1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 14

[ Page 7607 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. P. Ramsey: On behalf of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I invite the House to help me welcome 52 grade 5 students from Sir Matthew Begbie Elementary School in Vancouver. They're accompanied by their teachers: Carole Read, Jacqueline Siller and Margaret Vis. Would the House please help me make them most welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: I have two introductions today. The first one is a gentleman who served on the school board with me in Prince George, Austin Howard Gibbons, and his lovely wife Bernice. The second one is two young women who gained notoriety today by riding on motorcycles -- but the real notoriety of Mary Gregory and Julie Allen is that they're two wonderful staff members from my office here in Victoria. Would the House please make all of them welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today are five members of the High Risk Project Society. They are Sandra Laframboise, Deborah Brady, Don Crowe, Stacey and Tamara. I hope that the House will make them welcome.

M. Coell: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today a good friend of mine that I met some 25 years ago at Colquitz Junior Secondary School: the mayor of Saanich, Frank Leonard. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have the honour today to introduce two guests on behalf of myself and also my special assistant, Glen MacInnes. Visiting the gallery today is Ann MacInnes, Glen's mother, and her friend Phylis Barnes. They have been on a trip and have ended up here in Victoria. I invite all my friends and colleagues to help me make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: It's my great pleasure today to be able to introduce a great artist to the galleries. As you know, the sign of a great artist is that he can make something wonderful out of nothing. This artist can make beautiful pots and cups out of nothing but dirt -- and made a cabinet minister out of me. Hon. Speaker, Sandy Korman.

C. Clark: Joining us today from Port Coquitlam are two very hard-working B.C. Liberals: Mr. and Mrs. Sperill Chambers. We also have joining us another . . . . He had better be a hard-working B.C. Liberal; he's my brother. His name is Bruce Clark. I hope the House will make him welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have visiting with us the new consul general from the United Kingdom, Mr. Ian Kydd. Would the House please make him welcome.

P. Calendino: Today in the gallery is a good friend of mine, a constituent and a great supporter. This man likes to describe himself as a semi-retired businessman, but he's busier now than he has ever been before. He started his work in life as a carpenter's apprentice, only to quickly move on to be a project superintendent for very large construction companies. Then he moved on to form his own construction company. Today, in his semi-retired life, he has changed completely from that to become a cookbook author and a travelling TV and radio personality. Would the House please welcome the author of the cookbook From Uncle Bill's Kitchen , Mr. Bill Anatooskin.

Hon. P. Priddy: I have two introductions, if I might. In the precincts today there are 65 grade 3 students, with 15 parents and three staff, from Brookside Elementary School, which is in my riding. This is a school that, because it's Heart Month, has done a jump-rope-for-health event and raised $5,500 for the Heart and Stroke Foundation. They have just recently been awarded a multicultural award for their activities. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

The second introduction is of people I met this morning. I think many of them are here in the gallery with the Health Minister's Advisory Committee on Mental Health, which is made up of family members, consumers and front-line workers in the field of mental health. This is Mental Health Week, and those folks need all the support they can get. So will the House please make them welcome.

F. Randall: I have a very special guest in the gallery today: my cousin, Hugh Cassells, is here with his wife Joan. They are from Ayr, Scotland, where they own and operate a large china and gift shop called the Acanthus. It's just over the bridge in Ayr, for anybody going there. I might just say that this is their first visit to British Columbia. With them is my wife, Aileen Randall. I might also add that my cousin Hugh has a conservative streak in him, but he feels that Tony Blair is doing just a fine job in England. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: There are two guests I'd like to welcome to the Legislature today: Molly Bain and her daughter, Yvonne Bain, visiting here from Gibsons. Would the members of the House please join me in making them welcome.

R. Thorpe: Visiting the Legislature today I have a young constituent by the name of Anthony Giannotti. Since it's Youth Week, Anthony has a question for the Premier that I will be pleased to ask during question period. Would the House please make Anthony welcome.

Oral Questions

BRIEFINGS ON NCHS CHARGES

G. Plant: We know that Tuesday afternoon two ministers received confidential briefings before the NCHS charges were laid: the Attorney General and the Deputy Premier. Only minutes after the briefings were completed, the NDP's provincial secretary, Brian Gardiner, says that he got a call from the RCMP and that he then immediately passed information on to NDP caucus communications.

Here's the problem: the RCMP says that they called Mr. Gardiner at 4 o'clock -- a full hour after Mr. Gardiner says he got the call and after all of the NDP MLAs had a memo on their desks telling them about the charges. My question is to the Attorney General: can he tell us if he has undertaken a formal investigation to determine the source of what I think is a serious breach of confidentiality?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was briefed at noon that day. In consultation with the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, I invited the Deputy Premier, since the Premier was absent, to be at my office at 3:15 that afternoon. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General was a few moments later than 3:15, and the Deputy Premier was in my office being briefed by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General and left my office not before 3:35. It is important, however, to remember that when special

[ Page 7608 ]

prosecutors deal with these issues, particularly in high-public-profile cases, they inform either the accused or their counsel on a regular basis. The same happened in this case.

[2:15]

The Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Ernie Quantz, has been assured by the special prosecutor's Don Sorochan, who works with the special prosecutor, that all of the accused or their counsel or former counsel were advised of all of the charges they were facing before 3 o'clock that day. Once that kind of information is available to the accused or their counsel, it is in the public domain. It is for them to do as they wish.

I as the Attorney General, the Deputy Premier as the acting Premier, and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General have different obligations on confidentiality, but I cannot be held accountable for information that is out there in the public domain before 3 o'clock to all of the accused and their counsel.

The Speaker: I recognize, for his first supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: But here's the problem. Mr. Gardiner says he got a call from the RCMP at 3 o'clock. The RCMP say they didn't contact Mr. Gardiner until 4 o'clock; there's a disparity. The question is: how did the NDP caucus members find out about the charges before they were in fact made, formally sworn and made public?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have indicated before, and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General testifies to the fact, that there was no way that the breach occurred from the Attorney General's office or the Assistant Deputy Attorney General's office. I have indicated, through the Assistant Deputy Attorney General's advice, how this information was out there before 3 o'clock with all of the accused or their counsel.

Now, if Mr. Gardiner received information at 3:57, I believe that the hon. members would be wise to check with the police. I am now told . . . . I haven't officially checked with the police, nor would I. I am told that the time has been revised to 3:39. That doesn't help the hon. members. However, these things are in the public domain; they were in the public domain, in the hands of the accused's counsel or the accused, before 3 o'clock, before the Deputy Premier was briefed -- which briefing concluded . . . he left my office by at least 3:35, if tnot after.

RESTITUTION OF FUNDS TO NANAIMO CHARITIES

M. de Jong: I have a question for the Premier. On January 16, 1996, the Premier sat down at a table at the Holiday Inn on Broadway and made a very categoric promise. He said that full restitution would be made to any and all of the Nanaimo charities that were deprived of funds as a result of the activities of the NCHS. He is now trying to weasel out of that promise; clearly he is trying to weasel out of the promise.

Three years ago Ron Parks calculated that as at 1988, those charities in Nanaimo had been deprived of at least $1.9 million. My question to the Premier, quite simply, is this: does he think he can buy forgiveness of a $1.9 million sin with a paltry $60,000 today?

Hon. G. Clark: My position has been consistent from that day -- absolutely, entirely consistent. Any moneys that were diverted to the NDP which should not have been diverted to the NDP will be paid back by the NDP. We have called a public inquiry. It sits. I hope it can move expeditiously. If it's found that any money was diverted to the NDP, to any NDP association, to the party in any way, it will be paid back with interest.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, hon. Speaker, that's not what the Premier said, because I was sitting in the room with him when he made the statement. I got his release; I got his transcript.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

M. de Jong: He said that he will ensure that full restitution is made by the party to any charities who were deprived of funds they were entitled to -- period, point blank. And he's trying to weasel out of that now . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member.

M. de Jong: . . . by being cute with phraseology.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Hon. member, your question is . . . ?

M. de Jong: Only this Premier, after all of these shenanigans . . .

The Speaker: Your question, please.

M. de Jong: . . . would have the people of B.C. believe that his party is somehow the victim. The victims, hon. Speaker, are in Nanaimo.

The Speaker: Hon. member, order, please.

M. de Jong: My question to the Premier is this: will he stand here today and fulfil a commitment to pay back $1.9 million, not a paltry $60,000 that he thinks will let him off the hook? Because it won't happen.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I noticed that it was the same question, only louder. I don't know if that's . . . . I know that's a tactic the member likes to use.

What is absolutely clear . . . . I've been absolutely consistent, and I want to say it again: any money that was diverted to the NDP . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, please.

Hon. G. Clark: Any money that was diverted to the NDP in any way, by the NCHS or otherwise -- that was taken from charities -- will . . . . Full restitution will be made by the party. I look forward to a public inquiry which gets to the bottom of all of this. I look forward, hon. member, to ensuring that all this information is there, so the party can make any restitution which it should as a result of actions that took place 15 to 25 years ago. I also look forward . . . .

[ Page 7609 ]

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I look forward to the public inquiry investigating all political parties, including the Liberal Party, which had lotteries during the same period and did not remit to charity, according to the Parks report. The Leader of the Opposition said he would investigate . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . and yet we have not seen any evidence of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Hon. G. Clark: All of this will come out during a public inquiry. Any money that was diverted in the past by the NCHS or otherwise that should have gone to charity . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . and went to the NDP will be paid in full restitution, with interest.

STUDENT SUMMER JOBS

R. Thorpe: On April 2 Anthony Giannotti received a letter from the Ministry of Forests confirming that he would start a co-op student job this past Monday. Two days before he was to start, that job was terminated. Can the Premier, the Minister Responsible for Youth, tell Anthony Giannotti why his job was cancelled two days before he was supposed to start?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: I might take this criticism from those members opposite if they once stood up and supported Youth Options B.C. and the $22 million we're spending on youth employment.

The Speaker: I recognize, for his first supplementary, the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: We know it's gone from A Guarantee for Youth to an option, and the option is 18.6 percent unemployment under your watch. It's broken promise after broken promise. This government spends millions every day on phony advertising, and yet it cannot support 32 co-op students. Will the Premier stop the phony advertising and hire back the 32 co-op students that lost their jobs two days before they were to start?

Interjections.

The Speaker: There will be no answer until there is quiet.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, this government has done more for young people in the last three years . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Now listen. I know that you want to exploit that young person for political gain, member, but listen to the answer.

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Listen, hon. members. We have frozen tuition fees for three years in this province. And are you in favour of that? Are the members opposite in favour of the tuition freeze? The answer is no. We have increased funding for post-secondary education institutions . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order!

