim already

exists, is the selling price of the Crown land affected?

HON. MR. DAVIS: It may or may not be. I would assume that the

Minister of Lands or whoever else is responsible for the disposition of

the surface rights would have to consider whether there was an enhanced

surface value as the result of, say, workable or economic mineral

occurrence in the mineral title property under the surface lands.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

MR. GUNO: If the minister considers it necessary, he may

restrict the surface rights of a mining claim, notwithstanding this or

any other act, with no compensation payable. Indeed, in effect, a

person has 30 days to appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. My

question on

section 15 is: in the previous Mineral Act, the minister

could restrict the use of surface rights in a claim, a lease or a

certified lease. In this bill, the power is restricted to claims. Why

has the minister's ability to restrict the activity through this clause

been reduced?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I gather that by the changes as between the

old legislation and the legislation presently before the House we are

strengthening the validity of the lease in law.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I didn't quite understand the minister's comments, if you wouldn't mind restating that.

[11:00]

HON. MR. DAVIS: My impression from the advice I'm getting is

that the minister's powers over the surface rights are reduced, and in

compensation the mineral rights are strengthened.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GUNO: According to this section, before using a

mechanical means to disturb the surface of the earth, a mineral rights

holder must notify the surface rights holders. The free miner is then

liable to compensate the surface rights holders for the use of their

land. The Mediation and Arbitration Board formed under the Petroleum

and Natural Gas Act has the authority to settle disputes in this regard

after gold commissioners have tried to settle it.

The question arising out of this is: can a free miner enter land

whose surface rights are privately held and stake a claim without

notifying the surface-holder?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is yes.

MR. GUNO: Does the miner have to get permission to use the

land, or does he merely have to notify the owner? In other words, is it

consent or just notification?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Notification is required in this case. If the two parties don't agree, then they go to arbitration.

MR. GUNO: Does the arbitration process then deal with whether

or not the miner has the right to be on the land or only with the

compensation payable? What would be the issues before the arbitration

process?

HON. MR. DAVIS: A right to be on the land only after the compensation question has been settled.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

section 19.

MR. VANT: I am amazed that this

section is in this bill,

given that on December 17 last year, Bill 51, the Mineral Amendment

Act, 1987 — which appears to be word for word

section 19 — was given

royal assent. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

With all due respect, I think the title of this particular

section

should be changed to "Recreation and resource use areas." I know that

section 17 of Bill 66 covers parks, and I'm aware that under the Park

Act "recreation area" is a legal

[ Page 3441 ]

term. But I'm very nervous that in this province

we're going to end up with one-third parks and two-thirds recreation

areas. There are provisions under

section 19, given certain

time-frames, that resource use is possible. I certainly concur that in

a park a resource use permit must be issued by the Minister of

Environment and Parks. I'd be much more comfortable if this

section 19

were entitled "Recreation and resource use areas."

HON. MR. DAVIS: As the hon. second member for Cariboo has

mentioned,

section 19 is lifted verbatim from the earlier bill passed

in this House, Bill 51. There are no changes from that legislation in

this section.

Yes, there was a debate at that time as to the nature of recreation

areas. Concern was expressed on both sides of the question as to

whether there should be the usual mining rights in recreation areas.

Concern was expressed also by the mining industry that at some time a

recreation area could become a park, and the moment that decision was

made, they were under a ten-year countdown as to whether mining might

eventually be permitted. It's a debatable topic, but certainly it's in

a bill that has been passed by this House in this session.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GUNO: Under

section 20 there is a requirement that the

mineral title be cleared before a new claim is staked, that even if one

part of a claim is declared invalid, the whole claim is not made

invalid, and that priority of location of claims is based on the time

the claim is located, provided the claim is made in a proper way. The

question arising out of that is.... It's actually a clarification that

we would want from the minister, in that this would be a good time to

get a clear idea of the extent of the confusion that reigns in various

parts of the province, with people unsure about when claims are free,

when their claim overlaps another, what time claims are invalid, and

how much time and energy goes into unravelling these problems within

the ministry. Given the fact that this particular act now opens up the

activity of placer mining in British Columbia, I wonder if these

problems are going to be expedited in any way by passage of this bill.

HON. MR. DAVIS: As the hon. member knows, several pieces of

legislation — including the placer act — have been consolidated in a

single bill, this bill dealing with mineral tenure. From now on the

terminology used, for instance, in respect to placer mining and

hardrock mining, will be identical. So, as the terminology will be

common and the approach generally the same, I would expect that the

conflicts or disputes between the different segments of the industry

would be reduced.

