1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)

Volume 21, Number 3

[ Page 15503 ]

The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I call committee stage on Bill 13, and Committee of Supply in Committee A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 13; W. Hurd in the chair.

section 2 (continued).

D. Jarvis: I want to go back to subsection 1.1(3). In my opinion, a no-compensation policy seems to be introduced in the bill -- and in several bills, it appears. It's a running policy that's coming toward us and it's affecting the industry considerably -- at least their idea of what this government is trying to do to them. It's used to avoid compensation and basically to expropriate claimholders. This regulation says that no compensation will be paid, and it refers to subsection (1) or (2).

Subsections (1) and (2) describe what a mineral is, and they give the minister the right to decide what is a mineral and what is not a mineral. So if there is no problem.... Before, you only paid compensation in a tenure claim on minerals. So if it's not a mineral, why would we even think of putting a no-compensation clause into it? Why don't we just remove that compensation clause? Because the perception is that it's going to diminish the right of a holder of a mineral claim.

Hon. A. Edwards: There's no diminution of right; there is no compensation. The clause is there to clarify that, in case anyone thought there might be.

D. Jarvis: I'm sorry. The minister sat down rather quickly, and I didn't quite get what her answer was. She missed the mike.

Hon. A. Edwards: Since there is no diminution of right, there is no right to compensation. The clause is the kind of thing which goes into legislation that clarifies that beyond question.

J. Tyabji: I am sure this minister means what she's saying. It's just hard to understand, if no right is being diminished, why there would have to be a clause for compensation.

Having said that, there is a clause that allows for no compensation in

section 2. I would like to, for that reason, move the amendment under my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 2, line 1.1 (3) to add, after "made under subsection (1) or (2)", the words "provided such regulation could be reasonably anticipated".]

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: Subsection 1.1(3) reads: "No compensation is payable by the government to any person and no proceedings may be commenced or maintained to claim compensation from the government as a result a regulation made under subsection (1) or (2)." The amendment is to add after "made under subsection (1) or (2)" the words "provided such regulation could be reasonably anticipated."

The reason we've brought this amendment forward is that -- as the minister, I am sure, is aware -- for the purposes of litigation, anyone should have the provision of reasonableness when it comes to their individual rights. In this case we're talking about rights of tenure or, as the minister has said, simply rights of staking a claim. I don't believe we've actually received an assurance here that we're not talking about tenure rights. I think that's what the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was trying to say. The minister has said we're not talking about tenure rights, but we don't see any provision for that in the act.

Even if we're just talking about the rights that are given under the staking of a claim, as the minister is aware, before the miner gets to the point of staking a claim there could be a couple of years of development, whether it's geological surveying, travelling, research or whatever it is that leads to that point. There could be a lot of setup prior to staking a claim. Even in that respect.... The minister had used the example of agates before the break. In the event of the minister deciding that for the purposes of this act the regulation including agates in the definition of "mineral" was going to change, all of a sudden minerals would no longer include agates.

We believe there should be a provision for reasonableness there. If this minister is no longer the minister, and someone else comes in and decides that something which one would reasonably anticipate would be included in the definition is no longer included, they would have some protection. What the amendment does is provide protection to the miner, in that there has to be a provision for reasonableness. In that way, it provides a little bit of protection to this

section of the act. If this

section does involve tenure, that's a pretty serious power -- as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was saying -- for the minister to change by regulation. If it is only about staking a claim, there should still be some allowance for a reasonable expectation that when somebody sets out, under the act, through the regulations, to follow up on a mineral -- once they've done all that work and staked their claim -- they don't wake up the next morning and find that they have no mineral that they can access.

Hon. D. Miller: What if it's not a mineral? They can still mine it.

J. Tyabji: The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour has said if it's not a mineral, they can't mine it. Clearly, he hasn't read....

Hon. D. Miller: They can still mine it; that's the point.

J. Tyabji: For the sake of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, let's just briefly look and see. Specifically, the minister has listed a group of materials that are not minerals, and we know there are other acts which are going to have impact on them; the Land Act is one. There are going to be acts, I'm sure, under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Other acts.... I think the member for

[ Page 15504 ]

North Vancouver-Seymour can probably name more than I can, because it's his portfolio. There are going to be other acts which will impact on them, and suddenly the staking of the claim will no longer have any value.

It's a simple amendment. It just allows for some kind of protection in the event of somebody wanting to be able to proceed because there has been no reasonable anticipation of the change. We think it's something that will give the mining industry a little bit of assurance that they're not just left with no expectation of what to anticipate and no understanding of what the minister is going to be doing.

Hon. A. Edwards: I would oppose the amendment, because there is no particular reason in the amendment as proposed that you would need it. It is normal practice for people to reasonably anticipate what is coming up -- a government makes that happen. I oppose it mainly because such a clause could give rise to a huge amount of frivolous litigation.

[6:45]

D. Jarvis: There are no guarantees under subsection 1.1(3), and that's probably the problem. There are just no guarantees. I'd like this minister to tell me what she would consider.... Using a gypsum mine as an example, could she or could she not at some time under this bill say that gypsum is a non-mineral, and that if I were a stakeholder in there, I would not have any rights from there on in if she wanted to put a park in the area I have staked out, or to give it to the aboriginals for a settlement? That's the question: what is a mineral and what is not a mineral?

Why do you have the right -- or do you have the right in this -- to say that anything that was a mineral is, as of this moment, not a mineral? Do you have the right to change what is classified as a mineral today? Do you have that right to now change it and say it is not a mineral? If you don't, can you assure all the miners out there and in your riding -- because most of my complaints are coming from your area, believe me.... It's the East Kootenays chamber of commerce that is putting up the biggest squabble and writing the most letters to me. Not squabbles -- complaints, I guess.

So can the minister assure them....

An Hon. Member: Concerns.

D. Jarvis: Concerns -- yes, that's it. A lack of debating skills sometimes puts you into a position where you don't get all the correct verbiage out.

Can the minister assure us that what is today a mineral will not be declared a non-mineral by her government in the future and therefore preclude them from...?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, that's what it says, minister. It says in there that it gives you the right, the power -- a very broad power -- to say what is a mineral and what is not a mineral. I leave it up to you. Give us an explanation, and they'll be satisfied -- a specific one, or a guarantee.

L. Fox: Just very briefly, as I read through the amendment.... I recognize that I am coming back in late from lunch, and I probably missed some of the discussion, but it seems to me that the amendment is pretty reasonable. It puts words in there such as "provided such regulation could be reasonably anticipated." That, to me, allows a whole host of opportunities for the ministry and the government to forewarn.... If any negotiation is happening, whether it be native land claims or consideration around a park, where there has been ample opportunity to make those individuals....

Whether they are prospecting or looking at acquiring a tenure, I think it is only reasonable that they should be made aware that some kind of consideration is being given that could cause them to lose their tenure. All this amendment asks for is some reasonableness on behalf of the government.

I don't think it in any way precludes the minister from acting under

section 1.1. I think it would send a signal that there is no heavy-handedness intended by this particular section. The way it reads, we can all envision different scenarios in different parts of our world, given all the complexities that we're dealing with: the parks thrust, native land claims concerns, and all those other things. I think we should do the best we can to have some authority within government, but we should also give some comfort to British Columbians, to the mining industry and to tenure holders that the government has no intention of using its heavy hand here.

I would ask the minister to give it some thought and consideration. Remembering that the resource industry is a major breadwinner in British Columbia, we need to give them the confidence to make their investments and to have some confidence that they are going to have some reasonableness from this government in terms of retaining their tenures.

Hon. A. Edwards: The mining industry asked my ministry and the Ministry of Lands to please clarify the issue between dimension stone and construction stone. The ministry is responding to that request by the mining industry in order to be clear about what is dimension stone and what is construction stone. This second

section of the bill allows us to do that, and clarifies the situation that there will be no compensation for those who do not know that this particular substance is called dimension stone when they stake their claim rather than what it was yesterday when someone else staked their claim. The amendment as proposed would probably lead to unnecessary litigation. I would call for the vote on the question of the amendment.

J. Tyabji: In giving that explanation, I think the minister speaks in favour of the amendment, because she is saying that the

section that was brought in is to provide for those technical grey areas that may exist between mineral -- as this minister wants to set it out for Crown rights and minerals -- or dimension stone, which is not included in the definition of "mineral." If that's what this is for, then it can reasonably be anticipated that if something is closely related to either of the two, it will be regulated out of the definition of "mineral." That's reasonably anticipated. Any miner who is going to be trying to stake a claim or act on tenure rights....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The minister says tenure isn't included, although we still don't see that. So let's say we're just talking about staking a claim. If someone goes out to stake a claim

[ Page 15505 ]

and suddenly something that's very closely related to dimension stone is included in the regulations, you couldn't litigate that, because the amendment about reasonable anticipation means that something closely related to dimension stone or construction stone could not be the cause for litigation.

Where I am really concerned is.... First of all, the minister has said that tenure is not included, and we haven't seen that in the act.... I don't read anywhere that tenure is not included. Second, the minister is anticipating that there will be a landslide of litigation. Her answer to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was that she can't support this amendment because there would be a landslide of litigation. A miner is not going to litigate against the government unless there's been an unreasonable change in the definition.

If this minister has arbitrarily taken something out of the definition that is going to result in a miner losing money that that person has already invested, then there will be litigation.

So there are a couple of things here. First of all, why would a miner litigate if we're not talking about tenure rights? Why would a miner do that? And why would a miner litigate if it could be reasonably anticipated that the substance they are after could have been caught under this definition? Clearly the amendment protects the miner from an unreasonable change in the definition of "mineral." If this minister isn't going to make an unreasonable change in the definition, she's got nothing to fear from this amendment.

If the minister says it doesn't apply to tenure rights, she's got nothing to fear from this amendment, because if tenure rights are not included, there is no reason to compensate. And if she's not planning to change the definition of "mineral" in an unreasonable way, there is no reason to litigate.

So the minister, in stating what she's stating for the record, is speaking in favour of the amendment. The only reason this amendment would ever come into play is if there were an unreasonable change in the definition of "mineral," or if the tenure rights of a miner were affected and they required compensation. Those would be the only two reasons. So this amendment is meant to protect the industry from a perception that the government is going in with a heavy hand and is prepared to arbitrarily move away from the reasonable anticipation of what a mineral is.

Interjections.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. I'm sure members are all wondering why we've called this meeting, so let me advise you this is Bill 13 and we are on

section 2 -- the amendment to

section 2.