Hon. G. Clark: . . . in this province, and those members oppose that. We provided $22 million to create jobs in this province for young people, and those members oppose it. We have the largest Summer Works program in British Columbia history this year, and those members oppose it. They stand here and say that we should have big tax cuts for big business every single day -- paid for by cuts in public services . . .

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, thank you.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . and then they cry crocodile tears for students that they have never once stood up in this House to defend.

ISLAND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND FISH HABITAT

P. Reitsma: On a different subject, to the Minister of Fisheries. My question concerns runoffs as a result of the construction of the new inland Island Highway. My question is: in view of problems experienced during periods of heavy rain, such as erosion of fill on some highway embankments, causing silting of fish habitats . . . . I assume there's a monitoring system in place. If so, will the minister provide the House with the results of the monitoring system?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again the members ask questions that aren't particularly under the purview of this ministry.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: You know, hon. Speaker, it becomes increasingly difficult to be civil to this uncivilized opposition. We have members over there that forget they have to move when they've signed a covenant. I get sick and tired of the ongoing battles in here. I'm attempting to answer a question from the member for Parksville-Qualicum. I'll just take my seat.

The Speaker: Hon. members, interjections do not help.

On his first supplementary, the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

[ Page 7610 ]

P. Reitsma: The construction and planning, of course, of the Island Highway is still ongoing, from Mud Bay to Courtenay. At the Courtenay connector there are four major streams that are very important to the five salmon species and the two trout species. My supplementary question to the minister is: if problems occur, and given the alarming decline of fish stocks, what plans are in place to prevent damage to fish habitat? Do those plans involve the Minister of Environment? And who would pay for the damage?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to take this opportunity, if I could, to answer the member's question. Indeed, in the splitting of responsibilities between the Ministry of Fisheries and myself, there are some ongoing habitat-monitoring issues that are handled by this ministry.

We have an agreement related to the Vancouver Island Highway project to divide the Vancouver Island Highway area in half, between DFO and ourselves. So our conservation officer service monitors a portion of that; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does the monitoring for the other part of that. I'd be happy to meet with the member to discuss the monitoring work that is going on to ensure that there are no negative impacts from the construction activities.

Petitions

T. Stevenson: Discrimination against transgendered people in British Columbia is systematic and it's severe, and it results in a lack of access to education, housing services and employment for these people. I have a petition from 623 British Columbians asking this House to amend the Human Rights Code to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have the pleasure to table the following six annual reports. They are the B.C. Hydro 1997 annual report, from April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997; the British Columbia Housing Management Commission annual report for the period of April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997; the British Columbia Lottery Corporation annual report from April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997; the 1995-96 annual report of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, from April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996; the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia annual report for the year ending December 31, 1997; and lastly, the lotteries advisory committee annual report for 1997-1998.

[2:30]

Hon. H. Lali: I have the pleasure to present two reports for 1996-1997: the annual report of the British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority and the annual report for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Ministerial Statement

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

Hon. P. Priddy: As Health minister, I'm pleased to draw the attention of the members of the House to the fact -- although I expect many know this -- that this is Mental Health Week in Canada.

Mental illness can affect anyone, regardless of age, regardless of gender, regardless of culture, regardless of economics. It's likely that all of us know someone with a mental illness. Despite the progress that's been made, our society continues to marginalize people with mental health problems. What Mental Health Week does is help to raise the awareness of the barriers facing people with mental illness in our society.

If you are a person with a mental illness, you will continue to have trouble gaining access to jobs, to training, to volunteer work and to recreation and social opportunities that help you to achieve your goals in life and contribute to your community. We need the special skills and talents that people with mental illness have to offer to their communities, and we have to find ways to ensure that we receive them.

This year our government launched a new seven-year mental health plan that outlines our commitment to improve mental health care for British Columbians. The goal of this plan is for every person with mental illness to receive the care and support that they need. The plan provides for more mental health services, more emergency and 24-hour care, and more affordable housing to support recovery. We've targeted $125 million over the next seven years to put this plan into action.

Earlier this week I announced the development of an additional 200 supported independent-living units for people with mental illness. Today I'm pleased to announce that a provincial advocate for British Columbia's mental health system will soon be in place. When appointed, the advocate will monitor how the mental health system is performing, so that systemic issues that affect people with serious and persistent mental illness, and their families, can be resolved.

As a result of our mental health initiatives, more British Columbians with serious and persistent mental illnesses will be able to enjoy a higher quality of life and participate as full members of our society. Family members will receive more of the support they need -- because they are often and actively involved in their spouse's, son's, daughter's, sister's or brother's treatment and support. We all need our families lifelong. For people with mental illness, families are often the only people in their circle, and we need to ensure that they have the support they need.

This week I'm asking everyone to just take a moment to think about mental illness and the personal commitments we can all make to support the lives of people in British Columbia who live with mental illnesses, and their families.

S. Hawkins: I'm very pleased to respond to this very important issue, and I think it is very important to recognize National Mental Health Week and to raise awareness of mental illness.

As the minister states, it is true that there are many barriers facing people with mental illness, but it's also true, unfortunately, that many of the barriers in our province have been created because the voices and needs of the mentally ill were neglected, forgotten or ignored.

Just before Christmas, I took the opportunity to work alongside front-line workers in Vancouver and Kelowna for about a week and a half. I wanted to get a firsthand perspective on and knowledge of some of the health issues affecting people out in the real world, including people with mental illness. I worked with street nurses, with the police, with ambulance workers, in hospital emergencies and with other front-line health- and service-provider groups. I must say that the experience was eye-opening, to say the least. Front-line workers informed me that between 25 and 50 percent of people on the street are suffering from some form of mental

[ Page 7611 ]

illness, and I certainly saw this for myself. The sad

part is that the front-line workers say that these people are not getting the services they need.

In the past year, I travelled around the province visiting communities, and I heard consistently that mental health services are sorely lacking. As the government knows, in June 1997 the provincial health officer, Dr. John Millar, said that B.C. needs more than 3,500 more beds of supported housing for the mentally ill than it has now. I'm pleased that the minister made one announcement this week. But these services, as the provincial health officer says, are sorely lacking.

For example, the central Vancouver Island health region bought and renovated a home for mentally ill seniors, at a cost of more than $400,000, but the region doesn't have the $200,000 necessary to provide for the 24-hour setting. And up north in Smithers, three and a half years after a psychiatric holding room was built for more than $30,000, patients with severe mental health problems don't have a safe place to stay. It's these kinds of things that we are watching, to see what the government will do.

They announced a seven-year mental health plan, and we will be watching closely as this government implements that plan. The mentally ill and their families need action, not hollow promises. We really hope that mental health issues will be recognized all year round and not just one week of the year.

Orders of the Day

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Education. For this House, I call committee stage of Bill 10.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 10; W. Hartley in the chair.

S. Orcherton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today and watching during question period -- I just happened to notice him -- is an old friend of mine and a very good friend of working people not only in the Victoria area but around the province. He's a past vice-president of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union and an activist in the Victoria Labour Council -- and the labour council generally in the greater Victoria area. Adam Ustik has joined us today, and I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

section 1.

G. Plant: The first few provisions of Bill 10 amend the Correction Act, and they do so to make possible what are called shared-facility agreements. My first question is: in practical terms -- in commonsense, lay terms -- what will a shared facility be?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Looking specifically at Vancouver -- which is what this envisages at this point -- it would be the lockup facility which would be in the same place where the general corrections inmates are. That would be a shared facility.

G. Plant: What's the character of the inmates? We're talking about people who would be in the city of Vancouver jail overnight or for a few days, pending charges -- and also, I assume, remand people who are being brought into downtown Vancouver or staying there because their trials are taking place in Vancouver. Is that basically it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: Are we talking about an existing physical structure -- that is, are we talking about the jail at 312 Main Street -- or are we talking about a facility to be constructed?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The new beds will be created by renovating existing cells and adding two new floors to the provincial courthouse at 222 Main Street.

G. Plant: Is the work underway, or is it work that is awaiting the passing of these amendments?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is underway. The facility would be functioning by early 1999.

G. Plant: Has the minister already entered into the agreement with the city of Vancouver that is contemplated in what will become

section 13.1(2)?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is an agreement between the city of Vancouver and Corrections. That's why the renovations and additions are taking place. This agreement, obviously, would be . . . once the act is in place, and then it would be redrafted to meet the terms of the act.

G. Plant: Is there a correction?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I apologize. Sorry -- it's my confusion. This is an understanding and an agreement to have the additions and renovations completed. Once they are completed, then there would be an agreement as to how sharing would take place, vis-à-vis the costs and the like. That agreement would be made under the legislation.

G. Plant: In addition to the construction cost and whatever sharing may exist around that, there will, of course, be the issue of how it will be administered, how Corrections and the city officials will work together to operate the facility. Is that the distinction?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: In terms of the costs and, I suppose, the anticipation with respect to the administration and management, can the Attorney General briefly outline . . . ? Is it 50-50 in terms of cost-sharing? What, in the broadest possible terms, does the Attorney General hope for in the comanagement arrangements?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think both jurisdictions would be saving money. The province would be charging about $5 million in operational costs over six years, approximately, for taking care of the prisoners that otherwise would have been taken care of by the city.

[ Page 7612 ]

[2:45]

G. Plant: I think I was told by an official for the city that, really, the Vancouver city jail is probably the only place in British Columbia where this kind of arrangement is likely to happen. I think I was told that it may be the only city that has its own jail, as opposed to operating a facility through the RCMP. I somehow doubt that, but I guess . . . . Apart from correcting me on the facts, is this a precedent or harbinger of things to come, or is this really dictated by the special needs that have arisen because of the facilities around the 222 Main Street courthouse in Vancouver?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This arose out of the special needs in the city of Vancouver. There are arrangements in place in other parts of British Columbia where municipalities pay for the province to look after prisoners during lockup period. There are ongoing discussions with respect to those matters. Municipalities have had concerns over the years. Who knows -- that might need to be streamlined as well.

G. Plant: One of the political contexts that could surround this is the issue of downloading to municipal governments the cost of operating the provincial corrections system. Would I be right in saying that it is no part of the Attorney General's intention in respect of these amendments to undertake that kind of a process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Not at all. In fact, even in this instance, we are taking on their prisoners, and they would be paying something for it.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

G. Plant: Could the Attorney General describe in general terms the intention behind this amendment? Maybe I should say in this context that we may have a bit of a discussion later in the bill about integrated releasing authorities and the idea of a single releasing authority, and about changes to the Parole Board. Here I think the focus of my interest is simply in the changes being made in relation to the length of temporary absences -- in those parts of this amendment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I understand correctly, the hon. member is interested in subsection 15(2), which is simply to bring our temporary-absences authority in line with the federal Parole Board.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

G. Plant: The amendment here is an amendment to the Infants Act, which the explanatory note says will increase "the monetary limit . . . within which the Public Guardian and Trustee may consent to or make a binding agreement for a settlement in respect of an infant's claim for unliquidated damages." The increase is from $10,000 to $50,000. I take it that what's happening here, in respect of claims that are between $10,000 and $50,000 -- that is, below the new limit -- is that the court's approval will no longer be required, but rather it will be enough to get the public trustee's approval. Is that a fair

summary?