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

section 23.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GUNO: Previously a free miner had 30 days to record a

claim after locating it; now it is 20. If the gold commissioner

corrects what he perceives to be an error on an application or record,

does that record then become the legal facts of the record, whether or

not the applicant approves of the changes?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the amendment eliminates the

term "20 days" and substitutes "a prescribed period," which may be

longer than 20 days. I assume that the prescribed period would appear

in regulations.

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 25 as amended.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In the case of placer claims specifically and

mining claims in general, will one of the requirements of maintaining a

claim in good standing be an effective environmental reconstruction

program?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that there is no

requirement under this legislation, but there is a requirement under

the Mines Act which would protect the environment — other uses of that

resource.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister could be more specific. How does the Mines Act deal with this problem?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The free miner in this case first has to file

a notice of work and a description of the reclamation works he will

undertake. They have to be approved before he undertakes any work, and

that work will be policed essentially under the Mines Act.

MS. SMALLWOOD: With the existing work orders that have been

filed in the province in the last couple of years.... In our

introductory comments on second reading, we outlined our concern that

there were 800 filed, and only 250 were able to be investigated or

policed.

What this bill does is invite much more activity in the province,

and I'd like to hear from the minister what steps have been taken to

ensure that we can look after the work orders on the books right now.

In addition to that, what moves

[ Page 3442 ]

has the minister made to bring in more staff and support their ability to police the additions?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's generally agreed

that we need some more staff. But of the 800 claims filed last year,

750 were inspected. So there is a shortfall of 50, but not of 400 or

500, in the inspection process.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Okay. Recognizing that there is inevitable

damage to not only the surface but also water rights as a result of

placer mining, can the minister indicate where the requirements will

be, to deal not only with surface reclamation but also any erosion

downstream?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is an in-house or within-the-industry

discipline enforced by the Mines minister, also by the provincial

Minister of Environment and Parks and the federal Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans. I am told that the plan which the prospective miner must

file is quite detailed, and the policing is careful.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Very clearly the minister is referring to his

own ministry and the ministry's responsibilities. The figures we used

in the introduction were figures that reflected the Ministry of

Environment's ability to deal with their authority under waste

management. When we suggested that only 250 out of the 800 had been

investigated.... I understand that those figures are correct and that

they deal specifically with the Environment ministry and their ability

to do their job.

I would hope that the Minister of Mines, because it is directly

involving and affecting the Ministry of Environment, would have had

those discussions and could indicate to us — perhaps the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) could at this time — what plans they

have to deal with this problem. It is a very serious problem.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think perhaps all figures that we've heard

this morning are right: 800 claims, 750 carefully inspected by the

Mines ministry, perhaps several hundred inspected or checked up on by

the Environment ministry. In an ideal world the industry would police

itself at its own expense, and the policing by the Ministry of

Environment and others would only be needed as a casual follow-up. So

there have been substantial inspections — 750 by Mines and 250 by

Environment.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 30 as amended approved.

section 31.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 31 as amended.

[11:15]

MR. GUNO: Previously, if a claim forfeited, the free miner in

question could not hold a claim on the same land for period of one year

following the forfeiture. This is not the case in this act. Doesn't

this open the door to a lot of abuse by people who would simply

relocate their old claims after forfeiture? How would you police that

kind of abuse?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I gather, Mr. Chairman, that this matter is dealt with effectively in

section 35.

MR. VANT: On

section 31(1), it used to be 12:01 a.m. It says

here that location of a new claim shall not commence until 7 a.m. the

next day. This could create a problem. I know the reason for this is

safety; it's very hard to stake a claim in the dark. But I would

prefer, instead of 7 a.m., that it be at official dawn, because at

certain times of the year — even in the Cariboo, believe it or not — it

can be daylight at 5 a.m. That's prior to this official 7 a.m., so

there could still be the opportunity for someone to sneak in and

actually start staking before 7 a.m. So I would just ask the minister

to at some time consider substituting "official dawn" — sunrise is at a

certain time very day, and that could replace 7 a.m.

HON. MR. DAVIS: That's seems like a reasonable amendment. I

told hon. members that where they have been making good points....

We'll be bringing in miscellaneous bills in the next session for a few

changes, and that sounds like one we should bring back promptly in the

next session.

Section 31 as amended approved.

section 32.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 32 as amended approved.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

section 35.

MS. SMALLWOOD: A couple of questions to the minister. First

of all, why is there no deadline for the gold commissioner to make his

decision on complaints when previously there was a 60-day one?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm told, Mr. Chairman, that the 60 day

time-limit was often inadequate because the complainant had further

submissions to make, and the adjudication simply couldn't be carried

out in that time-period.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister assure us that this does not

have to do with the limited resources the gold commissioner would have

in his ability to deal with his job?