[7:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 14

Dalton

Warnke

Hurd

Hanson

Serwa

Mitchell

Tyabji

Tanner

Jarvis

Symons

K. Jones

van Dongen

Fox

Neufeld

NAYS -- 29

Petter

Pement

Edwards

Cashore

Charbonneau

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Kasper

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Smallwood

Gabelmann

Barlee

Pullinger

Sihota

Randall

Beattie

Doyle

Janssen

Streifel

Jackson

Krog

Brewin

Schreck

Lali

Hartley

Boone

D. Jarvis: We have now been here over two hours tonight, and it took almost two hours yesterday to pass only one

section out of 48 in this bill. Now, that sounds like a filibuster, and this is not a filibuster as far as we're concerned. We are earnestly trying to get some cooperation out of the minister to discuss and to add or delete sections of the bill that are causing great concern to people in the mineral industry.

So I ask the minister again, which I did prior to the vote on the amendment.... There don't appear to be any guarantees in here on this compensation aspect. It says in the bill that no compensation is payable by the government, when the minister is given the power to say that rock or a natural substance is not a mineral. So a no-compensation

section seems to be looming here. So will the minister guarantee that when this bill is passed, any mineral that is classified as a mineral now will not be changed by the minister to become a non-mineral so as to allow this socialist government not to pay compensation on a mineral claim? That's a simple fact, and that's all the minister has to do: make that assertion.

The Chair: I'm going to recognize the minister, but with a caution that we seem now to be moving very closely to a second reading debate. We are, after all, on

section 2.

Hon. A. Edwards: No.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said no, she will not give any guarantees. So here we are with a bill where the minister has stated all the fears of the B.C. Mining Association, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, and the Eastern British Columbia Chamber of Mines -- where all you fellows live, where all your voters are. They are now right in saying that this is another socialist attitude toward mining in this province and that they're trying to take away the claims of all the miners in this province. So it does....

Mr. Chairman, I don't think you should push that button and cut me off. I want to say that it's closure if you do push that.

All we have asked the minister to say is.... So now we can see a simple little fact. If I have a claim today and it's copper -- say, I'm mining a little copper mine -- she will not admit that she has the right to say tomorrow that it's not a mineral and therefore I have no compensation under this government. So what they're trying to do is put in a no-compensation law for anyone who has a mineral claim, and it's subject to any minister, or any bureaucrat under that minister, who could be what you'd call an unreasonable person.

[ Page 15506 ]

So I would ask the minister again: is she prepared to give a guarantee or any statement to the effect that she will not change what is classified as a mineral today to a non-mineral tomorrow, which would enable her government to say to those tenure holders that there's no compensation?

Hon. A. Edwards: At the request of the mining industry, these amendments are introduced to allow two ministers to determine whether rock and natural substances are minerals or not under the Mineral Tenure Act. Because of the way the act works, there will be no need for compensation, because there is no diminution of right.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps we can address the concerns of the opposition and put the minister's submissions in writing and in the statute. She has said from the beginning of our debate on

section 2 that compensation does not apply, because existing tenure rights are not affected by a change in regulation, and that there's going to be no retroactivity. So with that in mind, I would move an amendment by adding subsection 1.1(4): "The new regulation shall not affect existing tenure rights and shall not be retroactive."

The reason the amendment needs to be moved is that I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is absolutely right: the mining industry wants something in writing to reflect what the minister has been telling us. Now, if the minister is true to her word that it won't be retroactive, and it doesn't affect existing tenure rights -- she said it would affect staked claims that had not turned into tenure rights yet, but that it wouldn't affect existing tenure rights -- then I'm sure this will be a friendly amendment, and the minister could allow this amendment to pass.

We could get on with it and allow the mining industry, which has obviously made representations to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, to have some assurance that what we're stating in debate will actually be reflected in the legislation.

The Chair: Hon. member, I'm going to recognize the minister and allow her to respond, but on the face of it, it would seem to me that your amendment has the effect of contradicting the intention of the

section and therefore would not be in order. But I would defer, obviously, to the minister and let her respond.

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Edwards: Everything that I have said is consistent. There is no diminution of rights because there is no effect on someone who holds a tenure under the law as it was at the time that the claim was taken under the tenure. The change in the definition of "mineral" or not applies to what happens subsequently; there is no retroactivity to it. The amendment is unnecessary and redundant.

Interjections.

The Chair: My advice is that the amendment is indeed out of order, and therefore I so rule.

Section 2 approved on division.

section 3.

J. Tyabji: We would certainly defer to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, but we note in

section 3 that the change that occurs is that instead of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designating mining divisions, it becomes the chief gold commissioner, and then there is a provision to publish that in the Gazette. What was it that led the minister to this amendment?

[7:15]

Hon. A. Edwards: Efficiency. In the simple administrative task of deciding where the boundaries of a mining division would be, these decisions really hardly need the kind of process that goes into a cabinet decision. These decisions are generally put together by the chief gold commissioner, and they make those decisions as administrative decisions. They are not the kind of decision that we feel needs that kind of process.

D. Jarvis: I just want to make a comment on this section. It appears that the minister is basically transferring all the powers to a civil servant. I'll use that expression: what if this civil servant, this political appointee, is an unreasonable man? He could cause havoc in the industry. Does the minister have any comments on that?

Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, before I omit any further having introduced the people who are with me, I would like to introduce my assistant deputy minister of minerals on my right, Bruce McRae; and on my left is the chief gold commissioner, Mr. Denis Lieutard. He is not a political hack or political appointee, and I don't expect that that kind of position would be filled in a political way. If it were, such a government would certainly have to take the political responsibility for such action.

D. Jarvis: I would like to say that I did not call the two gentlemen sitting beside the minister -- her staff -- hacks. I just said political appointees. Who knows if somewhere down the line a political appointee...? Political appointees do change, and the minister is quite aware of that -- and so do civil servants, especially in this government. They're changing political appointees all the way along the line, at every level; in fact, it's close to 4,000 now. Anyway, I just wanted to say that to the minister. I didn't call them political hacks, but they could be unreasonable persons -- not necessarily in your staff now, but in someone else's staff tomorrow.

J. Tyabji: First of all, I think I'd like to agree with the member for North Vancouver-Seymour that when we're debating legislation, we're not debating it based on the people who are in this chamber; we're debating it on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Clearly, until this is amended again, this will be the legislation that will be in place.

What the minister has done is taken something which was in front of cabinet and given it to someone who's within the bureaucracy. The minister made the point that this was done for efficiency. We all know that the most efficient form of government is a dictatorship. If we want to be really efficient, we can get rid of this; we can have what this government does nine months of the year -- government by order-in-council. We can get rid of debate, and we can have a very efficient way of dealing with the province -- democracy be forgotten.

But the fact is that the divisions that are designated in the province may -- not all the time, but they may -- require some degree of accountability for the people who are served

[ Page 15507 ]

by the mining industry. The reason we have government is to ensure that the greater interests of the public are protected. What we see in this section.... I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said it quite clearly. The power that's been taken from cabinet into an unaccountable, unelected person.... What reference is there in this

section to accountability? Here we see the reference: "If a designation is made...the chief gold commissioner must, without delay, publish notice of the designation in the Gazette...." Who reads the Gazette? How many people actually get the Gazette? The mining industry may or may not.

Let's assume for a second that the mining industry, or the executive -- because the executive are the people who are most in touch with the elected members -- follow what goes on in the Gazette. Let's say they're upset about it. Who do they go to? Do they go to the gold commissioner? This may be a reasonable gold commissioner, but what if the next one isn't? If we really wanted to get into a debate about why we need accountability at senior decision-making levels, we have only to look at what happens with the Workers' Compensation Board, ICBC, B.C.

Hydro -- all the different agencies that supposedly work on behalf of the public trust or the general public and are at arm's length from government: people cannot get them to make decisions in an expedient or accountable way.

Ninety-nine percent of the time these decisions may not be controversial, but the reason there's accountability built into the decision-making is for that 1 percent, or the minority of the time -- maybe it will be more often than 1 percent -- when someone makes a mistake. The reason accountability is built in is that if the minister is on the line for the mistake, she's going to be a lot more responsive when she attends a convention of the Mining Association and they're upset with her -- or whoever is filling that position. She's going to respond fairly quickly.

But if it happens to be somebody who's at arm's length from the process, or someone who's unaccountable -- other than tonight, how often are people even going to know who's in that position? -- what is the process by which the public can have redress?

That's why philosophically we cannot support this. The reason the machinery was designed the way it was was for accountability. If anything, we should be moving in the other direction. If the minister feels she has too much on her plate or that cabinet has too much on its plate, bring things before the House. Let's have an actual proper sitting of this assembly -- spring and fall. Let's bring things in so that the assembly can make decisions on land use -- which is how it should be anyway -- and we can have adequate debate about these things. That would allow for more accountability.

This government is again and again, in legislation before this House, in the name of efficiency, moving toward bureaucratic government.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour is saying "relevancy." What could be more relevant than dealing with the fact that cabinet is being removed and a senior civil servant is now going to be doing the job of cabinet?

I'm sure that if this government isn't going to sit in the fall -- as it won't -- we're going to be dealing with order-in-council decisions again. They're just saying: "Don't put so much on the list. We don't need so many things on the list. Let's pass it off as much as we can." That's what this amendment is all about -- making the minister's workload a little bit lighter.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour is saying "aye." It's unfortunate to have this kind of callous disregard, and it's obviously endemic in these proceedings. But this is going to be one of the sections that will come back.... As we go through the bill, we'll see that it is written throughout the bill: removing cabinet, removing the minister and removing accountability. The minister does not represent her party; she does not represent herself. She represents the people of British Columbia, and they're supposed to have input into these decisions.

By removing herself from these positions, she is removing the people of British Columbia, who have vested their trust in this government. This government has appointed her to the position of overseeing these things, and menial though they may be to her, they are part of the weight of responsibility of her office. We don't believe that that should be removed, and competent though this gold commissioner may be, as we go through this bill we'll see that there are going to be many things passed on to him that removes government from any sort of spotlight or public process. And we don't agree with that.

Hon. A. Edwards: As much as I would like to inflate the importance of all of this, because it might make everybody else connected with it look important, this is the kind of decision that determines where the records are kept. It says that this mining division and its records will be kept in this office. That is an administrative decision that the gold commissioner can easily make from his position as the administrator of mineral titles in British Columbia.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

D. Jarvis: We're almost halfway through page 3 now, so we're starting to move -- five hours later.

I can't agree with this

section at all. There are several items in this

section that are completed out of it. For example, in subsection (b), for clarity's sake, I feel that "Canadian citizen" should be added. I think that sub-subsection (b)(a)(ii) is an affront. It means that a prospector must be politically correct in order to obtain a licence. To a certain degree this is going to stifle any kind of activity by ordinary people out there -- any spontaneity in the industry. You are asking people who go out to prospect to know the integrated resource management principles of this government. It is an affront. Half of the people out there....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if the temporary House Leader would mind his own business and stop interjecting all the time. He's the temporary House Leader. He should be having some control of this House, not trying to interfere and create a filibuster.