Interjection.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

J. van Dongen: I wonder if the minister could just clarify why this amendment is being brought forward at this time. It's not clear to me why that's happening.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I understand correctly, this legislation is enabling only; it would provide the authority to charge fees for inspections of various things here -- which the hon. member probably understands better than I do. But I think the real issue is that the industry is seeking and wanting and desiring more inspections than we currently do. I think that for cost-recovery purposes we need to impose certain fees. Obviously, that would be done in consultation with the industry.

J. van Dongen: I can confirm for the minister that I do have a letter to the Minister of Agriculture from the B.C. Milk Producers dated April 21, and they seem to be supportive of the legislative change on a conditional basis. I think they're looking for assurances in two areas. First of all, I'm wondering if the minister is able to confirm in this Legislature for the B.C. Milk Producers their concern that the government may get completely out of milk inspection and dairy farm inspection. I wonder if the minister could just reassure us that the current level of inspection, which is really the bare minimum from a public safety perspective, will be maintained by the government.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told that yes, it will be maintained.

J. van Dongen: I thank the minister for that assurance.

I think the second concern is . . . . Again, is the minister able to provide the assurance that this legislative change will not be used to impose a service charge on the bare minimum of inspection that is currently being done by the government? If we could get that assurance from the minister, we'd appreciate it.

The Chair: I recognize the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. C. Evans: That's correct.

J. van Dongen: I think the final question is: is this legislative change motivated by an intent by the industry and/or the government to put in additional inspection services for which farmers could be charged? Is there any intent at this time to increase the level of inspection through outside agencies?

Hon. C. Evans: Not on behalf of the government, hon. member. But should the industry make such a request, we would consider it at that time.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

D. Symons: The question I'm asking will involve sections 8, 9 and 10 -- they seem to go together. I wonder if the minister can confirm . . . . I feel that the main emphasis in these three sections is that you're adding the word "emissions." At this date, since we've had the AirCare program, I'm

[ Page 7613 ]

just wondering if the inclusion of the word "emissions" is now simply covering what has been past practice? What is the purpose of now adding the word "emissions" in each of these three sections coming up?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I read the notes correctly, I understand that the objective is to implement mandatory roadside inspections for heavy-duty vehicles. For that purpose, this amendment is required.

D. Symons: Then there's

section 8. I guess it will be

section 216(1)(a)(iii) in the act when it's passed. When we include all areas of British Columbia, would that also include AirCare being expanded for automobiles as well as heavy-duty vehicles throughout the province?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, that's not the intent at this time.

G. Plant: I want to pick up on a question that my colleague asked a moment ago. I was interested to hear the explanation of the purpose of these amendments in the context of roadside inspections for heavy-duty vehicles and then to look at the actual language of the amendment. The amendment would allow, I believe, regulations to be made requiring inspection as to safety, emissions and repair of prescribed classes of vehicles. The statute itself does not limit the regulation-making power to heavy-duty vehicles.

It allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- I assume that's the regulation-making authority here, or the minister, or whoever it is -- to make regulations with respect to any of a number of classes of vehicles, presumably including heavy-duty vehicles.

I guess the first question is . . . . I take it that it's the government's intent, when prescribing classes of vehicles under the new powers given by this provision, to only make such prescription in respect of heavy-duty vehicles. Otherwise I wonder why the language is so broad, given the stated intent of the amendment.

Hon. H. Lali: We already have it for safety and repairs. This amendment allows it to be extended to emissions of heavy-duty vehicles also.

G. Plant: Am I right that the amendment would allow cabinet to require emissions inspection in respect of all kinds of classes of vehicles? There's nothing in the actual text of the amendment that limits it to heavy-duty vehicles. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I need to get out

section 216(1)(

a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, and I'll find the answer there.

Interjection.

G. Plant: Yeah. I mean, the point here is that it looks to me that the government has an interesting policy idea -- probably a good policy idea -- around heavy-duty vehicles. But since you're going to give yourself the power to do new heavy-vehicle emissions testing, why not ask for the power to test the emissions of all vehicles? Then you won't have to come back and defend that later.

Hon. H. Lali: We already have the power under AirCare to be able to do that with the other vehicles. So this amendment allows it to be extended to heavy-duty vehicles.

G. Plant: Is the power that AirCare has to test emissions for other classes of vehicles found somewhere in the Motor Vehicle Act or in some other statute?

[3:00]

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

G. Plant: Which statute?

Hon. H. Lali: It's

section 49(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for that helpful piece of research.

To come back to the government's intention here, just to get closure on it, then, the government's entire intention here is simply to allow it to conduct roadside emissions inspections of heavy-duty vehicles. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, but also to issue tickets to those who are not in compliance.

G. Plant: I'm still interested in the ability of cabinet to prescribe other classes of vehicles that might be subject to testing in this way. I'm grateful for the minister's statement as to the limited intention of the government in bringing these amendments forward, and those are all the questions I have.

D. Symons: I'm just curious too on

section 49(2), which I have not read and won't attempt to search for now, so maybe the minister can just answer then. I had the impression when AirCare was brought in that it wasn't limited to automobiles only and that AirCare was testing vehicles per se.

Interjection.

D. Symons: It is. Well, I stand corrected, then. I'll wait until the next section.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

D. Symons: I note

section 9 adds a

section about what constitutes an offence. It now includes

section 216(1)(a), which talks about the classes of vehicles that have been done . . . . So again, is this just strictly that you can now fine people who would have, let's say, emissions beyond the standards you're going to set?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, for heavy vehicles.

D. Symons: At present you don't have this authority for the heavy-duty vehicles. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Lali: That's correct.

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

G. Plant: Perhaps I could impose on the Attorney General to briefly outline the way in which the B.C. Parole Board is being restructured here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is obviously a bit complex in terms of the structure. Let me just read from the note that I have. This amendment would restructure the Board of Parole

[ Page 7614 ]

of the province. The amendment provides that the board consists of a chair holding office for six years, and three or more members, as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers, holding office for a term of four years. The amendment also provides that the chair is a full-time member of the board and is the chief executive officer and must supervise the board staff. Only the chair of the board may be reappointed. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may also designate one of the members as vice-chair.

The amendments will also allow the board to continue its independent role while taking advantage of the recent organizational changes that were made to the board. It is important that cabinet would have the discretion to reappoint the chair in order that the expertise may be retained for an appropriate period of time. That's particularly appropriate, as the chair will serve as the chief executive officer of the board as well.

G. Plant: Only a year or so ago, the Attorney General was announcing that the B.C. Parole Board would be disbanded. There have clearly been some changes in that policy intention. Why is the Parole Board being restructured in this way now?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The way we are restructuring this would save us $250,000 per year -- about six FTEs.

G. Plant: Is the only reason for the restructuring to save the money and the staffing costs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, that's not the sole objective. The additional objective is that -- as the cabinet would have the discretion to reappoint the chair after six years -- it also has some continuity. That's also important.

G. Plant: Let me ask this, picking up on something I talked about just for a second a little while ago. There is some discussion within the ministry about changing the traditional role of the Parole Board -- integrating releasing decisions so that, for example, releasing decisions which are currently made at corrections centres might eventually be made by the Parole Board -- or at least, for the time being, by the corrections centre working cooperatively with the Parole Board or some other agency.

We saw earlier in this bill, for example, that the decision to make temporary-absence releases has been potentially transferred from the ministry to the board, so I think there's more going on here than simply trying to streamline the board. Perhaps I could try again and ask whether there are some larger policy objectives at work here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there is more going on, and I thought the hon. member knew that, since we'd gone past

section 15 of the Correction Act.

Section 15 is

section 4 of this bill, and

section 15(5) of that is the delegating section. It would allow the integration of release, and some release functions that are currently performed by Corrections to be performed by the board, so that we work on an integrated basis. The decisions are more appropriately taken, and they are well thought out.

G. Plant: There's a difference between integrating decision-making on the one hand, which I think is maybe a fancy way of saying that the right hand and the left hand are at least talking to each other before they make a decision and, on the other hand, a single releasing authority, where you might, for example, have just one authority that makes all the releasing decisions. That might include decisions around electronic monitoring or things like that. I've sometimes heard the phrases "the integrated releasing model" and the "single releasing model," and that is the way the discussion takes place.

Does the ministry have any current intentions to move to the single releasing model? If so, are these changes to the Parole Act being undertaken to prepare the way for those proposals?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the hon. member knows, this is enabling legislation. There is no intention at this time to move to a single releasing model. We are working on an integrated model.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

G. Plant: I think I know what the intention of this amendment is, but perhaps I could have . . . . For the benefit of anybody who might ever be reading Hansard at some point and be wondering why we were doing this, am I correct that the Judicial Compensation Committee, which is discussed in this amendment, has in fact been appointed and is in fact doing the work which it is statutorily obliged to do -- more or less as we speak?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Is the Attorney General able to say whether or not the anticipated date for the completion and filing of the report, May 29, is a realistic date as we sit here today?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. I understand that my officials have spoken to the chair, and that's a realistic date.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage on Bill 11.

[3:15]

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 11; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 1.

I. Chong: At the outset, I would like to say that during second reading we did give our comments on this bill and essentially, I think, gave approval or support of this, although we may have some differences as to whether it will accomplish the goals that it is intended to meet in terms of raising

[ Page 7615 ]

more capital and assisting more businesses. The questions that we have through the various sections will just be for clarification, for our records and for Hansard 's, of course.

I do want to say to the minister that I appreciate the opportunity that he afforded this side of the House to meet with staff and have a briefing. It was most helpful. Subsequently, we have gone back, checked and read to make this process quite quick.

section 1 -- for my benefit, just a technical issue -- the changes here state that it's to clarify that the cooperative association "may be eligible to be a small business as defined by the act." I'm just wondering whether that means that it is a small business strictly as defined by the act, but not a small business in the general terms of all other acts that incorporate the words "small business." As I see it in this act, small business only refers to the number of employees. It does not refer to ownership of any other kind.

It does not refer to the level of income that a business earns or any other income tax effects that there may be. I just want to be clear that when we're talking about a co-op being defined as a small business for the purpose of the Small Business Venture Capital Act, it strictly means the employees.

Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, I'd like to thank the hon. member for Oak Bay -- Oak Bay-Gordon Head, as I can't forget the other half -- for her kind remarks at the beginning of the question.