[ Page 3443 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm told by the chief gold commissioner that

it's simply a matter of allowing adequate time for feedback; it's not a

matter of shortage of staff.

MS. SMALLWOOD: An old adage comes to mind: justice delayed is no justice at all.

My second question is: is it possible for the chief gold inspector to adjudicate

a complaint himself, without a public report being made? That seems to be implied

in subsection (5)(b).

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm told that due process has to be followed

in this, as in other cases; and the complainant needs time in order to

respond, back and forth, in order to feel that he or she has received

proper treatment.

MR. VANT: Subsection (4)(

b) is somewhat objectionable. I

agree that a free miner should make a deposit, not pay a fee,

concerning a complaint as to title or the performance of exploration

and development. The deposit, I agree, is very necessary to prevent

frivolous and vexatious complaints. A free miner should be willing to

put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, and after subsequent

investigation by ministry staff, if the complaint is justified, the

free miner would get is money back. This suggestion, I respectfully

suggest, would enhance the self-policing nature of the mining industry.

Section 35 approved.

section 36.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GUNO: These amendments redefine the amount of mineral or

placer mineral which may be produced on a claim. Previously, 200 tonnes

of ore could be produced from each mineral claim. Now it's 1,000 tonnes

from each unit in the claim. If a claim is one or two units, this is a

good amendment; but for larger claims, this increases their ability to

produce. More importantly, for placer claims, it was previously

possible to produce up to 20 cubic metres per day or 2,000 cubic metres

a year from a claim. Now it is simply restricted to a level up to 2,000

cubic metres a year, which leaves the door open for people to process

2,000 cubic metres as fast as possible in order to cut their operating

costs and move on to another claim.

My question to the minister is: how can the ministry possibly govern

the environmental aspects of placer claims if there is no restriction

on the speed at which they can process their pay dirt? People who hold

claims could be in and out before the ministry has any chance to check

their operation. Some clarification from the minister, please.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Again, the control of the mining operation,

if I can call it that, is under the Mines Act, and the operator in that

case must submit a plan as to amounts, timing and so on. The Minister

of Mines can first scrutinize that plan as to the ministry's ability to

police the operation and, second, withhold or approve the plan.

MR. GUNO: When you're talking about the control under the

Minister of Mines, would that be the stage 1, 2 and 3 process, or is

that a different process altogether?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No. that would be at the local, most regional

level within the ministry. That doesn't in any way intercept the

approval process, which is separate from that.

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

section 37.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just a quick question. I want to know why the term of the minimum lease has been extended — an extension of over 40 percent.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The industry applied for an extension, saying

that in the case of a number of properties — certainly the more

attractive properties, the ones that may become mines — they needed

more years in order to finance the project. It was essentially a matter

of finance, rather than other aspects of the development.

Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

MR. VANT: I will defer to later the discussion with the minister and his competent staff.

Section 40 approved.

section 41.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is: has the minister at this point

designated any lands with placer mining that would not be in the public

interest — for example, parkland — or is the minister planning to judge

each application as it is put to him?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There have been no designations in respect to

parkland, and I assume there would be no new designations under that

heading whatsoever. There was a second aspect to the question, which I

have forgotten.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The question was: are you going to deal with

each claim or each worksite specifically? And back to the parkland

issue: will there be a weighing of priorities when you make that

decision?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is yes. The approvals will be

carried out on a case-by-case basis and essentially in the field by a

placer coordinating committee in the region in question.

Section 41 approved.

Sections 42 to 47 inclusive approved,

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[ Page 3444 ]

Section 47.1 approved.

Sections 48 to 64 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Section 64.1 approved.

Sections 65 to 68 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66, Mineral Tenure Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 66, Mineral Tenure Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've got a fast little housekeeping item,

Mr. Speaker. This is caused by a typo. By leave I move that the

proceedings on third reading of Bill 65, Cooperative Association

Amendment Act, 1987, be declared null and void and that the bill be

recommitted with respect to

section 19.1. So I call Mr. Chairman for

this bill.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the matter of Bill 65 I move that in

section 19.1 all references to sections 17(

g) or (

h) be deleted and

sections 17(1)(

g) or (

h) be substituted therefore.

Amendment approved.

Section 19.1 as amended approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 65, Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 65, Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 64, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 64; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. ROSE: I would just like to ask the minister if the opposition critic is aware of these amendments and knew they were here.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, they've been on the order paper

for four or five days. These amendments, and particularly 13.1, are

simply errors in wording and are not substantial.

Section 13.1 approved.

Sections 14 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 64, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. DAVIS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 3445 ]

Bill 64, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 28.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Government House Leader on Bill 28 — or opposition House Leader, I should say.