So I would ask the minister.... I honestly think that this is an infringement of people's rights and that it's going to be

[ Page 15508 ]

used to limit the entry of people into the mining industry. Since British Columbia first became a resource-based province back in the early 1800s.... Not everyone in this country has an education. How many mines have been discovered by someone who only has a grade 5 or grade 10 or grade 12 education? And then you expect him to write exams and have knowledge of mineral exploration. Who's going to decide what the knowledge of mineral exploration is going to be? To what level, what degree? Furthermore, who's it going to be -- someone to write an exam on integrated resource management principles of the government?

That is just plain stupid. It's going to stifle creativity. It's an infringement of people's rights, and it's going to limit the people coming into this industry. It's an affront to the independent, free men that build this province.

I was wondering if the minister would care to explain why she put this into the bill. Was this another amendment that was put in by these political appointees? Is this a political appointee's theory? We're starting to look at.... What is the expression? If you don't have a lot of education, can you not even go out and explore, and look for a mine? Do you have to have a degree now? This is just a ridiculous addition to the act.

Hon. A. Edwards: The people who are with me are career civil servants.

I'm going to respond to the

section stating: "...demonstrates, to the satisfaction of a gold commissioner, a minimum prescribed standard of knowledge respecting mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles in British Columbia...." There is no word in there saying that there is a written examination, as far as I know.

What we need to ensure is that people know.... Whether they have a grade 2 or a grade 5 education, or whatever, there is no requirement to be literate in order to be a free miner in British Columbia as long as you can indicate to the satisfaction of the gold commissioner that you know what rights you are going to be dealing with. A free miner may or may not enter onto other people's property; he or she has to know about that. A free miner will be working in areas where integrated resource management principles are in use; they need to know them and be able to follow them.

Anyone who wants a free-miner's certificate is not allowed to go out and operate without knowing whether or not they would be infringing on other people's rights, and they need to be sure that they don't have the right to do that.

I believe that that is a reasonable requirement, and that's what the amendment is about.

D. Jarvis: Maybe it doesn't specifically say here that the person has to write an exam, but it does say here that he must demonstrate "to the satisfaction of a gold commissioner...."

The minister has explained a few items that she would like free miners to be able to understand. Why can't the gold commissioner simply write out a list of rules and regulations that this government is so famous for writing all the time? I mean, you are just plying the industry with more rules and regulations than it has ever seen before. Write out a little slip. When he comes in for his free-miner's licence, you give him a slip, just as when you go hunting or the rest of it. If you go out fishing, you don't have to stand up before....

How is the gold commissioner going to ascertain whether that person has the knowledge that you want without giving either an oral exam or a written exam? Very simple. Your logic is wrong; it's just completely wrong. It's a draconian law that you are trying to put forward, another amendment that is just.... You are destroying the industry.

I'm telling those members in the back from the resource areas in this province that I'd be ashamed to go home and tell them that you stood up and voted for a bill such as this. You will feel it in the next election. Believe me, you guys are going to go down really hard, because you have no comprehension as to how to create wealth in this province or how to support the mining industry.

[7:30]

J. Tyabji: We're going to be on this

section for a little while; we haven't even got to some of the other sections. I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour asked a really important question: how is the gold commissioner going to become satisfied that the person making the application has the prescribed minimum level of knowledge respecting mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles?

What is an integrated resource management principle? What does that mean? And who decides? If we're talking about this government, we know that this government has brought in integrated resource management principles that include archaeological, historical and certainly aboriginal aspects, and there could be financial aspects. How is that determined?

I guess the first thing is: who's prescribing the minimum level? Who's training the gold commissioners, so that they can administer whatever kind of examination? As the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said, how are they going to determine it? Is it oral? Is it written? Is it a conversation? Is it something over the phone? Is it because the applicant happened to buy them a new swimming pool? I mean, what are we talking about when we talk about a minimum level of knowledge? Who's prescribing? Who's training the gold commissioners to do this? And who's going to be watching this process to ensure that it's done fairly?

Hon. A. Edwards: We're not trying to be obstructionist about this at all. A free miner has to read rock; he has to read assays; he has to know contracts.

An Hon. Member: Or she.

Hon. A. Edwards: Exactly. So wherever a free miner goes, she is going to have to be able to deal with this. But certainly she would not want to be operating without having a good sense of our land use rules.

There are a number of ways you could test this kind of knowledge in the public. Sometimes there are requirements that there would be a book, which a free miner might sign that they had read. We haven't established that yet, but we will certainly be dealing with the industry when we do establish that. We may suggest something; they may come back to us. Certainly, when we do try something, we will be evaluating whether it works or not.

The issue is that you cannot give a free-miner certificate to someone without expecting that they have some understanding of what that certificate gives them and what their

[ Page 15509 ]

rights and other people's rights are. A free-miner certificate bears a lot of power; there is a requirement and an expectation. I believe it's broadly understood and shared by a number of people in the industry that this is a reasonable thing to do -- that you don't hand over free-miner certificates to someone without assuring that they have some sense of what this miner certificate means, what they can do, what they can do with other people's property, and so on.

D. Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister could explain to us what she means by an integrated resource management principle.

Hon. A. Edwards: It could be a large number of things. An integrated land resource principle is some of the rules that we or any government -- in British Columbia, certainly -- have in place when we deal with integrated land use and have more than one resource group using land. As I say, more than one -- so you may have two, four or seven. A free miner who is expecting to use the resource for that free miner's own purpose should have a sense of how we integrate resource use in this province.

D. Jarvis: Can the minister tell me, then, have there been any problems in the past that would cause her and her ministry to write such rules into the act?

Is the minister aware that because of the other rules and regulations you've already put into this province since you came into power in 1991, over 90 percent of the prospectors in your riding and your area in the Kootenays are not working? That's exactly because of something like this. You're going on and on and on. You're destroying the industry, and you sit back there and smile. Wait till you go to the polls. We'll find out.

J. Tyabji: Following up on that point, what I'd like to know is: if it turns out that a person does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the gold commissioner...? Actually, one of the questions would be: how many gold commissioners are there in the province who'd be determining all this? If the person who does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of that gold commissioner that they have have a minimum prescribed standard of knowledge respecting mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles, where does the person go to appeal? What is the provision for that person to follow, to go around that gold commissioner and go to the next step?

Hon. A. Edwards: There are seven gold commissioners across the province, and they will be doing the work. We don't expect that there will be very many people who are turned away when they want to have a free-miner certificate. What we want to do is to begin as well as we can to ensure that those who get free-miner certificates know that they have responsibilities, that they should have a certain level of information and knowledge, and that they should recognize that they are operating in an environment where they are not going to be the only people who want to use the resource. So what we are going to try to do is bring this in and make people understand that.

We don't expect that the requirements will be so onerous that people will be failing their free-miner certificate. If they did, they probably could come back and do it again. It's not an issue of wanting to turn people away from getting free-miner certificates. But we want people who are interested, who have the initiative and the knowledge to go out and be free miners, and if they do that, we want them to have a certain amount of information that assures us that they know the principles of integrated resource management -- in other words, the principles of where their rights end and someone else's start -- before they go out and begin to do some work.

J. Tyabji: This question was asked earlier, but I don't believe it was answered: who will be prescribing this minimum standard, and will it be the same standard for all seven gold commissioners? Will there be a centralized set of minimum prescriptions, or will it be something that each gold commissioner will decide for himself or herself, depending on their own perspective of what needs to be set out?

Hon. A. Edwards: After consultation with the industry, regulations will be set, and it will be the same regulations for all seven gold commissioners.

J. Tyabji: Then will there also be...? Will this minister commit to allowing in that consultation the question of what happens or what the procedure is for someone who doesn't make it through the first round? Will that person be automatically allowed to reapply, and will that person have that explained to him or her at the time that they do not succeed in meeting a gold commissioner's satisfaction for these minimum levels?

Hon. A. Edwards: I've already assured the member that that's the case.

J. Tyabji: I didn't hear that assurance, but that's good to know.

I think the most difficult

section of

section 4 has to be subsection 4(a). Whenever something comes in that takes out the necessity of making reference to Canadian citizenship, that always raises a red flag. When I see in the explanation that it says it removes "Canadian citizenship requirements for applicants for a free miner certificate to comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement," the thing that strikes me is: why would this government bring this in? Why would this government -- who brought in a motion against NAFTA, whose federal party has come out strongly against NAFTA -- bring in a provision to remove from the definition of "corporation" the reference to Canadian citizens?

What this definition does, in effect, is take

section 7 of the Mineral Tenure Act, which is titled "Free miner certificate...." In the

section where it says, "For the purposes of this section, 'Canadian corporation' means..." and lists four different things that a Canadian corporation means.... And then it says: "...in which at least 50% of the directors are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada." What this minister is doing with this amendment is taking out the line that says: "...in which at least 50% of the directors are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada."

I spent some time with this, because this bill has been on the order paper for some time; my amendment has been on the order paper for some time now, and I don't understand why this government would bring in this amendment. Unless this government is under the impression or has been advised that it would be vulnerable to reference to an all-party tribunal

[ Page 15510 ]

or an international tribunal under NAFTA, why would it remove the provision that says that a Canadian corporation must have at least 50 percent of its directors be Canadian citizens or permanent residents? If they're not Canadian citizens, they have to be permanent residents. This, I think, goes to the heart of what this bill is about, because although we see that the gold commissioner gets a lot of powers under this bill, we know that the provisions of NAFTA are being brought out by this government, which is just something that I don't know if I'll ever understand.

But what is most important to flag is that the mining industry in British Columbia, for the last couple of years, has faced some of its stiffest competition from Chile, and that Chile is currently in discussions with the signatories to NAFTA to come into NAFTA. So at the same time that one of our largest competitors is thinking of coming into NAFTA, our own provincial government is removing from the definition of a Canadian corporation the provision that at least 50 percent of its board be permanent residents of Canada or Canadian citizens.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member from somewhere -- Skeena -- is asking me if I supported NAFTA. I totally oppose NAFTA; I campaigned against the Free Trade Agreement and against the North American Free Trade Agreement for this very reason. When we talk about the generation of wealth in this province and in this country, and when we talk about sovereignty, it goes right to the heart of a tiny little amendment like this. Something this small can have an impact. Mining is still, I believe, the third largest industry in British Columbia; it certainly generates an enormous amount of wealth in this province.

That sovereignty is something most of us should cherish very deeply, and when I see an NDP government bringing in an amendment to remove a reference to Canadian citizenship, then I know that we should be very worried about the future of the province and of the country, if we're concerned about -- as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour talked about -- the people who are unemployed right now in the Kootenays. And I know -- I've been there and talked to many of them -- that there are people who are worried about not working. The minister is saying that there isn't a problem with unemployment.