It would only apply to this act. Cooperatives have an opportunity, if they choose, to avail themselves of the provisions of this act.

I. Chong: That's what I thought, but I did want that clarified for the record. As I say, some of these things will be helpful in the future when we look back on this. With that, are there any provisions or exemptions if you go slightly beyond the 75 employees? In other words, is it that strict? I didn't know whether there was a process or an appeal of some sort of avail to someone if they end up within 10 percent of that -- whether there could be opportunities to go beyond the 75 employees.

The reason I ask is because in co-op situations, more than in other small businesses -- but it also could be in small businesses -- there are sometimes cyclical patterns in the work that's available. If you go beyond the 75 employees for a short term, such as three or four months for a cyclical kind of operation, a seasonal operation, would that preclude you from . . . ? Having entered into this agreement, would it preclude you from participating, or would you have to back off until you dropped back to less than 75 employees -- just to make sure that those who are looking at this, who are at that border, know whether they should apply or not, based on what they know their operations are?

Hon. I. Waddell: To answer the member's question, you have to be at 75 or below at the time of investment; if you go up later, that might be good, but that's not going to hurt you. It's the number at the time of investment that they look at.

I. Chong: What I'm hearing is that at the time the application is made, at the time a business or a co-op is wanting to participate, they have to have no more than 75 employees. If they expand after that, there is no problem whatsoever -- just to confirm that.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'll confirm that. Remember, the purpose of this act is to get some capital into small businesses so that they can grow. That's what we're trying to do, and that's why I gave the answer I did.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

I. Chong: Just a very quick question on this section. I note that subsection 3(4) is being repealed and substituted, basically to delete the latter portion of that

section of the act. I am wondering, out of curiosity more than anything . . . . The act's subsection 3(4)(

b) said: " . . . the amount of equity capital referred to in

section 2(1)(d)." Was that a problem in the past? Why did that need to be deleted? I understand that this is housekeeping, but out of curiosity I wonder whether that was some sort of a hindrance to some businesses.

Hon. I. Waddell: This is to improve the management provision. Under the previous section, when they came in there were two aspects that they had to consider, and it got very difficult -- giving the tax credit and . . . . This simplifies it and makes it a little easier to do that. That's a broad-brush description; that's why it's in here.

I. Chong: As I mentioned earlier, I realize that it is housekeeping and it is to simplify. But my curiosity as to whether or not it was to simplify it . . . . In fact, that paragraph did prevent or preclude people or businesses from participating. Was that part of the reason as well? As I say, certainly it makes it simpler, but not only does it make it simpler . . . . If it in fact enhances the opportunity, that is a good thing. If it didn't create a problem before and it's strictly to make it simpler, that's fine too. I'm just curious about why we couldn't have worked with it other than in that way.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that the reason for this is to let people know what they have to raise right up front, so it's easier for them.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

I. Chong: I want to assure the minister and staff that I won't be going through every section, just the first few. This is good practice, anyway, for the minister -- this being one of his first bills.

I note that the changes in

section 3 are to ensure that the wages being paid are to employees who in fact regularly report to work in British Columbia, and I have no problem with that. But I didn't have the opportunity to look into this in the act.

Section 3 says: " . . . the wages and salaries, determined in the prescribed manner . . . . " That is a phrase I am curious about. Does "prescribed manner" refer to something in particular?

I'll try to explain to the minister what I'm getting at. Sometimes in your businesses or co-op situations you have one or two major shareholders or employees who are earning substantially more than all the other employees. That person or those persons, being husband and wife, can have salaries paid to them that represent more than 75 percent of the wages. I'm curious about whether that has been a consideration and whether that would be a problem in the future. Should it not

[ Page 7616 ]

be 75 percent of the employees versus the dollar value of wages? As we know, that could be skewed. It's not a serious problem, but I'm just wondering what consideration has been given to that.

Hon. I. Waddell: You have to look at the regulations, and if you do, you'll find that there are two ways of calculating the salaries for employees. The actual count and where you take the total cost and divide by $29,000 . . . . These are complicated in the regulations.

But let me tell the member a little bit about why this

section is here -- how I understand it. The act sets out certain criteria that a small business has to meet to get funding from the Small Business Venture Capital Act. Under the current provision, the administrator must review the wages and salaries of affiliated companies to determine if a small business is eligible to receive the funding. This is unduly restrictive, we think, in the way it's set out presently. A small business could lose its eligibility under the act simply by being affiliated with, say, a successful export company that has marketing staff located outside of British Columbia, because there are certain provisions: a B.C. company and so on. The revised wording of this

section still requires that a small business receiving financing pay at least 75 percent of the wages and salaries to B.C. employees. This requirement ensures that the financing is used to support B.C. employees, but it's a little clearer in the way it's set out.

Sections 3 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Miller: I call committee on Bill 12.

MINING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 12; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 1.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendments of which notice has been given by me to the Chair.

[SECTION 1, in the proposed

section 11.1,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (2) by adding "any applicable higher level plan under that Act and to any" after "subject to", and

(

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

(3) For the purpose of this section, the Chief Inspector of Mines, after considering practicable alternative means of access, may grant or refuse the written approval referred to in subsection (2).]

On the amendment.

[3:30]

G. Plant: I wonder if I might impose on the minister at this point to ask one question that relates to

section 1 but not to the amendment to it. It relates to

section 17.1 -- that is, the compensation provision. The

section contemplates two ministers. One is the minister responsible for the administration of the Park Act, who will essentially expropriate the claim, and then there is the minister responsible for the administration of this act, who has responsibilities around the attempt to negotiate and then initiate the arbitration process. Am I right that the latter minister is the minister responsible for the Mineral Tenure Act, who would in fact be the current Minister of Mines?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

D. Jarvis: The Chair has asked for approval of this amendment, I believe. As the minister has just dropped several amendments onto me, we are now talking about . . . ?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm not a great process guy, but here's the answer. I have tabled a number of amendments. As we debate each section, I will move in advance of each the amendment that I've submitted, and we can then debate that. So as we go through each of the sections . . . . Okay?

D. Jarvis: I interpret, hon. Chair, that we are now going to start at the first line of the bill and proceed through with the . . . .

We're now into the first section,

section 11.1. I want to see if I can get some explanation from the minister with regard to the terminology in the coda -- what mining exploration is as far as he is concerned. My second question on that one

section would be that I wonder if there is perhaps a typographical error here. We see that it limits the collection of bulk samples to less than 1,000 tonnes. Is that supposed to be 10,000 tonnes?

Hon. D. Miller: No, that number is the current number for annual production. We're not changing any of those requirements with respect to maximum tonnage for sampling purposes.

D. Jarvis: In the bill, there appears to be a 1, and then there's a blank, then zero, zero, zero.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: That's just a typographical error. Is that still the total amount for coal as well?

Hon. D. Miller: Coal is separate. It's a much higher number.

D. Jarvis: Is it 50,000 tonnes or somewhere around that area?

Hon. D. Miller: There is no cap for coal.

D. Jarvis: That's all the questions I have on that first section.

G. Plant: I have to confess I hadn't seen all of the amendments. I now see them. There are several amendments to

section 1, one of which is to the proposed

section 17.1, the compensation provision that was the subject of my earlier question.

[ Page 7617 ]

It seems to me that this provides the minister with an opportunity to refuse to pay compensation in the event that the minister is of the view, on reasonable grounds, that the claim in question was acquired or is being held for other than a mining activity or, I suppose, that the claim was acquired for speculative purposes around the obtaining of compensation. Is that a fair

summary of the general intent of this amendment?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. In fact, the process . . . . I don't pretend for a moment to have any expertise with respect to the issue of valuation as it pertains to these kinds of claims, although I have read a brief prepared by someone who is very active in the field. There are several ways in which valuation is determined. It's a fairly complicated and specialized field.

It is my view that under that process, these kinds of issues would be dealt with in any event. But it was felt by some that we ought to be a little more explicit with respect to putting this amendment into

section 17.1. I really think that if you look at the process . . . . I have experts here who are unable to talk in this chamber. It's my view that these kinds of issues are accommodated within the evaluation process.

G. Plant: Maybe I can pursue it one step further. If the minister believes, on reasonable grounds, that the claim was acquired for speculative purposes unrelated to mining activity -- if the minister forms the view that someone has acquired a claim purely for the purpose of attempting to obtain the compensation for expropriation -- would that then deprive the claim-holder of the right to institute the arbitration process altogether? Or is that simply something that causes the minister, in the first instance, to refuse to pay compensation and then gives the claim-holder the right to continue to want arbitration?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, the language would allow the minister to prevent that claim from moving forward. If that discretion is not exercised . . . . Let's assume, for example, that there's been no transfer of ownership of a claim. Or if there has been, it seems to me immaterial, with respect to the valuation question, whether the value -- if there is one -- goes to the purchaser or to the original holder of the claim. The process will determine what the value ought to be.

This is a pretty good message for individuals -- I'm not suggesting that there are any -- who might think that there is some advantage with respect to mining claims, if you like, as opposed to minerals.

G. Plant: Is the minister who is given the power under this amendment the Minister of Parks or the Minister of Mines? In that context, I direct the minister's attention to the fact that throughout the other provisions of the section, the language is: " . . . the minister responsible for the administration of this Act." Then that language is dropped when we get to what will become subsection (4). I hope there's no uncertainty created here, but I assume that the minister who is to exercise this power is the Minister of Mines. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

G. Plant: I suppose that if the minister were to exercise this power unreasonably, that decision would arguably be subject to judicial review. So there's always perhaps another avenue to raise a question in the event that there was one. Perhaps I could ask this, and it might alleviate any potential concerns. When the act was introduced, I think it was the minister's intention to communicate the fact that the mining industry and its organizations were supportive of the main provisions in the act. Was there consultation with respect to these amendments, and do these amendments -- this amendment in particular -- enjoy the support of the mining industry?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there was consultation. I'm a bit reluctant to be too broad in my statements about enjoying the . . . . If you mean that too broadly, you could probably always find someone who disagrees. There were consultations with the two principal associations representing the mining industry.

The Chair: Shall the amendment to

section 1,

section 11.1 pass? Carried and so ordered.

Shall the amendment to

section 17.1 pass?

D. Jarvis: I didn't think we were going to jump down to

section 17.1 yet.

The Chair: We've just passed the amendment to the first part of the section.

D. Jarvis: To 11.1.

The Chair: Yes, and I was dealing with the next amendment.

D. Jarvis: Did I not interpret you as just saying something about the amendment to

section 17.1?

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps it would help, Mr. Chairman . . . . I'm certainly not stuck on sections . . . . The member, I believe, wants to discuss

section 11.1, and there are two amendments to that. I would be happy to respond.