MR. ROSE: I think it was a Freudian slip, but you were probably right the first time. Maybe in the future.

Mr. Chairman, we're not going to speak on this bill, not because we

don't want to but because we have spoken volumes on the bill. We find

the bill unacceptable, especially the removal of the

section 80s from

voting day. We've made that point over and over again. I don't know

that it would do any good to reiterate that here. Although we're

disappointed we haven't a little more time, we haven't.

We've made an arrangement to have royal assent on some of these other matters, so therefore I call division on Bill 28.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you, opposition House Leader. We will have to call the sections, I'm sorry. It will only take a minute or two.

Section 8 as amended approved on division.

section 9.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 to 13 approved.

section 14.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

section 15.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

section 16.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

section 17.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Brummet

L. Hanson

Dueck

Parker

Michael

Loenen

De Jong

Rabbitt

Long

Veitch

McCarthy

S. Hagen

Strachan

Couvelier

Davis

R. Fraser

Gran

A. Fraser

Ree

Bruce

Vant

Campbell

Peterson

Messmer

Jacobsen

S.D. Smith

NAYS — 16

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Stupich

Skelly

Boone

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Miller

A. Hagen

Clark

Edwards

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Election Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. VEITCH: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 28, Election Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed on division.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that

His Honour is in the precincts and will be attending us soon. This is a

significant day in that we will soon be ending the thirty-fourth

parliament. I would be

[ Page 3446 ]

remiss if I didn't thank the members opposite, in

particular my good friend opposite, the opposition House Leader, and

acknowledge his perseverance with us and with the arrangements we've

made. We have, as we wanted to characterize this parliament, been able

to disagree without being disagreeable.

I would also be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the good works of the

first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) who has served as the

opposition Whip for some years, and as well acknowledge their new

opposition Whip, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). As well

I'll acknowledge the good works done by our Whip, the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree); the Deputy Whip, the member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Long); and now the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson), who

has taken over those duties.

My thanks to all of you, and to all members who have made this an

interesting session when we consider Bill 19 and 20 and some other

notable pieces of legislation. I shouldn't have mentioned that, I know,

but it has been good, and I thank you ever so much.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I am provoked by the kind words of the

government House Leader and minister. To reciprocate, there have been

some difficult times; some heavy breathing from time to time; some

profound policy differences. It hasn't been lovey-dovey, but I would

just like to say on behalf of our side and to you, Mr. Speaker, and to

the government that this session and this Legislature has been a much

more pleasant place in which to work than its previous incarnation.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Election Amendment Act, 1987

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1987

Mineral Tenure Act

Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987

Family Maintenance Enforcement Act

Guaranteed Available Income For Need Amendment Act, 1987

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept

their benevolence and assent to these bills.

HON. R.G. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislative

Assembly, on this closing day of the first session of the thirty-fourth

Parliament of British Columbia, I congratulate all members of the House

on the accomplishments of the past year. Most particularly, I wish to

express my appreciation for the new spirit of civility and cooperation

that has characterized this session. That spirit is clearly evident in

your creation of a Board of Internal Economy to regulate matters

closely affecting this House.

During the life of this parliament, British Columbia has been

honoured by a visit of Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip; a visit

marked by the granting of a new provincial coat-of-arms and elevation

of the provincial museum to its new status as the Royal British

Columbia Museum.

At the same time, British Columbia held the world stage as

Commonwealth heads of government representing 47 nations met in

Vancouver. Since the start of this session in March 1987, my government

has introduced important initiatives designed to create a stronger

economy and new employment opportunities and has enjoyed some

considerable success. This is evidenced by a steady improvement in the

employment picture, with 95,000 more British Columbians working in

January this year than a year earlier. That represents an annual growth

rate in the number of people actually employed of 7.3 percent, compared

to a national rate of 4.3 percent, or an Ontario rate of 4.5 percent.

Other welcome signs of our burgeoning economy are a healthy forest

industry, strong gains in manufacturing, improved mineral prices,

increased natural gas sales, record high farm income and continued

strength in tourism. As the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada

stated last month, British Columbia's economy has confounded the

skeptics and shows a solid pattern of sustained growth.

A far-reaching policy undertaken this session has been the

fundamental restructuring of government through two major initiatives:

privatization and regionalization. My government intends to use

privatization as a tool to create new economic opportunity. The impetus

for this initiative flows from the work of two task forces, one private

sector and one public sector, and the positive experiences here and in

other jurisdictions, where privatization has reduced costs, lowered the

public debt burden and encouraged employee ownership.

Regionalization will make government more accessible to British

Columbians, involving the people of all regions in the decision-making

process and matching solutions to regional priorities. My government

has begun putting this principle into action with the appointment of

eight ministers of state to facilitate regional development. Consistent

with this commitment to a new openness, my government has acted to

provide radio coverage of the Legislature.