D. Streifel: Name names. Who did you talk to?

J. Tyabji: I don't even want to begin to list them, because if you talk to people in the Mining Association....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I'm sorry, hon. Chair, but I'm not going to carry on separate debates in this chamber.

With respect to

section 4, I think this is a shameful amendment. I think this amendment should be stood down from the bill. I think that this government should have talked to its caucus, because I've canvassed the members of the government, and they're not even aware that they're taking out...

D. Streifel: Name names.

J. Tyabji: I would encourage the member for Mission-Kent to put his comments on record so that we can then engage in a legitimate debate.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: And the member for Skeena is saying it's investor-friendly. I see how the priorities of the NDP are changing.

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

J. Tyabji: This

section is about Canadian citizenship and Canadian corporations in the mining industry. It is also about the applicants for free miner certificates, and it's about the North American Free Trade Agreement. It should be stood down. And after I hear the minister's comments, then we can move into the amendment.

[7:45]

Hon. A. Edwards: I'll deal first with the amendment to

section 7(1) in the act. This, as it stands, did not restrict in any way the complete foreign ownership of companies that operated in Canada. So it was a toothless clause; it didn't work. What foreign-owned companies did was appoint Canadian directors, and it did nothing to require Canadian ownership in any company that worked here. The only way you can manage foreign ownership in this country is through federal legislation. So we have given up trying to ensure that companies which come in have Canadian directors, because that doesn't do anything for ownership.

As far as the actual free miner citizenship is concerned, we've put in requirements that they be "age 18 or over and ordinarily a resident of Canada for not less than 183 days in each calender year or authorized to work in Canada...." We believe these will be the kinds of requirements that will deal with what happens in the industry right now. We are not going to have hordes of Chileans pounding on the door, because that is not the way the competition works. But almost every country in which miners operate these days has no restriction on citizenship in order to get a free miner certificate.

In order to fit in with the full global pattern of things and, again, in order to allow the industry to work as well as it wants to work -- and certainly it likes this amendment -- this amendment is here. It requires that people live a large part of the year in Canada or that they have a work certificate to be here. Those requirements, we think, really serve the purpose of the province.

J. Tyabji: With all due respect to the minister, that is one of the worst answers I have ever had for something this important. What the minister has said is that, for the purpose of this section, corporation in the act now means a company that doesn't even include Canadian directors. We now have a definition of Canadian corporation that doesn't even include Canadian directors. The minister is shaking her head. That is exactly how it reads.

She was talking about foreign ownership of companies and saying: "All that that

section of the bill -- that one line -- meant was that foreign-owned companies came in and appointed a bunch of Canadian directors, and they were still foreign-owned." Well, what she's doing is removing the provision for them to appoint those Canadian directors, so now not only are they foreign-owned, but they have foreigners as their

[ Page 15511 ]

directors. And they can now be defined as Canadian companies, Canadian corporations. This minister is saying -- because she said that it was just a bunch of directors who were Canadian and that wasn't enough -- that she's now removing the provision for them to be Canadian directors. That's a step backwards.

She talks about moving toward the global

definitions for labour and corporation. The difference is that in the act we're not talking about the definition of corporation, we're talking about the definition of Canadian corporation. The act says "Canadian corporation," and she has removed the only provision for Canadians to be in that corporation. So it's wide-open now.

As for the mobility of the free miners and the provision that they have to be "age 18 or over and ordinarily a resident of Canada for not less than 183 days in each calendar year or authorized to work in Canada," that's pretty wide-open. Basically what this says is: a Canadian corporation is now anything that fulfils those four requirements; it doesn't have to have any Canadian citizens as directors; and a free miner is someone authorized to work in Canada. That's also wide-open.

The minister might say we're not going to have "hordes of Chileans" coming into Canada, but what about mobility of capital? What have we seen there? I'm sure the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has comments on this as well: the mobility of technology; the mobility of capital; the mobility of experts; the mobility of the research and development that we've been doing in British Columbia. We've seen that mobility from our mining industry, and it's headed south. What do we see now? We see this minister saying: "Well, that wasn't enough. Now we're going to remove these citizenship provisions.

We're going to remove the restrictions, the minimal, small...." These were pathetic restrictions anyway -- we're in agreement on that -- but why would you get rid of them? Why would the minister get rid of these anomalous provisions that were in the act as it stood?

I'm just staggered that this is an NDP government bringing this in. I don't know if this minister consulted with her federal counterparts, or if she talked to some of the other NDP ministers or critics -- I guess that would leave one other province now -- before she brought this in, and if this is something they felt compelled to do; but before I move my amendment, that's what I would like to ask. Did this minister feel that she had to amend the act with subsection (

a) because she was compelled to do so because Canada is a signatory to the North American Free Trade Agreement, or did she choose to do that?

Hon. A. Edwards: I think a reading of the act as it is will indicate that the definition of what is a Canadian corporation will now be left to other legislation. It will not be determined for our purposes under this legislation. It will be determined by the Company Act, the Company Clauses Act, the Trust Company Act or the Insurance Act. Those acts will determine what a Canadian corporation is. So to suggest that the Canadian corporation definition is now wide open because it's not in the Mineral Tenure Act is to misread the legislation.

J. Tyabji: I note the minister didn't answer my question about whether she felt compelled to make this amendment because of the North American Free Trade Agreement or whether she chose to do that. We obviously have a difference of opinion with respect to the reading of

section 7, because

section 7 begins by saying: "For the purposes of this section, Canadian corporation means...." It talks about a company -- not a Canadian company as defined, but it lists four of them.

What we're saying in this act is that for the purposes of mining and the Mineral Tenure Act, we will now define a Canadian corporation as any company as defined in those other acts. It's not limited to being Canadian, and if we look into those other acts, we'll see there are provisions for foreign ownership. So this minister has chosen to change the definition of Canadian corporation in the Mineral Tenure Amendment Act. It's the only act we're dealing with.

I would like to move the amendment under my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 4 (a),

Add to the end of

section (

a) the words "and substituting the following: 'in which the directors of the Canadian corporation have, as one of their objectives, the general interest of Canada.' "]

The reason this was brought in was because the Mineral Tenure Act says Canadian corporation, specifically. It doesn't talk about a corporation which is allowed to mine; it doesn't talk about a company for the purposes of the other acts. It's talking about a Canadian corporation, and because it is doing that, we felt it was important, in the absence of Canadian citizenship provisions, to tie to that the general interest of Canada, so that somewhere within the definition of a Canadian corporation there should be a reference to the general interest of Canada.

That way, even though the minister has removed the provision for those directors to be at least 50 percent Canadian citizens -- they can be citizens of any country, but they're directors of something defined as a Canadian corporation by this minister -- they have to have the general interest of Canada as one of their objectives. That's pretty wide open, but it was impossible to move an amendment to this

section and be in order, other than to have an open-ended amendment.

So I move that amendment, and I would hope that the minister could understand that some of us are very concerned that when we talk about a Canadian corporation, we're also talking about the general interests of Canada, and that notwithstanding the North American Free Trade Agreement, we have the ability as a sovereign country to allow the general interests of Canada to prevail within the context of the international agreements to which we are signatories. It's a very important point, and I hope the minister will see fit to allow this to stand as a friendly amendment.

On the amendment.

D. Jarvis: I'll be brief and say that the members of the eastern Kootenays chamber of commerce have stated that they feel that this NAFTA compliance is not necessary, and they do not want it in.

Hon. A. Edwards: I assume the member for North Vancouver-Seymour means the chamber of mines. Is that correct?

I would like to say, as simply as I can, that I believe that the impossibility of defining this clause legally.... If it were put into legislation, it would be bad wording. So we will vote against the amendment.

[ Page 15512 ]

The Chair: I don't think a great deal of debate is required on the amendment.

J. Tyabji: I don't plan to have a great deal of debate. I just want to put on the record that I am extremely disappointed that the minister has prejudged the outcome of some sort of possible legal challenge in the definition of a Canadian corporation on something as important as the general interest of Canada. I would have hoped that this minister would have erred on the side of caution, and allowed for some reference to Canada's general interest in the definition of a Canadian corporation when she's taking out the amendment for the board of directors.

It would have given us something to protect our mining industry at the NAFTA table, because we do know the pressures that exist on it from foreign interests.

[8:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 12

Tyabji

Mitchell

Serwa

Chisholm

Hurd

Warnke

Dalton

Jarvis

Symons

Jones

van Dongen

de Jong

NAYS -- 31

Petter

Priddy

Edwards

Cashore

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Kasper

Hammell

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Ramsey

Pullinger

Sihota

Randall

Beattie

Farnworth

Doyle

Streifel

Jackson

Krog

Brewin

Schreck

Lali

Hartley

Boone

Neufeld

Fox

D. Jarvis: I believe the member for Okanagan East will be submitting another amendment, to subsection (4).

Prior to getting that, I wonder if we could go back over one aspect: what the minister was saying about the gold commissioner and transferring her powers to a civil servant. She was saying that everything would be in order, and I appreciate that everything would be in order, unless that political appointee or civil servant was an unreasonable person.

I'm talking about

section 7(2)(a)(ii). That person wanting a free-miner's licence must go to the gold commissioner and prove to him that he is capable: that he has a standard knowledge respecting mineral exploration and a good knowledge of integrated resource management principles in British Columbia. The minister, we know, really couldn't give us that answer herself, because she doesn't have an understanding of it. I said that the free miner -- the man or woman applying for the licence -- would have to write an exam. The minister said there would not necessarily be an exam.

I suggested that maybe all they have to do is have a sheet of paper with the rules and regulations on it. No answer came out of that. Then the minister said that he has to prove that he has read something with some knowledge of it.

Then we get down to

section 7(4) that says: "Despite subsection (2)" -- where a free miner is required to have certain amount of knowledge.... He has got to be either politically correct.... That's what I think it means, because when we come to this part where she says that the gold commissioner does have unreasonable powers.... It says here that the chief gold commissioner may issue a free-miner certificate to an applicant who does not meet the eligibility requirements because of legitimate circumstances acceptable to the chief gold commissioner. That is where the powers are given to the chief gold commissioner.

I'm wondering if the minister could relate to us and satisfy us as to what all the legitimate circumstances acceptable to a chief gold commissioner would be, notwithstanding the fact that that person could not comply with

section 7(2)(a)(ii) -- standard knowledge of mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles of British Columbia.

Hon. A. Edwards: The reason this clause is here is to deal with estates. There are times when someone owns, as a free miner, a certificate, and because of that they own a claim. When they die, the person who would fall heir to the claim has to be a free miner -- or at least they have to be a free miner to dispose of the claim. There has to be that circumstance in order for someone to deal with the estate of a person who had a claim as a free miner in British Columbia. That is the circumstance that this amendment would deal with.