D. Jarvis: The proper thing to do is proceed through the bill according to the order of the way it's laid out, and we'll deal with amendments as we come to them. It seems to me that at this point we're down into subsection . . . . We've jumped all the way down to the compensation end of it. It only seems proper that we deal with the amendments as they come up, in the order that they come up. Am I not correct?

The Chair: Yes. We've just passed the amendment. My next question would be if

section 11.1 as amended should pass.

section 1,

section 11.1 as amended.

D. Jarvis: In 11.1(2) on the aspect of the issuing authority, I was wondering -- and I think it was addressed somewhat by the member for Richmond-Steveston just before me -- whether this would be the existing Minister of Mines. That was somewhat of a question, because the Minister of Mines is not always what you'd call a . . . . Different aspects of the mining industry have changed in the last little while. The Minister of Environment seems to have been the primary individual running the Ministry of Mines.

Now we seem to have somewhat more of an advocate of mining in the Ministry of Mines, yet the Minister of Mines prior to that was an individual who said that she was not an advocate of mining. One always questions when we come down to that point in the bill regarding issuing authority. I wonder if the minister

[ Page 7618 ]

could determine where that's going to be. Are we going to be staying within the Ministry of Mines, or are we going to come under the auspices of Environment and/or Forests somewhere down the line?

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's confidence in myself as the Minister of Energy and Mines.

The

section is intended to confirm right of access -- obviously with the kind of provisos that would normally be there. In other words, access approvals are not given without examination. What we've been attempting to do, in arriving at both this bill and the mineral exploration code, is deal with the regulatory issues that sometimes ensue. If we can develop a different construct -- and we have -- and if my staff in the field, who are very conversant with the industry, have the authority to grant access approval which they have under the mineral exploration code, then we think it will simplify life for people in the mining industry seeking that access approval.

[3:45]

The amendments that we've tabled simply add some more language. I think it is important that people understand that under no circumstances would people in my ministry want to do something improper or something that might have a detrimental or negative impact on the environment. I think all members of this House would agree with that as a statement of philosophy.

But given their practical experience with the industry, given that the industry, on the exploration side, is generally dealing with about 100 kilometres of road in total across the province versus the Ministry of Forests, which is dealing with about 10,000 to 12,000 kilometres of road which is being built to a standard to accommodate harvesting activities . . . . We recognize that there is a unique difference between the two industries, the two sectors.

In this bill we're attempting to say, in a very simple way, that if you have a claim, the state or the government can't deny you access, but that that access is subject to the kind of assessment done by ministry staff to ensure that it's going to be done right.

We've also looked at and put some language in the amendment so that the ministry considers alternatives where they are practicable. All of this is aimed at trying to simplify things, to make it easier for people in the mining sector to do their business -- but not in any way to denigrate our natural environment.

J. Wilson: I'd like the minister to explain that last statement he made with regard to access. What I understood him to say was that access would have to follow the standards set out under the FPC; however, there could be allowances made by the ministry in extenuating circumstances. Can he give me an example of what he means by allowances and whether or not all access will be what he considers to be appropriate access -- access that measures up to the roadbuilding standards in the Forest Practices Code?

Hon. D. Miller: No, In fact, that's the very point with respect to the difference. I did attempt to explain to the House the difference between exploration access, which is often minimum with respect to its requirements, and forestry road construction, which is clearly governed under the Forest Practices Code for very good reasons. Forestry roads are used to haul major equipment in addition to significant, huge logging trucks when harvesting commences. Those roads have to be built to a standard that can accommodate that equipment.

They have to be built in such a way that the proper culverts are put in and those kinds of things, so there is no degrading of the environment, particularly watercourses.

In terms of mining exploration, it's quite a different matter. You may need a single track to haul a drilling rig in. You don't need to construct to the same standards. That's why we've determined that it's more appropriate for the Ministry of Energy and Mines to deal with clients in the energy and mines fields, as opposed to putting them under the Forest Practices Code.

I want to be clear: this isn't a licence. We want to make it easier, in a bureaucratic sense, for the mining industry. We think there's value in that. But I can tell you that my staff in the field know what their responsibilities are with respect to these applications, and there's no way they're going to permit access that ought not to be permitted. We'll try to work with the industry and try to make sure that there's less bureaucracy and fewer hurdles with respect to getting these kinds of approvals.

J. Wilson: I take it, then, that the minister has already established the standards that his ministry is going to impose on access to a mining claim for exploration. If these standards have not been developed yet, when can we expect them to be developed and put in place so that an exploration company or a tenure holder can get on with the job of getting into the site and doing their exploration work? Are we looking at a year or two years or three years down the road before they can access their claim?

Hon. D. Miller: I'd be happy to convey to the member, through my staff, all of the material we have relative to the codes and standards and the like, if that is acceptable.

R. Neufeld: Just a brief question on this section. I understand that the minister is talking about appropriate access and those kinds of things. I just wonder about the special use permit under the Forest Practices Code. Will we see an amendment now to the Forest Practices Code? Maybe the minister could explain to me what the special use permit will be. Does it have any relevance to this bill, or is that going to come a little bit later?

Hon. D. Miller: Really, the legislation simply talks about what already exists. The thrust of the

section is dealing with certainty of access. So the special use permits under the Forest Practices Code are already a fact; they are already in existence. This text simply means, if you read the first three sentences literally, that a recorded holder "must be issued a special use permit under the Forest Practices Code," subject to the conditions that we have been talking about.

R. Neufeld: I wasn't aware and didn't remember that there is a special use permit available under the Forest Practices Code. Obviously, then, if that's there and the minister is aware of it, there must be some regulations that go along with that special use permit, which would describe what appropriate access would be. I know that the minister . . . . I'm not trying to be difficult here; I'm just trying to get a little more clarification on what the appropriate access would be. Would that be determined on a project-by-project basis depending on where it happens to be -- the terrain and those kinds of things? Or are there regulations in place that say this is how it must be done?

That's kind of what I'm familiar with in the Forest Practices Code. It describes almost to the nth degree what you can do and what you can't do. That's maybe where I'm trying to get to. I understand and appreciate . . . . I think we want to make access easier; I'm not trying to dispute that fact. I just

[ Page 7619 ]

want to know: if it's already in the Forest Practices Code, is it going to be too definitive to be able to allow what I hope is intended to be done in this section?

Hon. D. Miller: I think the member actually got close to the answer in his point. There are perhaps not an infinite variety of types of access, but there certainly is a wide variety. For example, it's clear that on some claims, given their distance from existing road networks and those kinds of things, the preferable access is helicopters. That's quite common, particularly in the mountainous terrain up in the northern part of my constituency. In other cases, depending on the kind of work that the applicant intends to carry out, there may be a requirement for a road of a fairly high standard.

Alternatively, if it's a minimal amount of work -- if it's getting a drilling rig in -- there may be an application for a lower standard. So those standards are all currently outlined in the forest road regulation under the code. Really, what this does is allow my ministry to be the issuing authority, bearing in mind that we do have regulation covering these kinds of circumstances -- that's all.

D. Jarvis: I thought of a couple more things -- sorry about that.

I just want to sum up. When you say construction of appropriate access, we're talking about roads. And if you need to have a helicopter to lift a drill in somewhere else, you'll give them access to that. So it's full and complete access. Does that mean construction of roads if necessary -- like into a park? If we want to get through to an area and it is surrounded by a park, do we have access to go through a park on that premise?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm bold, but I'm not foolish.

No, definitely not. Industrial activity is not permitted within parks. If there are issues with respect to access through parks, then those issues must be dealt with by the minister responsible for parks.

On the access issue, I should add that obviously individuals applying for access permits have to also present a plan at the same time to my ministry in terms of the kind of exploration activity they want to carry out on the land, and that has to be approved as well. So the purpose is really to have the ministry as the issuing authority to try to simplify life and maybe to cut down on a bit of paperwork and on the number of offices you have to visit in order to get approvals, but by no means diminishing the standards that British Columbians expect ought to apply on the land.

D. Jarvis: Does that pertain to off and on the tenure -- the claim? As you say, you want to cut down the paperwork. Would they have to consult with you or with the other ministries pertaining to roads leading onto the tenure?

Hon. D. Miller: For off tenure. Forestry would set the conditions, but they must issue the permit.

D. Jarvis: I'm wondering if the minister could answer this: how about the access to placer mining? As you are aware, the placer miners are having great difficulty with regard to riparian zones; they can't go within ten metres. How is a placer miner going to gain access to his claim?

Hon. D. Miller: They are not treated any differently than any other application by a claim holder for access.

D. Jarvis: They are more or less denied access to the majority of the deposits at this present time in view of the attitude of the Ministry of Environment. They can't get into the middle stream beds because of riparian zones and all the rest of it. On that premise then, would we be talking about compensation for the existing claims that are out there now, which they can't get access to?

[4:00]

Hon. D. Miller: No. The principle of compensation really applies to where the government, as a result of a land use decision, decides to take an area of land and, for example, creates a park. Within that area of land, there may already have existed mineral tenures or mineral claims. The fundamental principle is that if we take that and make it somewhat akin to . . . .

The government routinely and historically has taken land for a variety of purposes. We take land for highway purposes. Under statute, we have the right to expropriate private property for purposes that are considered for the greater good. By the way, that's not an ideological issue that the member should be tempted to debate. It's done by every government of every political stripe. The theory there is that if it's considered to be in the public interest -- for example, to build a road -- then that public interest occasionally becomes paramount over the private interests of a property holder. In those cases, there is

an act -- the Arbitration Act -- and there are well-defined processes to protect individual rights under those circumstances.

Really, what we're advancing in the bill is a similar principle: where you have a legitimate claim or tenure, and it is taken for reasons of a higher purpose -- let's assume a park -- then under the authority of the act, you have a legitimate claim for compensation. Then there are processes to deal with how that number is arrived at.

On the other hand, the situation the member talks about is perhaps more akin to . . . . Well, I own a piece of property and I'd like to build something on it. But when you go to the authority, whether it's a municipality or a regional district, you'll find that there are a variety of rules that exist that limit your ability to do what you perhaps might want to do. That's generally what we call zoning. You can't go, for example -- is your home community North Vancouver? -- and build anything you want, even though you own the private property. You have to conform to the bylaws, the rules that were set out.

You may desire to build a four-storey hotel in a residential neighbourhood, but the municipality says: "I'm sorry. You can't do that." So there are these inhibitors with respect to what any individual can do with their private property, but the rules are generally made in the broad public interest. Again, that's historically been the case for lo these many years.