In the session now ending you have adopted some 70 pieces of

legislation, many of them with broad significance for the province,

including two key pieces of labour legislation. These two acts have

ushered in a new era of fairness and stability in labour-management

relations in British Columbia.

A new forest policy enunciated by my government, along with

legislation approved by this House, will provide a fair return from the

public resource and ensure a high level of reforestation. This new

policy was directly responsible for ending the 15 percent

countervailing duty imposed by the United States on British Columbia

softwood exports.

In the realm of law enforcement, my government has launched support

programs for victims of crime so that they are not lost in the shuffle

of the justice system.

This House has also passed into law new and fairer expropriation

legislation. You are to be congratulated for the Sechelt Indian band

legislation, a model of self-government for native people.

New procedures have been put in place to keep adopted native

children within the native community wherever possible. This and other

measures demonstrate my government's firm commitment to strengthening

the family in British Columbia. Funding for adoption has been

increased, and a new adoption registry now permits adopted children and

their natural parents to be reunited if both parties consent. During

this session an increase in welfare rates has focused on the needs of

families and single parents.

[ Page 3447 ]

In the schools my government has introduced a family life program to

assist our young people on the road to becoming responsible adults.

Other education initiatives recognize this province's unique

relationship with the Pacific Rim nations and offer student exchanges,

scholarships, language training and other curriculum enhancements.

My government has also introduced the Passport to Education program,

giving high school students the opportunity to earn credits towards a

post-secondary education. It has provided increased funding for

schools, including independent schools, as well as increased funding

for universities and other post-secondary institutions. In addition, it

has substantially increased financial assistance to students in our

universities and colleges.

You have approved an Open Learning Agency Act, providing

opportunities for those who want to continue their education but cannot

be present in the classroom and lecture hall. This province's

continuing commitment to such "distance education" was recognized when

British Columbia was chosen as the coordinating centre for the

Commonwealth distance education network.

British Columbians continue to enjoy one of the finest health care

systems in the world. Its effectiveness was improved during this

session with the addition of a program to assist in the prevention and

treatment of substance abuse by young people. A major education program

was undertaken to inform the public about the dangers of acquired

immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS.

Over the past year my government has increased the area of

wilderness protected under legislation by 810,000 hectares — not

including the South Moresby area, a 145,000-hectare wilderness that is

designated to become a national park. My government has also created

nine new provincial parks. The total area of wilderness now protected

under provincial legislation is 5.47 million hectares, or approximately

5.8 percent of the province. To put it another way, there are about 2

hectares of protected wilderness for every resident of British

Columbia, three times that of Ontario and the highest such ratio for

any province in Canada.

Finally, this session has been noteworthy for the way government has

actively sought public input. There have been a number of task forces,

inquiries and councils established to examine various issues. Some have

completed their work. Others, such as the Justice Reform Committee, the

Royal Commission on Education, the Aquaculture Industry Advisory

Council and the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries, continue

their investigations. Still others, such as the Premier's Economic

Advisory Council and the science and technology council, are

permanently in place to provide continuing advice to government.

As this first session of the thirty-fourth parliament of British

Columbia comes to a close, I commend you for the careful consideration

you have given to the many important measures that have come before

you. I thank you for your efforts on behalf of all British Columbians

and now relieve you of your legislative duties.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I am duty-bound to inform you that it is his

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's will and pleasure that this

Legislative Assembly be prorogued until 3 p.m. Tuesday, March 15, 1988,

and this provincial assembly is hereby prorogued accordingly.

The House prorogued at 12:02 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

28 The Hon. E. N. Veitch to move, in Committee of the Whole on

Bill (No. 28) intituled Election Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 9 , in the proposed

section 87 (3) by adding "80.1,"

before "115".

SECTION 14 , by deleting the proposed paragraph (

b) and substituting the following:

(

b) in subsection (6) by striking out "80," and substituting "80.1,".

SECTION 15 , by deleting the proposed

section 15 and substituting the following:

15 .

Section 120 (3) is amended by striking out "80" and substituting

"80.1".

SECTION 16 , by deleting the proposed

section 16 and substituting the following:

16 .

Section 122 (1) (

e) is amended by striking out "80" in

both places and substituting "80.1".

SECTION 17 , by deleting the proposed

section 17 and substituting the following:

17 .

Section 128 (1) is amended by striking out "80," and

substituting "80.1,".

[ Page

3448 ]

64 The Hon. J. Davis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 64) intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 11 , in the proposed

section 74 (3) by adding ", on

application by the lessee made not later than 60 days after the expiry

of the lease," after "the commissioner shall".