D. Jarvis: If that example is such that my father dies and leaves me his claim and I don't have a free-miner certificate.... I could go to the gold commissioner, and he would issue me a free-miner certificate. What if I decided that I wasn't going to dispose of my claim that I have inherited? What would he do? Doesn't that make it superfluous? I am now out on the road and entitled to go out with my free-miner certificate and explore where I want to explore.

Hon. A. Edwards: There are people who don't live in this country who may own mining claims. If they have an estate they need an executor to deal with that estate. Under those circumstances, the gold commissioner could say that they may conduct business in this province to deal with this claim.

D. Jarvis: If that's the case, then, the only legitimate circumstance we're talking about is in the event of an estate. If that's the only event we're talking about, why wouldn't we simply amend this and say it is applicable to an estate situation?

Hon. A. Edwards: Well, I suppose there could be a circumstance involved with a bankruptcy, too, or some other circumstance like that. These are the kinds of things that are anticipated by this amendment.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for her explanation, because we're getting to the point where you have abdicated your rights by transferring your powers to a gold commissioner who may be an unreasonable individual, and he may be able to give a free-miner's certificate to anyone he wants. Or he may say: "No, you are not politically correct, you don't belong to the party that's in power now, and my minister says: 'Don't allow him to have a free-miner's certificate.' " So that gold commissioner can restrict who he wants to give a free-miner's certificate to. To be or not to be, as I said earlier.

What you're saying is that the legitimate circumstance is acceptable, but that a melange of different things could

hap-

[ Page 15513 ]

pen. It's not for estates, it's not for this, it's not for that. But it could be for this or it could be for that. So there again, this non-clarity you have in all your bills makes people feel insecure. The minister is smiling again when I say these things. She doesn't appreciate that's how people are feeling out there in the industry, and this is where she gets her support.

So can the minister say that a legitimate circumstance acceptable to the chief gold commissioner is anything that comes into the chief gold commissioner's mind at the time? If he likes the individual and if he's politically correct, he will give him a certificate; if he's not politically correct, he will not give him a certificate. Would the minister agree with that?

Hon. A. Edwards: Again, I hope it will clarify it if I draw attention to the fact that this would allow a free miner's certificate in order for someone to conduct business in B.C. Another example of what we might be talking about is if there had been a fraud perpetrated. So the point here is that someone needs a free-miner's certificate in order to deal with this free-miner claim -- to conduct business, to sign the papers and to move it over. The gold commissioner will make that decision.

[8:15]

I think, hon. Chair, we've spent a lot of time talking about whether a civil servant can do certain things that civil servants do every day, and which the minister is automatically responsible for. In legislation sometimes it says that the minister does it, and the minister will do it on the advice of the civil service. Here it says that the gold commissioner can do it, and the gold commissioner remains responsible to the minister. So we are trying to strike a balance there. This is not a matter of trying to devolve responsibility down so far that it won't matter, so that we can escape responsibility.

Ministers are responsible for what goes on in their ministries; civil servants are responsible to the minister, and they do administrative work and they advise the minister.

So I think that argument is really one of balance. I think this is the best balance -- that's why it's here. The

section is specifically to deal with people who want to conduct business; it is not for people who want to go and mine.

D. Jarvis: Before I pass it on to the member for Okanagan East to deal with her amendment, I just want to say that it certainly is a surprise, for a party that stands up and says that they're for people's rights all the time. This whole bill is an infringement of people's rights, especially in the mining industry of British Columbia, and this is just another.... There's nothing wrong with civil servants or appointees having....

I appreciate that they do things every day that are similar to this, and all the rest of it, but they're not incorporated into these bills that give the people a bad feeling that compensation is being taken away from them, or their rights to having a free miner.... Things that they had in the past are now all being changed by this government.

L. Fox: Not that I want to quarrel with the official opposition's critic on this issue, but I note that in

section 7(4) of the existing act the minister may, by order, authorize a free-miner certificate. This indeed does give the chief gold commissioner the freedom, I would suspect, to interpret regulations that would come down, and it gives, perhaps, some guidelines as to on what basis he or she, as gold commissioner, could indeed issue this certificate. I would see that as probably a depoliticization of the issue, unless the gold commissioner were indeed a political appointee. But my understanding of the gold commissioner is that he or she is not a political appointee. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Edwards: The gold commissioners, in my experience, are career civil servants. Of course, what you're talking about is at the leisure of any government.

L. Fox: Then just to follow up a bit, would there be specific guidelines drawn up in order to guide the gold commissioner in issuing these free-miner certificates that would follow in regulations, so that there would be some consistency applied in terms of how these certificates are issued?

Hon. A. Edwards: The commissioner certainly advises me that when he makes a policy change, he is very careful with it because there are maybe 10,000 other people who would be able to use that precedent. So policy changes are rare, and they certainly have to be very clear, as much as possible, and as specific as we can make them.

L. Fox: I have two more questions. Firstly -- and it may have been asked already, but I was out for a few moments; I apologize if it was -- why 183 days? Secondly,

section 7(2)(a)(ii) talks about integrated resource management principles. Could the minister maybe define, in short form, what she means with those particular four words?

Hon. A. Edwards: This may answer your question: 183 is half of 365, plus a half. So if someone is living in the country for half a year at a time.... That certainly would cover more than a general mining season. It would have to be a long mining season if someone were there.... Anyway, that's what it is. It's a six-month measure.

I have already answered the other question you have, but what we have tried to say is that there are some principles in British Columbia about resource management. We have integrated resource management where we have more than one resource sector working in the same area. We have some principles. People need to know what rights they have and what rights others have, so that when they go out into an integrated resource management area to exploit a resource, they know what the principles in our province are.

L. Fox: I have just one further question. Six months or 183 days.... I wasn't quite sure why it wasn't 180 days; that's what we usually consider six months to be. I understand the rationale. It seems to me that if we look at where some of the shortest seasons are in terms of goldmining, one would be in Atlin. If you lived in the country and worked your placer mine in Atlin -- actually, there are more than just placer mines in Atlin -- you would live up to the obligations of this clause, because the season is slightly longer than six months. In fact, many times it's seven months.

J. Tyabji: We note that

section 7(4) says: "Despite subsection (2), the chief gold commissioner may issue a free miner certificate to an applicant who does not meet the eligibility requirements under subsection (2)." -- if they need to conduct business. What I think is interesting is to note how this is different from the act prior to the amendment.

[ Page 15514 ]

We know that we have just seen a change in

section 7 of the act under this

section of the bill. We've taken out the Canadian citizenship provisions from the definition of a Canadian corporation in this bill, and we have taken out the Canadian citizenship provisions for the issuance of a free-miner certificate. Before it was amended, subsection (2) read that on application, a person had to be "18 years of age or over and a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada...a Canadian corporation, or...a partnership" of people from those two groups.

What this bill is doing.... First of all, we know that the designation of Canadian citizen has now been removed from "Canadian corporation." We know that under

section 7(2)(

a) we now have a person who doesn't have to be a Canadian citizen and only has to live here for six months. The minister has said that this tends to coincide with the mining season anyway, so it doesn't have to be somebody who has lived here for any length of time or has any interest in the future of Canada. We've talked about a minimum prescribed standard of knowledge, and we don't know what that is yet -- although it's supposed to be done in consultation with the mining industry.

What seems to be lacking from

section 4 is an allowance for the general interests of Canada to be upheld by those people who are mining in British Columbia. That has been removed from the

definitions of free miner and Canadian corporation under this act.

Given that we have removed the Canadian citizenship provisions, the amendment that I've put on the order paper for subsection (4) is:

[SECTION 4 (c):

Add the words "provided the applicant can demonstrate that she/he has, as one of his/her objectives, the general interest of Canada." following the words "conduct business in British Columbia."]

This amendment, as the minister can see, is similar to the amendment that was moved before. It has been done in order to tie up the loose end that has been left by removing any reference to Canadian citizenship. Even if we have to remove the reference to Canadian citizenship under NAFTA, we do not have to remove a reference to the general interests of Canada for NAFTA if we have it as one of the objectives of the people who are performing mining in British Columbia.

I would move the amendment to this section. I won't be calling a division on this, because we've just had a division vote. I would say very strongly to the minister that I can't stress enough the implications of what this

section of the bill will have for the future of mining in this province. Without some kind of reference to the general interests of Canada, loose though that may be, there's absolutely no safety net for those of us who would like to see our country's interests be one of the general objectives of the people who are performing mining in British Columbia. It doesn't have to be an overriding objective. It doesn't have to be

an act prescribed by law -- it couldn't be, under NAFTA. But if we have it as a general objective, it's something where we would at least be able to question the actions of people who are going to perform mining in British Columbia if it were deemed that those actions were not consistent with the best interests of the country.

So I move that amendment, and I hope the minister can support it.

On the amendment.

The Chair: The amendment is in order.

Before I recognize the minister, may I just caution members that we had an extensive debate on the previous amendment, the basic intent of which was precisely the same. We canvassed it at some length. It would seem to me, then, that we don't need to have another protracted debate on this particular amendment.

Having said that, I'll recognize the minister.

Hon. A. Edwards: I just want to point out that despite the member's comments about Canadian corporation, it is still required that we have a Canadian corporation. So there is constantly this definition that it is not Canadian anymore because it's defined somewhere else. It must be a Canadian corporation, so that is there.

As far as the actual citizenship is concerned, I say there are very few occupations -- I can't think of another one right now, and certainly can't think there would be one added -- where Canadian citizenship would be required. There may be professions, but there are not general resource sector exploitive activities that require Canadian citizenship. As with any other industry, the mining industry wants to have that there. So the objection to this amendment is the same as the objection to the last one.

J. Tyabji: Just briefly.... I don't know if the minister has understood that when we talk about Canadian corporation for the purposes of

section 7 of the act, she's removed the provision for Canadian citizenship. So we're not talking about the definition of Canadian corporation that might exist in another act; we're talking about how she has defined it in this act. And she has just removed that. We can't say, "It's a Canadian corporation," and therefore it's a Canadian corporation. She just removed the requirement for the 50 percent citizenship for the directors.

In addition to that, with reference to the Canadian citizenship and occupation comment that the minister made, in most of our wealth-generating sectors -- for example, in agriculture or in forestry -- we don't have mobility of capital and tenure as we would with mining. Mining is one of the few industries that historically has been extremely mobile. It has been one of those industries that will move. People move very freely; capital and research and development can move across borders fairly freely.

That was probably why there was a Canadian citizenship requirement in the first place. You hardly need that with a farmer, because a farmer's going to be someone who lives on that land anyway, so they would automatically fulfil the requirement for permanent residency. That's why this is not exactly a typical wealth-generating industry.

[8:30]

Amendment negatived on division.

D. Jarvis: I hate to keep pushing this on and on, but there is obviously a philosophical disagreement on the testing of potential free-miner's certificates.

Did the Chairman have a comment there? No.

Interjection.