R. Neufeld: Just a further question to my questions earlier. I'm not trying to beat it to death. The special use permit under the Forest Practices Code . . . . And there are a set of regulations that go with that special use permit already in place. What the minister tells me is that in the interest of expediency or being able to deal quicker with the mining industry or people that want to explore, his ministry will now be able to actually turn those permits out. Is the minister saying that previous to . . . ?

Obviously, all this was in place already, so we're just putting it in another act under your jurisdiction as minister. Are you saying that earlier it was the Ministry of Forests that wouldn't . . . ? They already had the special use permit in place, and they already had a set of regulations in place. So are we saying they just didn't under-

[ Page 7620 ]

stand what had to be done? Were they too slow, or were they actually holding it up? Really, what I understand now is that we're just transposing what's already in place into your ministry from the Ministry of Forests. Maybe you could just clarify that for me a little bit.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I wouldn't be condemning of people in any ministry with respect to the mandate they have, and the way they carry it out. I do believe, however, that there's more and more evidence to suggest that in this more complicated world we live in, we ought to be looking for ways in which we can conduct business in a more streamlined manner. Generally, one of the ways in which you can do that is to vest authority in a single agency for areas that sometimes rest with another agency.

One assumes that it's possible to have individuals in my ministry, for example, that are fully conversant with all of the rules and regulations -- what you can do and what you can't do -- and will assess those things in an appropriate way and issue or deny applications for access.

It's not to denigrate, but I think governments, generally -- and again, I say that in a non-ideological sense -- have not paid enough attention. There has been a lot of lip service, and I hear it a lot: cut red tape and all the rest. I strongly believe in that, but I don't know that we've done a lot in terms of the construct, if you like. How can we maintain standards, which are very important, but still have a more streamlined process -- quicker, better time line, those kinds of things? This is really an attempt, in some ways . . . . In my view, we're kind of intermingling this broad topic under this section.

But this is one of the ways that we think that can be accommodated. The Ministry of Forests will still issue the special use permit -- and whether to is a decision for them.

What we're saying in the bill, and what the mining industry -- I've got some letters here -- has taken some great comfort from, is that we are essentially saying that you can't be denied access. If you put in a plan and say, "I want to build a four-lane highway" into an area that has some sensitivity, you probably won't get your permit. In other words, you have to comply with the rules. But we're not going to turn you down; you have to do it right, that's all. So it's trying to simplify things, certainly to the extent that people can now go to one agency. I think that's a great improvement.

I bumped into a civil servant not long ago -- in fact, a fellow up in your constituency. He's a person I've known for a dozen years. He's a competent, qualified individual who has worked for the government service for many, many years. He cares about his job; he cares about the field that he works in. His comment to me was: "We're tripping over each other." I think he was trying to illustrate the fact that sometimes if you have a number of agencies involved in doing the same thing, all you're doing is adding to the paper burden and those kinds of questions.

So it's really trying to make things more streamlined, but at the same time, protect the integrity of the processes that we've put in place.

R. Neufeld: I fully understand what you're talking about, although it's not dealt with in this bill. When you go to the oil and gas industry and have to deal with six or eight different ministries and try and get through the processes . . . . So actually, the Ministry of Forests will still issue the permit, but they will just rubber-stamp the one-window approach to the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Northern Development. A proponent will come to your ministry and will say: "This is the plan. I have to go to that area to do some exploration." Your ministry will look at it.

They'll say what can be done and what shouldn't be done. Someone from your ministry, as I understand it, will call the Ministry of Forests and say: "This is how we're going to do it -- A, B, C, D." Someone over there is just going to rubber-stamp it and put it through. Is that what is going to happen?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Again, the language is fairly clear, just to read it into the record:

"A recorded holder of a mineral title or an owner of a Crown granted 2 post claim must be issued a special use permit under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, subject to . . . . "

Then that's where we put a bit of an amendment in there:

(

a) is the holder of a permit under the Mines Act for . . . exploration,

(

b) applies for and receives the written approval of the Chief Inspector of Mines to the issuance under the Forest Practices Code . . . of the special use permit, and

(

c) applies under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act for the special use permit."

That's exactly what this model is intended to achieve.

D. Jarvis: To follow up, if proper consultation has occurred, Forests is going to approve that. As far as you're concerned, if proper consultation has occurred, they can't hold it up. Someone else can't come in and say: "Well, there hasn't been proper consultation with Environment and Highways and all the rest of it." So long as they have done the basis of what you say here in this bill, proper consultation has occurred -- forests will approve that plan.

Hon. D. Miller: If we keep going, I'm going to confuse myself here. I've tried to be pretty straightforward here. If I haven't been clear, I apologize. Actually, an answer I gave, either the last one or the one before that, might not have been as clear as it should have been. The issuing authority, in the case here, would be Forests. According to the three qualifications under

section 11.1, they must be . . . . The question is, then, how? They must satisfy the kinds of conditions that we demand of anybody with respect to access. It gives and has given -- at least with respect to the discussions we've held with the mining sector -- some comfort. It ought to result in a little more streamlined operation in the field.

D. Jarvis: Conversely, we see . . . . I shouldn't say "we"; what I mean is the community, because I get a lot of telephone calls from different claim holders throughout the province. We see this aspect of deactivation of roads through the Forest Practices Code. That's why we're a little bit quizzical on this situation now as to who has the authority, because under the deactivation . . . .

I phoned the mining department on several occasions. They just threw up their hands and said: "Well, join the crowd." Forests and Environment do what they want; they go in . . . . We've seen it up at Kennedy Lake and different places like that. I've got files in the office. I've phoned your department in the last couple of years. Forests goes in; they give out a contract. And they deactivate a road, dig up all the trenching of the mines, costing thousands of dollars -- no cover over drill holes, and all the rest of it.

As I say, you get the permit to go in, but are you still going to be able to have the strength as a ministry to stop

[ Page 7621 ]

Forests going in and deactivating roads that are actually mining roads? They are supposed to contact the claim holders, but they don't. No one from the mining ministry supports those claim holders out there. They just say: "Well, we can't do anything about it. It's Environment" -- or it's Forests. Can you comment on that?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm prepared to provide a great deal of latitude, and I think I've actually reached the point where we ought to move on, because we've certainly gone around this

section fairly thoroughly.

The situation the member talks about is not one that is really dealt with in this bill, and it's one that occurs not just with respect to mining. For example, I've had similar experiences when I was Minister of Forests, where shake cutters want to get access to a cutblock that may be on a TFL or a tenure. The tenure holder might be in a position to make some decisions about road deactivation, which would have an impact on someone else that wants to use the same road. Those are interjurisdictional issues. They're not always that simple, quite frankly.

While the member may indeed have a file and while there may be some areas where there are legitimate issues raised by people who want access, whether it be for mining or for other things, it really has nothing to do with this bill. With that, Mr. Chairman, I humbly suggest that we -- I think we canvassed it; there's general agreement with respect to the

section -- can perhaps move on.

Section 1,

section 11.1 as amended approved.

section 1,

section 17.1.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment submitted to the Clerks.

[SECTION 1, in the proposed

section 17.1, by adding the following subsection:

(4) Despite subsection (1), no compensation is payable under this

section to the recorded holder of a claim if the minister believes on reasonable grounds that the claim was acquired or is being held

(

a) for other than a mining activity, or

(

b) mainly in the expectation of receiving compensation or other consideration if the area, under the Park Act, is acquired or expropriated.]

On the amendment.

[4:15]

D. Jarvis: This whole section, 17.1, deals with compensation, and I'm just wondering if the minister could answer a few questions with respect to why this

section just pertains to parks, for example. We're at a stage now, I believe, that we have parks . . . . I'm not sure of the exact figure, but it's been reported that we're at about 11.7 percent in parks. According to this NDP government, they want to proclaim about 12 percent in parks. We're really talking about 0.3 percent -- if that's where your level is -- in parks that the minister intends to add on to this province to bring it up to 12 percent. With this bill here, you're going to compensate those whose claims are within that 0.3 percent area of British Columbia -- if you know what I'm trying to get at.

I want to ask quite a few questions. When you come into this part, it ends up with: where are we with the parks? And why is it just for parks? The compensation rule doesn't apply to any other situation. What if I have a claim and the Ministry of Parks or the Ministry of Forests, or whatever it may be, comes in and puts a claim all around except this area where the claim is, and there's no possible way that I can get access to it? Therefore you would be unable to raise any money for that claim, and no investor would be prepared to put money into it to develop it further. What would occur in a situation like that? What do you interpret that to be?

Hon. D. Miller: Very interesting. I hate to put words in the member's mouth, but it seems by inference that what he's suggesting is that once this government completes its mandate, which we certainly were elected on and which has been a position of this party for a number of years . . . . In other words, we want to put into parks 12 percent of the very best that British Columbia has to offer. It has certainly been a difficult and exhaustive process, and there has been a lot of conflict along the way. I'm very pleased that we're heading toward that end goal.

The member seems to suggest that once we do that, no future government -- and certainly, by inference, no future Liberal administration -- would ever create a single new park in British Columbia. That is a bit puzzling. That's hardly a mandate to run on. It's one that you may want to, but I would suggest that in British Columbia, it might not get you too far. We can't predict what might happen a decade from now or two decades from now, nor should we. What we ought to try to do is lay down some principles in legislation that will stand the test of time.

But right now, in the here and now, there are two issues that I think are important. One is that there have been claims that have been taken in the past number of years as a result of land use decisions. We have made a commitment to deal with those outstanding claims in the same manner as prescribed under the act. That's been accepted by the industry, and we will proceed to deal with those questions. Secondly, we have very simply outlined for the first time in legislation that claims are compensable and are, to some degree . . . a process that will be used.

It's not fully fleshed out, because, quite frankly, the regulatory side is going to be very critical with respect to this. We will compensate when those claims are taken.

Again, it's something that was welcome. I do have several letters from people who have been in the mining industry for a good number of years, and they're telling me that as a result of this bill and this kind of attitude, they think there's a great future for mining in B.C.

D. Jarvis: I would say to the minister that there probably is a great future for mining in this province because this government won't be running this province forever. Nevertheless, it goes back to my original comments when the bill was first presented: this is a good start. It's the dawn of a new venture, where we're going to get back into a business way of doing things in this province. We can put roads where they should be to create tourism and to create more types of parks.

We can create more places where we can expand and go out and explore -- you know, roads up the Stikine or up the Taku and places like that. I know that the member from Burnaby, the one who's here, would love to see that happening more and more.

My question wasn't fully answered. I just wanted to know if I could . . . . I'm worried that they could create a park and cut off access to a claim. Would they be prepared to consummate that? That's sort of a new problem. I'm not sure how it's going to be solved. I'm not necessarily saying that there's great value down there in that claim. Do you really want the economic value out of it, or do you want it to be consummated as a park?