SECTION 13.1 , by adding the following section:

13.1

Section 78 (4) is amended by striking out paragraph (

b) and substituting the following:

(

b) surrender all of the location of the lease except eligible spacing areas as defined in

section 74 (2).

66 The Hon. J. Davis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 66) intituled Mineral Tenure Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1 ,

(

a) in the proposed definition of "legal corner post" by deleting "post" and substituting "post or cairn", and

(

b) in the proposed definition of "mineral lands" by adding at the end ", and includes Crown granted 2 post claims".

SECTION 3 , in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "claims inspectors" and substituting "mineral title inspectors".

SECTION 6 ,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (1) by adding "or" at the end of paragraph (

c) and by deleting paragraph (d), and

(

b) by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) A person employed by a free miner may explore for minerals or

placer minerals on behalf of that free miner without holding a free

miner certificate.

(3) A person employed by a recorded holder may develop and produce

minerals or placer minerals on behalf of that recorded holder without

holding a free miner certificate.

SECTION 7 ,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "or" at the end of

paragraph (a), by adding "or" at the end of paragraph (

b) and by adding

the following paragraph:

(

c) a partnership consisting of partners who are persons that qualify under paragraph (

a) or (b). ,

(

b) in the proposed subsection (3) (

f) by deleting "day on which it

is issued" and substituting "day on which it is stated to be issued",

and

(

c) in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "own" and substituting "hold".

SECTION 10 ,

(

a) by deleting the proposed subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following:

(2) A mineral claim and a placer claim or placer lease may exist independently on the same mineral lands.

(3) Where a dispute arises between recorded holders on the same mineral lands

(

a) as to whether a substance is a mineral or a placer mineral, or

(

b) respecting the exercise of surface

rights conferred by this Act, the question shall be decided by the

chief gold commissioner on application to him by a party to the

dispute, and, for the purposes of making a determination under this

section, the chief gold commissioner has the powers of a commissioner

under sections 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act . ,

[ Page

3449 ]

(

b) in the proposed subsection (4) by adding "under subsection (3) (a)" after "determination", and

(

c) in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "subsection (4)" and substituting "subsection (3)".

SECTION 16 , by deleting the proposed subsection (6).

SECTION 20 ,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "mineral claim or

previous placer claim, as the case may be." and substituting "mineral

title.", and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (3) by adding at the beginning "Notwithstanding subsection (2),".

SECTION 23 ,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "20 days after it is

located." and substituting "the prescribed period after location.", and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "the 20 days" and substituting "the prescribed period".

SECTION 25 , by deleting "it was recorded" and substituting

"of record", by adding "from year to year" after "thereafter" and by

deleting "he may hold the claim for a further year".

SECTION 30 ,

(

a) by deleting "co-owner", "co-owner's" and "co-owners" wherever

they appear and substituting "co-recorded holder", "co-recorded

holder's" and "co-recorded holders" respectively, and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "before the 3 month period," and substituting "during the 3 month period,".

SECTION 31 , in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "overlying

claim" and substituting "overlying mineral title".

SECTION 32 ,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (2) by adding at the end "from the

end of the day specified in the application as the cancellation date",

and

(

b) by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and substituting the following:

(3) After the claim has been cancelled, a free miner may, subject to

the exclusive right referred to in

section 33 (3), locate a mineral

claim on the land covered by the claim that has been abandoned, but the

location shall not commence until 7 a.m. on the day after cancellation.

SECTION 36 , by deleting the proposed

section 36 and substituting the

following:

Production on claim

(1) A recorded holder of a mineral claim shall not produce or

cause to have produced in a year more than 1000 tonnes of ore from each

unit in that claim.

(2) A recorded holder of a placer claim shall not produce or cause to have produced placer minerals from more than 2000 m 3 of pay-dirt each year from that claim.

SECTION 47.1 , by adding the following

section at the beginning of

Part

Industrial minerals––rights

47.1

(1) In this

section "mineral substance" means a substance

that is a mineral or placer mineral under this Act, but was not a mineral or

placer mineral under the former Acts.

[ Page

3450 ]

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as invalidating or

affecting any right to a mineral substance acquired before this Act

came into force.

(3) A person having a right to a mineral substance in mineral lands

in respect of which no right to minerals or placer minerals is vested

in a person under the former Acts, has the exclusive right for a period

of 90 days after this

section comes into force to locate a mineral

claim or placer claim over those lands, and, on such location, the

right referred to in subsection (2) is extinguished.

(4) A free miner, who locates a mineral claim on land that is

affected by the right referred to in subsection (2), does not acquire

any title to the mineral substance which is the subject of that right.