[ Page 15515 ]

D. Jarvis: Well, we have. We just finished doing an amendment on....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I think I have the right to go down.... This is the last

section of

section 4.

As I said, we have a philosophical disagreement on the testing of potential free miners, whether they should get a ticket or not, the appointment of the gold commissioner and all the rest of it. So I believe we should indicate, and I'm going to ask the minister if she is prepared to clearly tell the people out there, that no person who is knowledgable in prospecting or mineral exploration will be excluded from acquiring a free-miner certificate. Would the minister state that?

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm sure that any prospector or miner who is skilled and knowledgable would pass any test that the gold commissioner would put to them.

[A. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

D. Jarvis: Would the minister say that no person will be excluded? Not whether they have the knowledge she doesn't think they will. Will she guarantee that they will not exclude someone who has the full knowledge of mineral exploration and prospecting?

Hon. A. Edwards: I was interrupted. Could you repeat the question?

D. Jarvis: To answer the minister: she didn't hear me, because the previous Chairman was talking.

What I want to say, again, is that we have this philosophical disagreement. We must clearly indicate to everyone out there in the mining industry that no person who is knowledgable in prospecting or mineral exploration will be excluded. Not what the minister says, that anyone who has that knowledge certainly wouldn't.... I would like a specific: they will not be excluded, not just because they haven't.... Certainly they wouldn't be. Will they not be excluded? It's very simple. That's all she has to say.

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm being tested. I'm being examined to see if I can.... I'm sure that no one in this chamber wants a person in this province to have a free miner certificate without being able to demonstrate the basic information one would expect them to have about people's rights in the area where resource extraction takes place and to know their responsibilities under our integrated resource management principles.

D. Jarvis: The minister is dodging the question again. When she said that no one in this chamber would want it, I beg to differ with you. That's why we've been calling the yeas and nays on the votes, and why we're going to vote against this section. That's ridiculous. It's obvious that the minister will not guarantee the miners that now have free-miner certificates.... If they have the knowledge that the minister wants, their certificate won't be taken away. We can conclude from the minister not wishing to make that statement that people with miners' certificates will not be excluded from obtaining a free-miner certificate.

Section 4 of Bill 13 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 30

Petter

Priddy

Edwards

Cashore

Zirnhelt

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Kasper

Hammell

Lortie

Miller

Ramsey

Barlee

Lovick

Pullinger

Sihota

Randall

Beattie

Farnworth

Doyle

Streifel

Jackson

Krog

Brewin

Schreck

Lali

Hartley

Boone

NAYS -- 16

Dalton

Warnke

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Hanson

Serwa

Tyabji

Chisholm

Neufeld

Fox

de Jong

van Dongen

K. Jones

Symons

Jarvis

Tanner

section 5.

D. Jarvis: I want to say to Madam Minister that I'm really happy about this

section 5, the first part of it: " 7.1

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who is not a free miner may hand pan for recreation purposes." Now, I've gone out and hand panned, and it's going to be the first time that this government isn't going to squeeze a dollar out of the miner in this province, fortunately. But I'm rising to the point....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: No, I don't even pay tax on it.

In any event, I would like to speak to subsection 71.(2). It is not a big concern, really, but I just thought that it.... You have down here: "A person must not hand pan on a valid mineral title unless the person receives permission from the recorded holder of the mineral title." But I think there should be consideration of putting "written permission" in there, because quite possibly, at another time.... You know, the old story: "No, he shouldn't have been in there." "He gave you permission?" "No, he didn't give any permission, etc., etc." Would the minister consider that?

Hon. A. Edwards: We believe that permission that is solid -- that you can prove -- is enough.

[8:45]

L. Fox: I think the minister should look at that suggestion with a little more seriousness. What constitutes permission? And on what basis? And in what region of this claim? I would think that written permission is a very reasonable request and would absolve the chief gold commissioner of a situation where there may have been a change of mind by an individual, and then they would say that they had not received that oral permission. I think you're opening the door here to....

Interjection.

L. Fox: Yes, the member suggests chaos. I'm not so sure chaos is the word, but you are opening the door for difficulties

[ Page 15516 ]

in an agreement that was achieved between two individuals and may, for whatever reason, break down. Without a written permission slip, you could run into trespass charges and all kinds of things. I think the minister should seriously consider the suggestion that was made to amend this, and put in "written."

Hon. A. Edwards: Miners are honourable people, and in general, when they're there and there are hand panners....

Interjection.

Hon. A. Edwards: Well, the member seems to indicate that miners are not honourable people. I suppose there are some of those, too. Without elevating this to a contract situation, we have put in the act that permission must be granted and assured.

D. Jarvis: I really wasn't insinuating whatsoever that miners aren't honourable people. What I was trying to say was that there is confusion sometimes, and the minister should know full well that what is said to one person or is said.... A person can come onto a claim and talk to the person's spouse, and a month or a week later, whatever it is, the other spouse would say: "No, I didn't give permission." Who is he to know? But if he'd had written permission, that would be it.

But it's obvious that the minister is going to try to push this draconian socialist bill through the House, and it's a typical NDP government. It's a badge of courage to stand up, even with a simple little amendment like this, to get this bill to pass without amendment. That's your badge of courage. You have no rationalization of how people think and how they do things out there. As far as I'm concerned, we might as well just pass this whole bill right now and forget about it. But I would never get to that position.

L. Fox: I really believe that you are going to make the job of the gold commissioner and those who have to settle disputes between individuals a whole lot easier if, indeed, the request for written permission is given. If somebody is recreationally hand panning on a claim, and somebody comes along and says, "Now look, where is your permission to do that?" there is nothing that has to be produced. All the individual has to say is, "I received permission from the person who owns this claim," and then you have nothing at all to fall back on.

It's not only a case of somebody who might break their word because of a conflict, but I think also a case of identifying a true trespasser. I think it would be important -- and I'm sure the minister would see the importance -- to be able to identify that trespasser.

With that, hon. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to

section 5,

section 7.1(2), to add the word "written" before the word "permission."

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to speak in favour of the amendment to 7.1(2), because I think that the members have outlined fairly clearly that it's not enough to just have permission. If one person is alleging that there is permission, and the other person is alleging that there is not, then the minister would have created a worse mess than what existed prior to this

section coming into force.

Before this

section we had recreational panners who may or may not be causing difficulties on a claim. Now we have the opportunity for permission to be received, but we could get into all kinds of fights about whether it was or was not. And just to make it a lot easier for the minister's staff, I would imagine written permission is a good idea. So I would support the amendment.

Hon. A. Edwards: This

section was meant to help clarify what has been going on for years and to make clear that you do not need a free-miner certificate in order to hand pan, and that you should have permission if you want to pan on a mineral title. When a mineral title is granted, it's the holder of that title that should manage the mineral resource at that point. This gives that person the tools to do so. It is not something that the gold commissioner is going to get involved in. It's very unlikely that that would ever happen. A hand panner without a free-miner certificate is not going to be having a dispute that is going to involve the gold commissioner.

What this is, is an attempt to codify, if you like, what has gone on for years, which is a courtesy notification of the mineral title holder and permission before a hand panner pans on that title.

L. Fox: I don't take issue with most of what the minister is saying. But what typically happens -- from my experience in my part of the country -- is that in an area where claims are known and where there is known to be the opportunity to pan gold for recreational purposes, that is policed not by the gold commissioner, not by any inspector, but by the neighbouring claimers, the people who have those claims. Somebody sees a recreational person doing some panning on another person's claim, and immediately they go over and say: "What are you doing here?

This is Joe Blow's claim." If I don't have written permission from the owner of that claim, I immediately -- because those folks are pretty protective -- have quite a problem. It would be in my best interest as a recreational panner to make sure that (

a) if I'm going to pan in a respective area, I identify whether or not there are claims on it; and (

b) if I want to do some recreational panning there, I find out who the owner is and get his or her written permission to pan. It seems quite logical that I would not want to be, I guess, harassed or, indeed, be told where to go by those folks, who can get very protective over their respective claims. I think it's very reasonable, and it would accommodate a very smooth transition and make a whole lot less confrontation between a recreational gold panner and those who legally have the claims.

Hon. A. Edwards: I think having written permission is one way of having permission. If a gold panner wanted to have it, they certainly could have it, but there are other ways of getting permission. The goal here is not to make this more bureaucratic and require more hoops that have to be jumped through. I certainly see no problem with having written permission if that makes it easier, but there are other ways to get permission.

L. Fox: Just one last thing. I'm very disappointed. This is, I think, a very good amendment, and the only reason the minister is not accepting it is that it seems to be against her will to accept any amendments. It's rather unfortunate that a minister gets so protective over a piece of legislation that she

[ Page 15517 ]

isn't prepared to accept good input, reasonable input and reasonable rationale behind a very simple amendment. All it would require.... It would make it a whole lot smoother and clearer for those folks who want to do recreational panning to know what permission means when they look at the literature that's obviously going to be produced around this new legislation. If it was clear in terms of the word "written," then there would be no difficulty for the individual to understand what they had to do before they went out and started panning gold in a respective area.

I think you owe it not only to those folks who own the claims but to the recreational panner to make doggone sure that you don't put him or her in a situation that is going to cause them embarrassment, and perhaps it could even go as far as legal problems.

Hon. A. Edwards: Our reading on it is that it doesn't need that much form or actual structure. If the opposition member feels very strongly that it needs that much structure.... I don't think it's going to make that much difference. I am not resisting an amendment from any principle, because the principle is only how much is required to make it work. If the idea is that you want a written piece of paper, which could be, I assume, a piece of notepaper or anything at all, I really don't have a principled objection to it. What I don't want to do is create a bunch more requirements that people are going to resent.

Our sense of it is that this is reflecting what currently goes on. Why don't I simply suggest that I don't think it's necessary.

D. Jarvis: I just don't believe these statements that the minister is making now. It's unbelievable. You know, talk about jumping.... She doesn't want her people to be jumping through hoops, going through all this.... But in the

section right before this, the miner has to go out and have a "standard of knowledge respecting mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles in British Columbia." Under the next section, he's got to know the Criminal Code, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Mines Act, the Mining Right of Way Act and the code on health. What the hell does she think is going on? All they're asking for is to put one little word in. Now, smarten up!

R. Chisholm: It seems that we're spending a rather large amount of time on one small word, but the fact of the matter is that if it isn't in there, we're going to spend an awful lot of time in the court system. The court system is already backed up, to the extent that it doesn't work. It's high time we eased the pressure on the court system. A simple little handwritten note is really not much to be obliged to do if you're going to go onto somebody's property -- which this is -- and pan for gold. These people can be very possessive, as has been mentioned in earlier speeches.

I think one word in this piece of legislation will alleviate a lot of court cases in the future, which we can ill afford in our justice system, which is falling apart. As the Attorney General, who just came in, can tell you, it's backed up. We don't need more court cases, especially of this minor nature. Let's just put it in there, and it will alleviate that problem.