[ Page 7622 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, in my enthusiasm to try to interpret Liberal policy with respect to future parks, I forgot to answer that question. In essence, I believe that under law, any attempt to create a circular park and to isolate a claim would in fact be a taking, unless you were prepared to either compensate or offer access to the claim. Those are the choices that would have to be made, depending on the circumstances involved. Clearly again, you can't presume to second-guess land use planning processes, but I think that both scenarios are ones that reasonably could happen with respect to land use planning.

D. Jarvis: Another aspect that I'd like the minister to clarify or perhaps change a bit is where it says in the bill "expropriates" following "the Park Act." It gives consternation. That would have to come back to the point of the retroactivity of claims. What would the minister's position be on possibly inserting something like "or has expropriated" in that section? He's probably going to say that there's a class action out there, and I know the Premier is aware of that class action suit. I think he said in a press conference -- which I wasn't aware he was having, so I can't quote verbatim . . . .

But he did say on some aspect of it that all those claims that will be coming up on past situations of expropriation in this province . . . . This is going to open up a big debate. We're talking about going all the way back to Schwindt, I guess. The Premier said that those past claims in the class action suit and other claims will be treated in the same vein as what is happening today with this bill. If it's passed, for claims that are expropriated in parks, there will be compensation.

I just want to ask the minister . . . . The history of this government has been such that we've had a few problems: Cream Silver, Casamiro -- we can sit and talk about that for a long time -- and Tatshenshini. These were significant claims that have been expropriated by this government. Some had, when it was high-profile . . . . You know what happened with Cream Silver. I believe the courts in British Columbia said that you had to pay compensation. Later on they went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said that they didn't have to pay compensation to Cream Silver and Casamiro.

Public opinion was such that the previous Premier was required to make some compensation on the Tatshenshini. Of course, I've always said that as long as you mine responsibly, you should be able to mine in the parks -- like they're doing in Strathcona Park today. That's brought great economic value to Vancouver Island and to the members from Vancouver Island. I can't see that they would be prepared to stand up and say they don't want the Westmin mine, especially the members from Campbell River, Comox and those areas. But that's in a park, and it's an economic advantage to this province.

We have a slight question here, and that is: are you considering putting a retroactive clause in this thing by saying "has been expropriated," or can we get a solemn promise from the minister and the Premier that in the future this government is prepared to treat claims that have been expropriated by this government prior to this date and the enactment of this bill on the same premise as the claims that are expropriated in the future will be treated?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe I made that statement only moments ago; it is recorded in Hansard. We made it outside this chamber, both the Premier and myself. So we've answered that question. We couldn't possibly make the bill retroactive; it's prospective. We'll deal with the future, and we've made a commitment to deal with the past.

I'm a bit surprised, actually, that the policy -- as I interpret the member's statements -- of the Liberal Party is to have mining in parks. If you wanted to test that issue in the court of public opinion, you might get some immediate response. I suggest that it's not the kind of statement that would be met with much favour even within your own caucus. The member may want to think about that, but at this stage the conclusion that the House has drawn -- or at least I've drawn -- is that the member is advocating mining in parks.

I think it's important that political parties do state their policies with respect to these very important questions. It's certainly not our policy. And if that's the case, I think the public would appreciate knowing. We are not entertaining the prospect of mining in parks.

I am aware of the Myra Falls mine. It's been in place for some time; it is producing revenues for its owner; it's producing jobs for its employees. In fact, I was advised by the company that they are spending further money with respect to exploration, and that's fine. I don't think anybody has a particular quarrel with what has historically developed in that location.

To set the record straight, it was not this administration that had some difficulty with the Cream Silver issue. In fact, if you go back, you will find that it was the previous Social Credit administration. Unfortunately, Mr. Terry Huberts, who was a very reasonable member of the Social Credit administration of the time and became the minister responsible for parks, got himself into a bit of a jam.

Within the space of about a week and a half or two weeks, the government at that time did two reversals of policy with respect to the question of mining in parks and ended up saying: "No, we couldn't allow any more." It was a Social Credit administration, which the member for Peace River North was a member of at that time.

D. Jarvis: Well, I don't think it's the policy of our party to specifically say: go out and mine every park in this country just for the sake of mining. My own personal opinion -- and I have said this before in the House -- is that as long as it is done responsibly, there should be nothing wrong with it. We have proof that if it's done responsibly, like in the Westmin mine, there's really nothing wrong with it.

[4:30]

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has been talking across the floor, saying that she's worried about acid drainage. But that's a long story in itself. There have been cases in the past, but technology is growing in this province, and we're going to cure a lot of these problems. They have been cured already. There's a few instances where we have acid drainage problems -- up in Mount Washington, for example, or in Britannia Beach -- but that was long before reclamations and bonds were required by the previous governments, and that doesn't happen anymore.

If this government had the responsibility and they were so concerned about it, they'd go up there and look after it. I've talked to this minister, and I've talked to the previous Environment minister, the one from Metchosin. I said that if you and your government are so worried about acid drainage caused by past situations where mines were closed, then go in and do something about it. Don't start saying that every mine that goes in in the future is going to cause degradation to the land from acid drainage, because that's not what's happening now. There is an odd case here and there; nothing's ever perfect.

After all, look at your government. We know that: nothing's perfect.

I want to go on to another aspect of

section 17.1 on compensation, dealing with the

part in regard to the settlement of a claim. At this point I would like to put forward an amendment. I'll read it, if that's all right. It's to do with

section 17.1(1) and replacing it with:

[ Page 7623 ]

[If, after the coming into force of this section, the minister responsible for the administration of the Park Act expropriates under

section 11 of the Park Act the rights of a recorded holder of a lease or claim or of an owner of a Crown granted 2 post claim, compensation is payable to the recorded holder or owner, as the case may be, in an amount equal to the fair market value of the rights expropriated, to be determined under the regulations.]

That is essentially what I want to bring forward: how the minister intends to establish what the value is to be of a claim that he expropriates. I feel that something along the vein of fair market value . . . . I'll use the analogy, for example, of a house. If you're buying a house, and you have one sitting in the valley with no view and the other sitting up in the valley with a great view, the values are different. What does the minister mean in this bill when he says . . . ? What is meant by "amount equal"? It's a very open and questionable choice of words, that "amount equal." Is the government required to compensate you for just your costs?

Another analogy would be if you had a situation evolving around a mine where you have a claim, and you paid $50,000 for this claim or do $50,000 worth of work, and you find no value to it -- there's no mineral down there. Are you entitled to that $50,000? If you pay $1 million for a claim and then you find out that the claim has $100 million worth of ore in it, are you going to be paid out for the $100 million or for just the $1 million in expenses that you put forward on it? Are we going to go back to Schwindt -- was that Bill 31 or 32, back in 1992? -- where you pay only for the amount expended? I think that at this point we should start on a few

interpretations as to what you mean by value.

The Chair: The amendment is in order, so if we could deal with the member's amendment first . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly, I would reject the amendment, and let me speak to that question. But first, very briefly, the member did refer to old mines that have ceased operation but are contributing to degradation of the environment. I think that's a very important question. Two were identified in some correspondence I saw earlier this week. One is the Britannia mine, which started operation in 1905, and the other is on the Tsolum River. I'm not as familiar with Britannia, having read just the briefing notes on the topic; but with respect to the Tsolum one, there is a problem.

It's a problem we are trying to address, although we are clearly not in a position to put the kind of significant dollars into the problem that I think it's ultimately going to take. But there is absolutely no question that as a result of an abandoned mine, acid mine drainage from that source and, as I understand it, from other more natural sources along the river have resulted in -- and I can't recall which species of salmon is impacted -- the cessation of those runs of salmon. That is not something that would be acceptable today. It simply would not be acceptable.

I sat down with an outstanding committee. The MLA in the Comox area brought those people together. I met with them, and we talked about the problem. I want to say that people in my own ministry have volunteered their own personal time to work on this problem, and there's a dedicated group of people in the Comox Valley who are working very, very hard to see if they can, over time, mitigate with respect to that mine.

It's a very difficult problem, quite frankly, because when you look at the sources and look at how you might build in some containment, it's by no means a simple matter. I've also written to the Mining Association of B.C., asking that they take that up as a cause or a project of their association to demonstrate their concern, as well. We've donated a modest amount of money, only $5,000 -- this fiscal year or perhaps last year; I'm not quite sure -- to assist the volunteer committee to formulate plans.

So mistakes were made in the past, and we're working . . . . Perhaps if the coffers of government were endless and money wasn't a question, we could perhaps put in the kinds of resources to fix those problems and do it a heck of a lot quicker. I'd like to do that, quite frankly, because I certainly think that everybody has a high regard for and understanding of the need to maintain fisheries habitat, to maintain those wild stocks important to our future.

On the other hand, under modern mining legislation and regulations, we require bonds to be posted. We currently hold $167 million in reclamation bonds that industry has posted. The way we do business now is to say -- because we all understand that minerals are non-renewable -- that every mine has a life based on the extent of the mineralization, and that when those mines close at the end of that economic life, there has to be mediation. There has to be. They have to file that plan at the front end and post those bonds.

Let's hope that we're vigilant, that we get it right. I think we have. If you look at some of the new projects that came on stream last year out in the Cariboo and on Mount Polley and up in north-central B.C. -- the Huckleberry project -- they're good projects, they're built to world-class standards. And we've got the system in place that ensures that at the end of those mines' life, the necessary reclamation work will be done.

I think the mining industry in modern times . . . . Although there has been this horrible incident in Spain, Boliden, in my view, has inherited the problem. They bought an operating mine; they didn't develop that mine. These are tragedies of the worst order. So it's very important that when we develop mining projects in this province, they meet the highest standards, the best standards. We've got the means, through reclamation bonds and the like, to deal with what happens when those mines close.

Tulsequah is an interesting project, because what it will do, among other things, is solve an acid mine drainage problem that exists as a result of the old Cominco mine that was closed in the fifties. One of the benefits of that new project is that they'll actually deal every day with a problem that's occurring right now. It's uppermost in our minds that we have to be vigilant with respect to our natural environment.

I would try to assure the member that the wording in the bill really talks about value, and there's nothing to be gained by an amendment that amplifies on that with respect to fair market value. Value is the amount that would be paid -- in one way of determination -- for a title, had it been sold at the date of exploration in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer. The actual process of valuation is much more complex and comprehensive than that simple test. After all, there has to be a buyer.

One of the unintended consequences of the member's amendment might be to deprive an owner . . . . If there were no buyer to test the market, then there could be no value established. I think our language actually works better for the holders of these claims. The actual process of valuation will be done and prescribed by regulation, as the text says. Again, I don't purport to be an expert, but there are . . . . In discussions

[ Page 7624 ]

with my staff, we do have actually a little paper that I think is quite illustrative of the methodology used in valuation that might be useful for all members in informing themselves on that question.

But I think we've got it right. I think there may be an unintended consequence of the member's amendment. I think I understand why he submitted it. But perhaps on reflection, given my explanation, he may want to reconsider, or we could simply vote and defeat the amendment.

D. Jarvis: We started off trying to get some clarity as to what value is, but the minister went off on a tangent on acid drainage that really isn't part of this bill. But we will bring it up again in estimates.

Nevertheless, I just want to make a couple of little comments. The minister was talking in regards to what they're doing with reclamation and all the rest, almost trying to assume that the opposition party doesn't care. I'll have him know that as I said earlier, back in '92, '93 and '95, I brought up Mount Washington. I brought up that Tsolum River problem and all the rest of it. I did bring it up to the House. If you go back to Hansard , you'll find that I brought it up to the minister, and the minister adamantly said: "That is not our responsibility." So whose responsibility is it? The mine's owners have technically gone. You can't even reach them. No one knows who they are.

[4:45]

The onus is ours -- the province of British Columbia. We've got to clean it up. We're the first ones to say: "Go ahead, spend money on it and clean it up." That's good; it'll be good for the environment. You're spending it on everything else. You're spending $6,740,000 a day on the interest on our debt. What's $5,000 thrown in there to try to repair that river? It's insignificant. You're probably spending $1 million a week in advertising alone as to things that you've done in the past. Don't try to insinuate that we do not care about the conditions of this province.

I doubt if you'd ever see that same situation arise under the present rules and regulations of this province with regards to reclamation. So there is no problem with that aspect.

But I really do feel that clarity is needed in establishing value. We've got to get it in these rules and regulations. I guess that's where you're looking for the clarity; the clarity will be listed in there. On that point -- I know we're sort of going off on a tangent somewhat -- who do you intend to make up these rules and regulations? Are you going to have people that are in the business doing it? I'm not talking about the bureaucrats in the mining department. Are you taking people out of the mining industry -- and, perhaps, various firms, rather than just the majors?

Some of the juniors and some of the younger, smaller exploration people out there really do feel that they are being twisted in this bill.

This bill does provide compensation and everything for the majors and those that are coming up the stream, but the small explorers out there really feel that they're getting shafted completely by this bill. The more we talk about this bill, as the member for Peace River South said -- oops, he's gone; or he never was here -- it's harder to take, because there are a lot of holes in this bill. But it's a start, and that's what we work on.

But I want to get some specific idea from you as to how you're going to interpret clarity of value in the regulations.

Hon. D. Miller: I guess I've been fairly lax, and the member and I share the blame for that. We've wandered all over the map with respect to debate on the bill. Perhaps in the interests of time and orderly process, we ought to be more focused in our comments. I will certainly try. I repeat: the process of valuation is very, very complex. We do have, I think, some of the best people in Canada engaged. We intend to consult not only with the industry itself . . . . I would say, in opposition to what the member has said, that Mr.

McKnight of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines has been very, very supportive of this bill. I have spoken to him personally, and others have. He was at our press conference. He represents those people you talked about.

I do say that I would seriously ask the member to consider withdrawing, in that the wording that you have submitted in this amendment may have an unintended consequence of limiting the way in which valuation could be obtained. To suggest that it's as simple as fair market value is, I'm afraid . . . . With all due respect, the claim-holders are better off with our language than yours. Perhaps I can't convince you of that. If that is the case, I suggest that we vote on the amendment, and let's try to move on with respect to the other sections of the bill.

D. Jarvis: I'm always willing to do something that's for the better value of the industry and the people of British Columbia, the voters. What's best for them and the industry and for us as politicians inside that are making up these bills . . . . The minister has not given me any sort of warm fuzzy feeling that what they intend to do . . . that the verbiage in here is going to be a betterment to someone's claim that has been expropriated. Does he not have any sort of indication that he can give me -- other than saying trust me? Those are only words, and words can be . . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, we won't go into that subject with the member for Nanaimo. That would go right off on a tangent.

I'm prepared to withdraw our amendment. I'm not saying I am . . . . As it is, the minister cannot, it seems, give me some kind of solace that the trust that he says to "trust us" with is going to be satisfactory to those people who have their claims expropriated by this government in the future. This government has said that the court cases in regard to Cream Silver and the like weren't worth doing; they're of the Socreds' . . . . Well, that may be so. But I can remember when the Schwindt bill came in, as I mentioned earlier. I've got it around here somewhere, and I've got all the papers on it.

Your government did that, not someone else's government. What happens to the individual that has put a little bit or quite a bit of money into a property and finds it has no mineral value and walks away? Does he get what he's expended? What about the guy that's put in very little money and finds that he's got $100 million down there? What does he get -- the $5,000 that he's expended? Or is he entitled to what the fair market value of his claim would have been?

So could the minister perhaps, before we get down to calling a vote on this amendment, try to explain that to me a little further?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm not certain that the failure to induce a warm and fuzzy feeling in the member is mine. I attempted, first of all, to outline that the bill is a result of very focused negotiations with the Mining Association and others in the mining field. As a result, that's why people in the mining sector attended our conference. I was delighted to receive a copy of a letter, for example, from Walter Selmer,

[ Page 7625 ]

president of a VSE-listed junior, who's been in the industry for a long time. He really runs through it, in a very brief letter, and he's very praiseworthy about the government listening to the industry. In closing his letter, he says to the Premier: "My personal thanks to you and your representatives on the side of the government, who" -- and he qualifies it -- "although they may not always have had the same point of view as the industry, took the time to listen. Together, we can get the job done." So there is a great deal of support from the industry for the language that we have in this legislation.

Perhaps no amount of speaking on my behalf can give the member the kind of warm and fuzzy feeling he's looking for, but we've made very clear, emphatic statements about what our intentions are. I've said repeatedly that the process of valuation is not something that I'm an expert in. It is a very complex issue. It looks at a whole range of factors to determine value. I don't know that that subject -- which is very extensive -- can undergo the kind of discussion here that perhaps members would like to have.

It is a very important topic. I'd be happy to have my staff hold briefing sessions on the question. I'd be happy to disseminate literature that we have on the question, which would certainly reinforce the view I'm expressing here, as the minister. We sincerely want to get it right, and we think the language that we have in this

section . . . . The simple word "value" is the appropriate language to allow us to proceed. There will be the development of regulations. We will consult with industry, and we will also, by the way, consult with others outside of industry. I've made a commitment to consult with some people from the environmental community on this question, because they've expressed some concern. I'd be happy to have the members opposite be as fully informed as they possibly can be on what our intentions are here, and how we intend to develop those regulations.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we could move on with the other sections.

Amendment negatived on division.

On the previous amendment.

R. Neufeld: I noted with interest, in the comments from the minister, that there was a focused and great meeting with the mining industry, and that they're in great support. I read the newspaper columns that also said that. I think we're all aware that on April 21 the minister tabled this bill in the House, and today he tabled amendments to that bill that are actually larger than the bill itself. It would tend to lead one to believe . . . . I'm not sure what happened from April 21 until today. Obviously, again, the government is jumping ahead of itself.

Maybe it was to capture the newspaper headline of the day, because it was Mining Day in British Columbia and here at the Legislature, and the minister wanted to present a bill, but it was poorly drafted. I'm not trying to say anything negative about anybody, but obviously it was. If there was so much consultation, it absolutely amazes me that the minister . . . . Well, he tabled one amendment prior to this; it's in Orders of the Day . Here we have amendments that are bigger than the bill. That leads me to believe two things, I guess.

Maybe there wasn't as much consultation as the minister says, or it was just to get a little bit of TV that day -- to try to react and show the people of the province that you are concerned.

I'm really not sure, but that would lead me to ask and to be a little bit hesitant about taking the minister's word as he stands up and talks about how everyone is so supportive of it. I've had smaller placer miners tell me that they're not really all that supportive of this bill. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour brought that forward. There are some people out there who don't think this is the best thing since sliced bread, and probably for some very obvious reasons.

I want to ask a couple of things about your amendment and deal with it a little hypothetically. It's a little difficult to do that when we're talking

section by section, but the minister is known for wanting to be hypothetical in talking about some of these issues. In the

section 1 amendment,

section 17.1(4)(

a) says: " . . . for other than a mining activity . . . . " I'm wondering if someone who lives in my constituency, close to the mountains . . . . There are lots of them that have had land that they leased from government for other purposes over a number of years. Then, for whatever reason, they decided to go turn a few rocks over and found mineral activity there. Then it was taken in for a park. How would you deal with that?

Would you deal with it on the basis of why the person first had the land, or would you deal with it for that reason and also because they had actually found some minerals, of whatever kind, and were starting to mine it? How would you do that? I think maybe there has to be a further explanation of that one line for me.

Hon. D. Miller: I want to reassure the member. He's not a nineties guy, obviously. The question is not how big the amendment is; size doesn't really matter. In fact, all of that language is really there . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I see I've raised a few chuckles from some of my colleagues.

The bulk of the amendment is really the addition of coal. That was an oversight. It's really not the size of your amendment that counts.

[5:00]

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: I may be getting in trouble here, Mr. Chairman. Help me out.

Let me try to offer a very brief explanation for subsection (1). It seems patently clear that if you purchased a claim for some other reason, presumably you wouldn't have the opportunity to look for compensation because you were denied the opportunity to work your claim. Now, it may be stating the obvious, but sometimes there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes it gives a bit of definition so that people who are perhaps unfamiliar with the legalese might be more reassured. Really, that's all: those two qualifiers, which I did canvass earlier today with the member's colleague, a distinguished member of the bar.

He seemed to be satisfied with the discussion we had and the explanation given, but now we're going over it again. I think it's pretty straightforward.

R. Neufeld: The minister talked earlier and said that claims prior to this bill coming into effect would be treated the same as this bill states now for claims in the future. I guess that makes me ask a number of questions. I'm certainly not a lawyer and don't have any legal training. But those individuals that are presently in court against the government -- for instance, the group of them that has a court challenge against the government, a class action . . . . I guess what would happen now is that . . . . Who determines that? Is that class action

[ Page 7626 ]

out of court now, or do they have the opportunity to continue with that class action in court? Or once this comes into effect, is that class action done? Does this bill and this piece of legislation then take over, and will they be given an arbitrated settlement, as it states in the bill? Is that what's going to take place? Maybe you can just help me a little bit with what has gone on in the past in class actions and legal actions against the government.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: The response from the industry with respect to those previous claims has been that they're desirous of seeking resolution. We've made a commitment to seek resolution of those claims under the structure that's outlined in the bill, although the bill is prospective, not retroactive. That has been accepted by the Mining Association and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. Beyond that, I can't speak about individuals, nor