(5) Where one or more titles to a mineral substance expire or are

surrendered, the minister may issue a mineral lease or placer lease

any requirement for re-survey.

SECTION 64.1 , by adding the following

section under the heading "Land

Act":

64.1

Section 24 is amended by striking out everything after "foregoing"

and substituting the following:

(

a) earth, soil, peat, marl, sand and gravel, and

(

b) rock, riprap and stone products that are

used in the construction or maintenance of a road, building or

structure not located on land within a mineral title or group of titles

from which the rock, riprap or stone product is mined,

may provide for payment of a royalty for material removed from the land at rates to be determined by the minister.

71 The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 71) intituled Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1 , in paragraph (

b) of the proposed definition of "maintenance order" by striking out "section 21" and substituting "section 20".

SECTION 9 , in the proposed

section 9 (1) by adding "any record in" after "any information that is in".

SECTION 10 , by striking out the proposed

section 10 (1) and substituting

the following:

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of the maintenance order but

subject to subsections (2) and (3), all payments required to be made by

the debtor under a maintenance order that is filed with the director

shall

(

a) be made by cheque or money order payable to the creditor and delivered to the director, or

(

b) with the approval of the director, be made directly

to the creditor in a prescribed manner.

SECTION 12 , in the proposed

section 12 (2) by adding ", shall

be accompanied by the prescribed documents" after "prescribed form" and

by striking out "15 days" and substituting "10 days".

SECTION 13 , in the proposed

section 13 (2) by adding ", shall

be accompanied by the prescribed documents" after "prescribed form" and

by striking out "15 days" and substituting "10 days".

SECTION 14 , in the proposed

section 14 (1) by adding "or prescribed

document or both" after "statement of finances" in both places.

[ Page

3451 ]

SECTION 14 , in the proposed

section 14 by adding the following subsection:

(5) The imprisonment of a debtor under subsection (3) does not

discharge the debtor's duty to file a statement for finances and the

prescribed documents.

SECTION 20 , in the proposed

section 20 (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(

e) that, as security for the payments in

arrears and subsequent payments, the debtor provide security in any

form that the court directs.

SECTION 20 , by striking out the proposed

section 20 (7) and substituting

the following:

(7) Where there is a material change in the circumstances of the

debtor, the court may, without reducing or cancelling the aggregate of

the arrears required to be paid under an order it made under subsection

(1) or (2), vary the order.

SECTION 20 , in the proposed

section 20 by adding the following subsections:

(8) In an order for security under subsection (1) (

e) or a

subsequent order, the court may provide for the realization of the

security by seizure, sale or other means that the court directs or for

the release of all or part of the security.

(9) Where an order under subsection (1) or (2) is in force, a payment made by the debtor shall be credited

(

a) first to the amount due and owing under the maintenance

order after the date of the order under subsection (1) or (2),

(

b) next to any arrears required to be paid under the

order under subsection (1) or (2), and

(

c) last to any other amount due and owing.

SECTION 29 , by striking out the proposed

section 29 and substituting

the following:

Crediting of payments

29 . Unless the court orders otherwise, a payment made under

section

10, 15 or 21 shall be credited

(

a) first to the periodic payment most recently due

under the maintenance order,

(

b) next to the arrears due and owing, and

(

c) last to any other amount due and owing in respect

of the maintenance order.

SECTION 33 , in the proposed

section 33 (2) by adding "or prescribed document" after "a statement of finances".

SECTION 45 , by renumbering the proposed

section 45 as

section 45 (1)

and by adding the following subsection:

(2) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, refuses or neglects

to comply with an order made under

section 9 (1) or 20 (1) (

e) commits

an offence.

SECTION 47 , in the proposed

section 47 (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(o.1) requiring verification, by affidavit or otherwise,

of any statement, information or document required to be filed or provided under

this Act, .

SECTION 47 , in the proposed

section 47 by adding the following subsection:

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) (

c) or (

d) shall be made in the manner provided for in the Court Rules Act .

SECTION 58 , by striking out

section 58 (

b) and substituting the following:

(

b) in subsection (2) by striking out "sections

64, 65.1, 66, 67, 68, 68.1, 68.2 and 69 and".

[ Page

3452 ]

SECTION 60 , in the proposed

section 63.3 (1) by adding "any

record in" after "any information that is in" and by renumbering the

paragraphs immediately after "that concerns" as paragraphs (

c) and (d).

SECTION 73 , by striking out that

section and substituting the following:

73 .

Section 81 is amended

(

a) by repealing subsection (1.1) and substituting the following:

(1.1) Any person who

(

a) contravenes

section 37.1 (3) or 63.2 (6), or

(

b) without reasonable excuse, refuses or neglects to comply with an order made under

section 37.2 (1) or 63.3

(1) commits an offence. , and

(

b) in subsection (2.1) (

b) by striking out "section 63.2 (5)" and substituting "section 37.3 and 63.3 (4)".