I hope the minister is listening, because it isn't such a big thing. But it can be a big thing in the bureaucratic mess later on down the road and in the court system.

[9:00]

Amendment negatived on division.

L. Fox: It's too bad the Attorney General hadn't been in.... I recognize that he's busy, and I'm not faulting him. The discussion around that amendment, even though it failed, was a very reasonable discussion. I think it would be worthwhile if the Attorney General could have a good look at that before this

section passes.

Without something that defines "permission," we're in real trouble in this

section of the act. Perhaps "written" wasn't the right word; perhaps the minister has another suggestion. I can see all kinds of confusion coming forward, with individuals not being able to identify that they do have permission from the claim holder. I can see all kinds of harassment of recreational panners that the minister has never envisioned. I have been into gold claim areas -- recreationally as well as on other individuals' claims -- and I know how protective people can be over their claims. I'm afraid that because of that, I'm going to have to vote against this section.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

D. Jarvis: I would like to say that we're making remarkable progress. We're now starting on

section 6, and we've been at this for almost eight hours; there are only 41 sections left to go. We're doing well, so hold on. I wonder if the minister realizes that the majority of the people on this side of the House -- who represent far more ridings than she does -- are all in disagreement with her and that people out there are not happy with this bill.

With respect to

section 6, I would like to ask the minister if I could see if she has any clarification.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: We are hearing a lot of nattering from the member for Mission-Kent, especially for someone who doesn't live in a resource area -- that's what we're talking about here -- and has nothing to worry about. I'll tell you, the rest of his friends across the floor certainly have something to worry about -- that's for sure.

Before I was rudely interrupted.... I would like to ask the minister: in this

section it says.... We were talking previously about the dictatorial powers given to the gold commissioner, and the minister said no, there are no dictatorial powers given to him.

I would just like to mention that in this

section -- contrary to the previous section, which only asks for the fact that he had to have knowledge respecting mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles of the British Columbia government -- he now has to satisfy the gold commissioner that he has complied with and has a full knowledge of the activities related to the mineral title, this act, the regulations, the Criminal Code, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Mines Act, the Mining Right of Way Act, or the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia. If he hasn't got a good knowledge of all that, the gold commissioner has the right to cancel his licence.

If someone contravenes the Mines Act or does some simple infraction, are they liable to actually lose their free-mining certificate? If this is true in here, any miner out there must have more knowledge than a lawyer. I shouldn't use that

[ Page 15518 ]

expression, because sometimes I suspect how much knowledge lawyers have. There, again, you're just piling all these requirements on the free miner that he has to have all this knowledge. You know full well that most of the explorers -- the people who go into exploration out there -- don't come into this business with PhDs. They're people who worked in mines all their lives.

They walk out or they're flying over country like Eskay Creek, for example. How do you think that was discovered? The guy who put through Eskay Creek simply was flying back and forth to the Premier mine and saw some discoloration on the side of a mountain up there. He went back on weekends and discovered probably the richest goldmine in the history of British Columbia. That's how he discovered it. I don't know whether he had the knowledge of all these things.

But now, if someone doesn't have this knowledge, your civil servant can take away his licence. Would the minister like to clarify some of these points? You know, maybe I'm wrong; maybe I'm right.

Hon. A. Edwards: This

section is quite straightforward. A free miner must obey the law. There are quite a few laws that the free miner must obey. Now, under these new statutes, the free miner will probably be aware that he must obey these laws and have an idea of what they are, in case he or she didn't already know.

This says that if the chief gold commissioner has information that a free miner has broken or contravened a law, then the gold commissioner will notify the miner of the particulars of the contravention. So it's not that they are going to cancel the free-miner's certificate, but that intention and also the particulars of the contravention will be in the notice.

The free miner at this point has the option of requesting a hearing. If the free miner does not request a hearing, then the gold commissioner may go ahead and cancel the certificate. In any case, if the free miner gets a decision that she or he does not like, then the person may appeal the cancellation to a judge of the Supreme Court. It seems to me that that's the kind of process that happens to people who are licensed to have the kind of rights that free miners have.

D. Jarvis: Well, that might be true. I can't see where all the miners would violate the laws. I don't think they go out purposely to violate the laws. They're in the business. Most of them have been in the business for a long time, and they're not going to go out and do it.

But these powers are too broad to be given to a civil servant, and it's ridiculous in the sense that you've got to be a courtroom lawyer to know what you're doing here. The individual may not be politically correct to the gold commissioner, he could have his licence lifted, and we'd go through a lot of nonsense. This stuff is just typical socialist mumbo-jumbo that they're putting into this to create more problems, and I will be voting against this section.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I'll try to be heard among the yellings of the back bench, who take offence at the socialist-dogma label thrown at them.

An Hon. Member: He didn't say dogma; he said mumbo-jumbo.

J. Tyabji: Or mumbo-jumbo. I will remind the member for Mission-Kent that there was a witch running in his neighbouring riding, and I believe mumbo-jumbo is in the vocabulary of witches. So perhaps that's where the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was pulling his reference from.

Section 6 is one of the worst sections of the bill -- and we've had a lot.

An Hon. Member: That's what you said about the other sections.

J. Tyabji: Well, it's hard to choose. A lot of them are pretty bad.

The reason that

section 6 is a problem -- and I'm glad the Attorney General is here for this debate -- is that we have the power of a court being transferred to a senior civil servant, and we have the accountability provision going from the minister to a senior civil servant. So what does the senior civil servant have the ability to do?

We see that if the chief gold commissioner is satisfied -- it doesn't describe in what manner or what kind of evidence has to be produced -- with respect to activities related to the operation or use of a mineral title, that a free miner has contravened this Act, the regulations, the Criminal Code, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Mines Act, the Mining Right of Way Act or the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia, the chief gold commissioner must notify the free miner of the particulars of the contravention, and of the intention to cancel the free-miner's certificate.

At the time that the free miner receives certification, I'm not sure to what extent a free miner is going to be provided a list of all his or her rights or responsibilities under all these various acts, or whether it will be something that the free miner can request. We know that in a previous part of the bill, in order to be practising as a free miner, the free miner has to satisfy a gold commissioner that he or she has met all the requirements of the integrated resource management -- whatever it was in here -- principles with the minimum level of knowledge of mineral exploration, and all the things that we don't even know because they haven't been determined yet.

Once that person gets to that stage, then they have to be concerned that they may have contravened these acts. We don't take issue with the fact that those acts are important and that we obviously want to make sure the Criminal Code and all these other acts prevail. But if we start to look at things like the Heritage Conservation Act, that one is a real mess.

Last year we debated that for a while in this chamber, and we know that a rock could be deemed to be something that has heritage value and that a free miner may unwittingly contravene the heritage act by, for example, taking action against a rock. The minister may not have been here for those debates, but the minister for Small Business, Tourism and Culture was the one who brought that in. There was a long debate about what the definition of a heritage object is.

When we see a debate like that and how open-ended it is, we see how easy it would be for the free miner to contravene that act without even knowing it and without even being aware of his or her rights or responsibilities under those other acts. So I guess one question would be: in what manner does the free miner have to be served with notice by the chief gold commissioner, and where is that laid out?

[ Page 15519 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: The method of notification is by registered mail to the last known address of the free miner.

I feel I should respond a bit. I can't imagine that if a particular rock had gone through a process to be deemed a heritage rock, that someone working in that area wouldn't know about it. I think a little common sense is appropriate here. Anybody who is working in the areas of our province where the resources are found knows that they must not contravene the Criminal Code, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Mines Act, the Mining Right of Way Act or the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia. They are going to be working in that sector, so if they have made some serious contravention....

If the particulars of the contravention are so severe that the gold commissioner has decided that that licence should be cancelled, then that will be laid out by the gold commissioner and sent by registered mail to the last known address. That is the way miners work with the government over title and other requirements they have. They have an address at which they can be notified, and there is the expectation of following rules.

The appeal procedure is the same as it was before. There is an appeal to the Supreme Court. Following that, there could be an appeal to the Court of Appeal by leave of the Court of Appeal. The only difference is that it no longer requires that the minister make this decision; the gold commissioner can do it. Again, it's a matter of balance. We believe that this is the kind of decision that a gold commissioner can reasonably and appropriately make.

[9:15]

J. Tyabji: With respect to the reference to the Heritage Conservation Act -- and I don't expect the minister to be aware of that act in any detail -- it does not provide for a rock that has already been deemed heritage to be something that if the miner impacts on it, the miner contravenes the act. In fact, it's only if the rock qualifies as something that may be deemed heritage that the free miner could find himself or herself in contravention of the Heritage Conservation Act. I'd be happy to look up that

section of the bill. That was an extremely contentious bill at the time; we spent hours on the

definitions. I know some of the members in the House right now tried to get that definition pinned down and were not successful in that, and the minister should be aware. There isn't going to be some rock in the middle of a plain with a big sign over it saying: "This is a heritage rock." For the purposes of the aboriginal provision in the Heritage Conservation Act, it would just have to be a rock that was on a route that was habitually used by aboriginal people historically to maybe be deemed a heritage site, and in that way the person could contravene this act now by contravening those other acts.

As to the service by registered mail that the minister was talking about, could she tell the House whether the 30 days begins to expire at the sending of that notice, or is it at the point where the registered mail is received by the free miner?

Hon. A. Edwards: Normally, service of notice means when the notice is received.

J. Tyabji: So at the point when the notice is received, the free miner then has 30 days to appeal to the chief gold commissioner. Why did the minister pass over her duties in this respect to the chief gold commissioner, rather than keeping the accountability with her office?

Hon. A. Edwards: A similar sort of thing, I guess, if you would be interested in analogies, is the powers that go to a conservation officer or a Forest Practices Code officer. These are the powers that go to civil servants who operate at this level of knowledge and proficiency.

J. Tyabji: The public says -- at least those people I have talked to; I have had extended conversations on the issue of accountability and the role of the government in adjudicating or determining when there has been a contravention and what the penalty should be -- that we actually need more accountability in our institutions rather than less. So if the minister is saying that there are other examples out there of a system whereby a civil servant has the power of a court, I would agree with her.

It is true that there are examples out there, and it is those very examples which are making people extremely angry that the powers have not rested with the branch of government that retains accountability. The minister's office clearly has accountability, because it's the minister. Now we will have the gold commissioner, and I know that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has expressed a number of times how the people in the industry are consistently upset with the fact that now the power is going to be passed over to a civil servant. The minister is, in effect, washing her hands of this prospect.

In addition to this, the 30-day provision for someone to request a hearing is a bit problematic. In the event of the person requiring more time, I don't see an allowance for the waiver of that 30-day limit -- for example, if someone comes in after the limit has expired and would still like to have some sort of hearing.

Hon. A. Edwards: Frequently miners express satisfaction at being able to take their case to the chief gold commissioner, who certainly has a lot more information and knowledge about what happens in such areas as claims-staking and mineral tenure and title than the minister would, no matter what minister you have. That comes out of the history in this province. The gold commissioner has had quasi-judicial powers right from the first gold commissioner in the province. These powers, which are comparable to those of policemen, conservation officers and so on, are not unusual, particularly for the gold commissioner.

I think the gold commissioner probably had much more power in the past than the gold commissioner does now, even with these powers. Again, this is a matter of practicality. It is a matter of trying to make the civil service work as efficiently as possible.

J. Tyabji: I go back to the comment that I made earlier: if we want supreme efficiency, we can remove the power of cabinet altogether and pass it over to the civil service or, alternately, put everything through by order-in-council.

On this section, why would the minister not have allowed the gold commissioner, if she wanted to, to adjudicate the proceeding but leave the determination of the cancellation of the licence or certificate with the minister? For example, after the 30-day period or the hearing, the gold commissioner makes a recommendation to the minister for cancellation. At least in that respect, the minister would have the opportunity to have the final say. I would assume that this minister, coming from a riding where there are a number of free miners

[ Page 15520 ]

who hold certificates, would want to have some ability to be consulted by the chief gold commissioner. I'd like to hear that from her. Why would she not have at least written herself in here as a recommended method?

Hon. A. Edwards: The amendment requires that the gold commissioner do it, not the minister. I would not have to write myself in as minister, because the current legislation has the minister doing it. We have a desire to make government somewhat efficient, and I make no apology for that. We are not anywhere near being a dictatorship, which the member seems to think is the most efficient.... I'm not sure what her measure of efficiency is. A measure of efficiency sometimes has a number of aspects to it.

All I am saying, very clearly, is that we consider the appropriate thing to do in the administration of this act is have the gold commissioner deal with situations such as this. There is for a free miner a course of appeal to one court, and if not that court, to another court. That is the same as it is in the current legislation: if the decision of the minister isn't adequate, they have two levels of appeal.

Levels of appeal are expensive. I agree with the member, but certainly I am sure she would be objecting if they weren't there. I don't think that there's any principled objection to having the opportunity to appeal. I think that there is no principled objection, although I can see a point -- it is much more an argument.... Our position is that as far as the administration of the ministry is concerned, it makes much more sense to have the gold commissioner do these tasks.

J. Tyabji: I should put on the record that although I keep saying a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government, I'm not advocating it. In fact, on the contrary, I'm trying to point out that if we follow the line of logic that the minister has said assisted them in drafting this bill, that's where we would end up. I think that's what the member for North Vancouver-Seymour keeps saying. There's a lot of fear that there are going to be very few provisions for free miners and the mining community to have input, because the minister has been written out of the bill and a civil servant has been written in.

Having said that, the concern that the member for Prince George-Omineca expressed in the previous

section about the word "written" is a concern that appears in this

section as well. If the minister is saying that the recourse the free miner is going to have -- if that person's certificate is cancelled -- is through the court system, then the one thing the court system will demand is evidence. And it has to be tangible evidence; it has to be in the form of writing. That hasn't been allowed for here. Litigation is a very expensive way to go. There's no question we would be arguing against this minister if she hadn't provided for it, but the point is that that should be a last avenue of resort -- not the insurance policy that the minister has built in against the civil service.

I move the first amendment to

section 6 that I have on the order paper.

[SECTION 6, line (a) (1) by adding, after "must notify" the words "in writing", and, after the words "a hearing." the words "A copy of such notice must be provided to the minister."]

The reason that that amendment is in there is that here, again, we have notification that it's not specified that it would be in writing, and we'd like that clarified. For example, we wouldn't like to leave on the shoulders of the gold commissioner the responsibility for doing that, and have that person say, "Oh well, we contacted the person personally, and the person has not responded," because there's no tangible, physical evidence of that. If there is going to be litigation later, you'll need a paper trail.

And the reason that we also add in there that a copy of such notice must be provided to the minister is that we are sure that this is an extraordinary circumstance and that the minister would want to be directly aware of what was going on in an action that was solely in her jurisdiction prior to this amendment. Prior to this

section of this bill the minister was solely responsible. So if she's going to hand it over to the gold commissioner, she should at least be notified when the gold commissioner takes action under this section.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

So I move this amendment, and I guess I'd like to move the second amendment as well. Because at this point, after all the amendments that have been moved with so little support from the minister, I can't imagine that she's going to finally pass one, but the....

The Chair: I'm sorry, member, but I think, given that we are dealing with it

section by section, I can't really take an amendment on

section 7 at this time.

J. Tyabji: No, it's

section 6.

The Chair: Oh, I apologize, member. I see you have two under

section 6. Go ahead.

J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair. They are related amendments.

So I move the second amendment on the order paper.

[SECTION 6, line (a) (3) (

a) by adding, after "person affected," the words "and to the minister,".]

The reason that's in there is that we believe if the gold commissioner takes the extraordinary measure of cancelling a certificate, the minister would want to know that. The minister would want to be aware not only when notice has gone out but when a certificate has been cancelled. And I assume that that's the very least the minister would want to be involved in, given that this used to be solely in her jurisdiction.

We feel very strongly about this, because without it we don't allow for a lot of protection for these people, on two fronts. We know that in this arena, politics always comes into play and that one of the things we offer as elected representatives is the ability to be somewhat accountable. Without the minister even being notified, there is no accountability at all. But, for example -- heaven forbid -- let's say there was a series of certificates being cancelled.

If the minister has been notified, then at the point where an opposition member brings it forward because the opposition member has been cancelled by the free miner, the minister's not blindsided by something which used to be totally in her jurisdiction. It's a mechanical amendment; it's an amendment which is a protection to the minister, and it's also a protection to the free miner. Hopefully, it's something that will make this a more effective

section of the bill.

On the amendments.

[ Page 15521 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: I need direction, because I don't know what amendment we're dealing with at the moment. There are two parts to the first amendment on the order paper, and there's another part. I would prefer to deal with.... Are we dealing with them all as a lump, or are we dealing with them one at a time?

The Chair: My suggestion, hon. minister, would be that if we're all agreeable, we deal with them as one block -- as a lump, to use your phrase.

Hon. A. Edwards: Actually, I was going to say that I have no objection. If the opposition feels it would be better to have "a copy of such notice provided to the minister" or, by the second amendment, "and to the minister," I really have no objection whatsoever, if the member thinks that will give protection. But I see no reason to put in that they must notify "in writing," because "notify," in legal terms, means in writing. There's no need to do that. I would not agree to that part of the amendment, but I would agree to the others if the opposition member feels they are necessary. I will agree to that amendment, but I will not agree to adding "in writing."

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Okanagan East, may I ask for a clarification? Is the minister accepting the two amendments, save and except the words "in writing" on line (a)(1)? I hope that clarifies it, then.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps I would then propose a friendly amendment to the amendment, to line (a)(1), which would remove the words "in writing" after "must notify." If we remove those....

The Chair: I think that is understood from what we've said thus far.

[9:30]

Hon. A. Edwards: If I have to vote against.... I don't want to mess up this legislation with words we don't need. I don't think the member means to repeat. It's a redundancy. In the legal terms of legislation, if you "notify," that is in writing. So I don't think the member means that, probably. I'm willing to accept the other amendment, the two additions, because I don't think that that goes against anything we intended. If the member would withdraw that phrase, "in writing," I will accept the amendment.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps we can get direction from the Chair. It's my understanding that if I put forward a friendly amendment to remove the first

section of

section 6, line (a)(1), as I've read it out -- to take out from the words "by" to the words "and...."

The Chair: My suggestion is that we don't need another amendment or motion to do that. Rather, what we have already agreed upon is to accept the two amendments standing in your name, save and except the phrase "in writing." The question, then, would be in order on the amendment.

J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair. I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised after all this discussion tonight. I would like to thank the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, because I do think that if her office is notified, that will make the mining community a bit happier with this

section of the bill.

Amendments approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 7.

J. Tyabji: We're just making such lightning speed here, I'm having a hard time keeping up. I know I have an amendment here, but I have to look it up.

First, before moving the amendment, I would like some clarification from the minister on this section, on what she meant by having: "If a dispute arises between (

a) recorded holders on the same mineral lands, or (

b) a recorded holder of a mineral title and a person having a right under another enactment to a mineral substance in the lands to which the mineral title relates...." In the original act, there is a specific reference to mineral tenure rights, and in this one we talk about recorded holders. Why was that change brought in?

Hon. A. Edwards: This is the current Mineral Tenure Act I'm looking at, in

section 1 on

interpretation, under the definition of "recorded holder." You will find that it means "a person whose name appears as the owner of the mineral title on the record of that title in the gold commissioner's office of the mining division in which the title is located, and includes the agent of that person." So this is redundant.

The Chair: On

section 7, I haven't had an amendment moved yet.

J. Tyabji: I'm assuming that when we're talking about mineral title, all the mineral tenure rights would be included. If that's the case, then obviously it's a repetition to have that amendment moved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

The Chair: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

D. Jarvis: I'm going to sit down. I have to collect my thoughts on this again. Go ahead.

J. Tyabji: We know that a definition of bulk sample has been added in the definition section. The minister spoke a little bit about that in

section 1. Could the minister tell us what this new

section will mean to the mining industry and how that will play out? It's all new territory for us.

Hon. A. Edwards: The response of the mining industry, of course, will be very favourable, because the previous requirement was that any holder of a claim on a bulk sample could only produce a bulk sample of 1,000 tonnes per claim per year, which might or might not have suited the purposes of the claim holder. This allows some discretion to be used so that the environmental requirements can be met. In other words, there will be discretion to require that; but if it seems

[ Page 15522 ]

reasonable that 1,000 tonnes is not enough, then a larger amount can be allowed under this section. Or if it is not needed, that can be controlled as well. This is an attempt to respond in a way to the needs of the claim holder.

J. Tyabji: I am having a hard time getting my head around this section, I have to say.

Section 11.1(1) says: "Subject to subsection (2), the recorded holder of a claim must not produce minerals or placer minerals from the claim." Then

section 11.1(2) says: "The recorded holder may, with the prior written approval of the district inspector appointed under the Mines Act, produce or cause to be produced a bulk sample from the claim." Unless I'm missing a

section from the original act -- and maybe it's

section 11, where we are talking about surface rights -- why is there a provision that says "the recorded holder of a claim must not produce minerals or placer minerals from the claim"? Is it because of production being tied to the definition of bulk sample? If that is the case, then we need more details. If it's not, I don't understand the word "produce" with respect to their claim.

Hon. A. Edwards: The difference is.... I did refer to this earlier. Basically, you cannot produce a mineral unless you have a lease. But this will be a claim, and you can have a bulk samp