SECTION 75 , by striking out

section 75 (

b) and substituting the following:

(

b) in subsection (4) by striking out "garnishing" and by adding "or attachee" after "garnishee".

SECTION 81.1 , by adding under the heading "Supreme Court Act" the following section:

81.1

Section 44 is repealed.

SECTION 84 , by deleting the proposed

section 84 (2) and substituting

the following:

(2) Any provision of

section 3 may be brought into force on

different dates in different areas of the Province with respect to

different classes of creditors.

72 The Hon. C. H. Richmond to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 72) intituled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 2 , in the proposed

section 19.2

(

a) in subsection (1) by adding "or on behalf of" after "Where income assistance is paid to",

(

b) in subsection (1) (

d) by adding "even though the arrears accrued

before this

section comes into force," after "dependent child,",

(

c) in subsection (1) (

e) by adding "even though the arrears accrued

before this

section comes into force," after "order or agreement,",

(

d) in subsection (1) (f) (

i) by adding "even though the arrears

accrued before this

section comes into force," after "under a

maintenance order,",

(

e) in subsection (3) (

b) by adding "and" after "discretion,",

(

f) in subsection (3) by deleting paragraph (

c) and substituting the following:

(

c) revert, subject to

section 19.7 (3), to the individual

when income assistance ceases to be paid to or on behalf of the individual.

(

g) in subsection (3) by deleting paragraph (d),

(

h) in subsection (4) by adding "or on behalf of whom" after "the individual to whom", and

(

i) in subsection (6) by adding "alteration," after "making,".

SECTION 2 , in the proposed

section 19.3

(

a) in subsection (1) by adding "or on behalf of whom" after "an individual to whom",

[ Page

3453 ]

(

b) in subsection (3) by deleting "(

a) to (c)" and substituting "(

a) and (b)", and

(

c) by deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:

(4) Subject to

section 19.7 (3), an assignment made under subsection

(1) ceases to have effect when income assistance ceases to be paid to

or on behalf of the individual.

SECTION 2 , in the proposed

section 19.4 (2) by adding "or to

reduce or cancel arrears of payments under a maintenance order" after

"maintenance order".

SECTION 2 , in the proposed

section 19.5 (

a) and (

b) by adding "or on behalf of whom" after "to whom".

SECTION 2 , in the proposed

section 19.6

(

a) in subsection (1) by deleting "the director appointed under

section 23 may," and substituting "the director of maintenance

enforcement, at the request of or in accordance with a general

directive of the director appointed under

section 23, shall,"

(

b) in subsection (3) by deleting "to whom assistance is paid, the director

appointed under

section 23 of this Act may" and substituting "to whom

or on whose behalf income assistance is paid, the director of maintenance enforcement

shall, at the request of or in accordance with a general directive of the director

appointed under

section 23 of this Act,",

(

c) in subsection (4) by deleting "subsection (1), (2) or (3)" and substituting "subsection (1) or (3)", and

(

d) in subsection (6) by adding "or on behalf of whom" after "to

whom" and by adding "or in accordance with a general directive of"

after "at the request of".

SECTION 2 , by deleting the proposed

section 19.7 and substituting the

following:

Reimbursement

19.7

(1) Where, after this

section comes into force, income

assistance is paid to or on behalf of a creditor for a period during

which maintenance is payable to the creditor,

(

a) the amount determined under subsection (2) becomes,

on the date the maintenance is paid, a debt due to the Crown by the creditor

in reimbursement of the income assistance paid, and

(

b) all or part of the debt referred to in paragraph

(

a) may be set off against any amount payable by the minister to the creditor

under

section 19.6 (9).

(2) The amount referred to in subsection (1) (

a) shall equal the lesser of

(

a) the amount of maintenance paid to the creditor minus the amount exempted under the regulations, or

(

b) the amount of income assistance paid to the creditor.

(3) Until the Crown is reimbursed under this section, it retains all

the rights that are necessary to enforce payment of arrears of

maintenance that were payable during the period for which income

assistance was paid to or on behalf of the creditor and

section 19.6

applies in respect of the payment of those arrears.

SECTION 4 , in the proposed

section 25.1 by deleting "exercise and

intended exercise" and substituting "exercise or intended exercise".

SECTION 6 , by renumbering the proposed

section 6 as

section 6 (1) and by adding the following subsection:

(2) Any provision of this Act may be brought into force on different

dates in different areas of the Province with respect to different

classes of individuals or creditors.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1988, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada