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

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 24

[ Page 6983 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. T. Perry: I have the very special privilege today to introduce to members of the House Mr. Gary Malkowski, a visiting member of the provincial parliament of Ontario. He is the first elected deaf politician in the world who uses American sign language. He's with us today on the floor of the House. He is also the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training in Ontario. He has an enormous number of qualifications.

I won't strain the House's patience by listing them here, but suffice it to say that he has greatly distinguished himself in service to the deaf community in instructing deaf culture in Ontario. He has been a very welcome addition to the Legislature there. It's a great privilege to have him here with us. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming Mr. Malkowski.

K. Jones: Visiting with us today is a group of students from William of Orange Christian School in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. Approximately 15 grade 7 students, with their teacher, Mr. Mel Deglint, and several parents are presently on a tour of the precincts and will be joining us in the gallery at approximately 3 p.m. Would the House please join me in welcoming them and in wishing them well in their visit to Victoria.

Hon. E. Cull: As the Minister Responsible for Seniors, it's my pleasure to introduce a number of senior citizens' counsellors who are in the gallery today: Alan Bartlett, Mission; Harry Burrow, Crofton; Caroline Clayton, Armstrong; Russell Hammond, Comox; Helen Kuhne, Quesnel; John Oostenbrink, Abbotsford; William Pennycook, Vancouver; Ruth Schell-Christian, Penticton; James Stott, Prince Rupert; Louise Foulis, Ganges; Edith Smith, Sidney; and from Victoria, John Travis, Eiji Tsukijima, Prue Cunningham, Monthelene Ramsfield, Dorothy Jenkins and L.A.E. Jones. They are in Victoria planning their conference for this fall. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

L. Reid: I'd like the House to please make welcome a dear colleague, Karen Legeer, who is visiting from the riding of Surrey-White Rock. Also in the gallery today is my legislative assistant, Terri Cunningham.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's been wonderful for me to have my wife Sharon visiting to attend the Minister's Environmental Awards at Government House. She is present with us in the gallery. Would the House please join me in making Sharon welcome.

H. Lali: I have some very special people joining us in the gallery today. My 22-month-old son, Ajhmair, my wife, Rani, and our new baby, Suman, are sitting up in the stands, and also our special babysitter, my good friend, Par Sihota, who works in our communications department. Would you please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Marzari: I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Larry Lillo, who died last Wednesday. Larry, the artistic director of the Vancouver Playhouse, was one of the leaders of Canada's theatrical community. His vision and his spirit are the legacy he leaves to his colleagues and to theatre audiences across this country. Over the past 20 years he directed at major theatres across Canada, including two years in Ontario as artistic director of the Grand Theatre in London. In 1988 he came home to Vancouver, where he had attended UBC and had co-founded Tamahnous Theatre in the early seventies.

While he was artistic director of the Vancouver Playhouse, the company flourished and audiences grew to expect consistently high standards. This week he was to have received the Vancouver Professional Theatre Alliance's Jessie Richardson Award for lifetime achievement.

I would like the House to express condolences to his partner of 13 years, John Moffat, Larry's mother Ruth and the large number of family, friends and colleagues who will remember his creativity, his leadership and his vision.

The Speaker: With the concurrence of the House, the Chair will ensure that those condolences are sent.

Introduction of Bills

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS CONTINUATION AMENDMENT ACT

G. Farrell-Collins presented a bill intituled Educational Programs Continuation Amendment Act.

G. Farrell-Collins: This bill rectifies the inherent errors in the Educational Programs Continuation Act by granting to employees and employers of school districts that may be included under

part 2 the same rights, processes and protection granted to the Vancouver School District under

part 1. In particular, it rectifies a major error of the current act, which places employees in limbo, with no collective agreement, while arbitration is in process.

Bill M222 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE BARRIERS

L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. While the Premier is spending millions of taxpayers' dollars on travel and promotion in his lackluster attempts to increase trade, why is the Minister of Economic Development supporting trade barriers with our sister provinces?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not supporting trade barriers; I'm supporting the removal of trade barriers

[ Page 6984 ]

where it's not detrimental to legitimate provincial policy interests.

L. Stephens: We can't place walls around our regions either. Our regional industries need open markets, and they need competitive market access, which is important as well. Is it a coincidence that this minister comes out against national economic cooperation on the same day that a $50 million make-work project is announced under Build B.C.? And does this government really believe that government spending is a preferred path to economic growth in British Columbia?

[2:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member is reading the headlines -- and not reading what our carefully constructed statements say. We are prepared to enter into negotiations to remove barriers to interprovincial trade. What the member, and all members of the opposition, also have to do is read the report that I released. It said that B.C. probably has the least to gain from the removal of international barriers because most of our trade is directed internationally. But we are prepared to examine anything that can be removed and to do so on an advanced timetable. We have supported the efforts of other provinces to fast-track these negotiations.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Stephens: How much taxpayers' money was spent on that study? Has it been, or will it be, released to the general public?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As of tabling it with the ministers of internal trade. it is a public document. I don't have the exact figure, but it's only in the tens of thousands. It was a modest study of the literature on barriers to interprovincial trade and quantitative analysis of those. As the member probably knows, the figure often touted in the media is that there somehow would be a $6 billion saving to the economy through removing interprovincial trade barriers. Our study argues to the contrary. There's approximately $700 million, and most of those are being dealt with already by sectoral processes -- beer and wine and agricultural products.

PERSONAL TAX RATES IN B.C.

F. Gingell: During the budget speech, the Minister of Finance said that even with the new revenue measures, B.C. would have on average the second-lowest tax rates in Canada. Yesterday a Peat Marwick study said that in 1994 B.C. will have the highest tax rates in Canada. Does the Minister of Finance still state that B.C. has the second-lowest personal income tax rates in Canada?

Hon. G. Clark: Perhaps the member has to read very carefully what Peat Marwick said, or what I said.

I want to clarify the issue for the member. We have on average the second-lowest personal taxes and sales taxes in Canada, and the lowest property taxes in Canada. But because of the surtax on those who are at the high end -- over $100,000 a year -- it's true that we now are not the second lowest when it comes to the wealthy in this province. Previous Social Credit governments and the Mulroney government in Ottawa shifted the burden away from the rich and onto working people, and we have made a modest shift away from that direction. Some of that burden has now been shifted away from working people and onto the wealthy.

F. Gingell: I'm just amazed that this minister has the audacity to stand up in this House and suggest that people who earn more than $100,000 a year don't work. That's a bunch of baloney.

Why is it that this minister finds Peat Marwick Mitchell a very reliable source when he wishes to, but pooh-poohs them when they say something different? Haven't you paid your bill yet?

Hon. G. Clark: We're delighted to know, with these kinds of questions, where the opposition comes from. If they want to represent those who make more than $100,000 a year, we'll represent the rest -- the 98 percent of British Columbians who make less than that. It's clear that the member opposite subscribes to the trickle-down theory: that people making more than $100,000 should get a tax cut so that it will trickle down to everybody else. I ask the member opposite whether they've been trickled on lately. Those are the kinds of policies we've come to expect from Social Credit and this opposition, policies that we reject on this side of the House.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: The minister should learn to read, hon. Speaker, because if he read his mail, he would know what 90 percent of the taxpayers of this province think about his policies.

While the Premier was away on his $200,000 junket trying to sell this province to Asian investors, his Finance minister was busy jacking up every possible fee, toll and tax in the province. How can the international community have any confidence in what the Premier is saying when his own Finance minister is doing just the opposite?

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier admit that he was again absent when the province's tax policies were being discussed in cabinet? Or was he just not listening?

The Speaker: The Chair has advised previously that presence or absence in cabinet meetings were not an appropriate tack for question period.

[ Page 6985 ]

CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND CUTTING PERMITS

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Can the minister confirm that as of today no cutting permits have been issued to MacMillan Bloedel or Interfor, pursuant to the government's decision on Clayoquot?

Hon. D. Miller: No, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: The government has repeatedly claimed that it is committed to stabilizing the economies in affected communities. Page 17 of the government's response to Mr. Owen was particularly clear on that position. Is the government simply afraid to issue the cutting permits that are consistent with its announcement on Clayoquot? Is that why the local logging industry is still out of work?

Hon. D. Miller: It is significant to note that when the government made the very difficult decision with respect to Clayoquot Sound, the forest companies involved generally expressed their approval of the decision. Secondly, when the government responded to the issues raised by Mr. Owen, my understanding is that the response was received with unqualified approval. In other words, Mr. Owen is quite happy with the approach we've taken. We have made a commitment to develop world-class standards for forestry in Clayoquot Sound.

We are providing that information to the public of this province, and we intend to see that through. If at any time there is some hiatus in the issuance of cutting permits, it will simply be in order for us to establish standards that the people expect, and that will ultimately, in the long term, protect the workers and forest companies in this province.

R. Neufeld: The minister can only waffle around for so long on his decision, and then the people have to go back to work. We're not talking about Mr. Owen; Mr. Owen is still at work. But virtually all activity in the Kennedy Lake division has been shut down. Roadbuilding, sorting and hauling have all been shut down over the last two weeks due to this government's inaction. Yarding operations are scheduled to stop any day. If the government is still committed to its decision on Clayoquot, when is it going to issue the cutting permits so that the people affected can get back to work?

Hon. D. Miller: It's a bit much to have the opposition parties talk about waffling around. Neither of the opposition parties has gone on record to say what they would do with Clayoquot Sound. We have had four different positions enunciated by the Liberal caucus -- and I don't know how many by the Social Credit caucus. This government is prepared to make tough decisions and balanced decisions, unlike either of the opposition parties.

BAMBERTON DEVELOPMENT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

G. Wilson: I rather wish that my question was to the Minister of Labour so we could get his new look on camera. Compliments. But unfortunately my question is to the Premier. On Monday I asked the Premier if he would join me in requesting Mr. Hughes to look into the perceived conflict of the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the Bamberton question. The Premier said that he understood that the process was underway. Could the Premier tell us today what process he believes is underway?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I unfortunately cannot obtain the same look that the Minister of Labour does when he goes to his barber. I can't even get a half rate when I go to my barber. As a matter of fact, he says he's charging me the full rate because he has to charge a finder's fee. I find that very unfair.

In finding the question the member asked me, he asked if the process was underway. I understood that the member himself launched the process under

section 15, that he has written to Mr. Hughes and that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has had a conversation with Mr. Hughes. We should now let that process be completed.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: So what we understand is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, at his request, has had a private meeting with Mr. Hughes and that some government personnel have requested a private meeting with Mr. Hughes. Can the Premier confirm today that the government, and in particular this Premier, has taken no action with respect to the government requesting Mr. Hughes to look into this matter?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The member has launched a process, as he is entitled to do under

section 15 as a member of this Legislature. He should let that process complete itself. Rather than anticipating what Mr. Hughes is going to say, he should let Mr. Hughes consider the member's letter and his request, and when Mr. Hughes reports back we'll have Mr. Hughes's answer.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: Let me once again come back to the Premier. Insofar as this Premier and this government has taken no action on behalf of government with respect to a request, will the Premier today join with me in a written government request to Mr. Hughes to look into this action and fully investigate the activities of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to Bamberton?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I am respecting the choice that the member himself made to pursue this matter as a member of the Legislature, rather than to proceed in a

[ Page 6986 ]

different way. The member himself chose the process that's now being pursued.

WELFARE FRAUD

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Recently she said in this House that she had requested and was receiving monthly reports from her investigators on fraud in order that the public might know the exact situation in this province. Will she undertake to table those regularly each month in this House?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm really quite happy to answer this question, because for the first time here in British Columbia we have a tool to measure our successes. In December 1992 we began a monthly reporting process of fraud, something the previous administration completely overlooked and never provided for the ministry or, indeed, for the public. I have repeatedly offered that information, both to the members of this House and to the public. We have a communications department, and it will welcome any inquiries as to information. We are moving on our good management initiatives.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I've got a note here from the Leader of the Opposition wondering who my barber is. I want him to know it's the same barber that Barry Melrose has.

[2:30]

F. Gingell: Who's Barry Melrose?

Hon. M. Sihota: He doesn't know who Barry Melrose is. My gosh! [Laughter.]

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. M. Sihota: Boy, that's just shocking, hon. Speaker -- that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know who Barry Melrose is. It's a game called hockey. He's the coach of the Los Angeles Kings. Anyway, that's another story; I'll talk to you about it afterwards. In any event, hon. Speaker....

With that said, I advise all hon. members that Committee of Supply A will be meeting to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in the Douglas Fir Room.

I call committee stage on Bill 25.

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 25; E. Barnes in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

J. Tyabji: Yesterday in second reading we were looking at the land registry and how it would relate to the overall inventory that Lands and Parks is putting together. Could the minister clarify how extensive the registry they are putting together will be.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's an existing registry; it is not a new registry.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

J. Tyabji: Further to the questions I was asking under

section 4, under

section 6 we have established the "Crown land registry to record...lands administered by...." -- blah, blah, blah. I'm wondering to what extent this is a departure from the past. During the estimates we have been canvassing a Crown land registry and the new computerization, and I know that in Bill 26 -- which we'll get to later -- there is also a site registry. But within the Crown land registry, is there any new information the minister can offer with regard to the inventory for Crown land, similar to the discussion we have been having in the estimates?

Hon. J. Cashore: The amendment will authorize the Crown land registry as the single, automated record of provincial Crown land. It will provide a clear record of the acquisition and disposition of public land. It has the responsibility for maintaining the record of provincial Crown land holdings that has existed within the ministry since the 1870s. The purpose of the Crown land registry is to maintain an inventory of the provincial Crown lands administered by government, including those administered by all government ministries.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to know if there is going to be any kind of public process about this, or public reporting of the Crown land registry.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, it is open to the public.

A. Cowie: My question to the minister is in regard to Crown land leased to private individuals for cottage purposes. There are a number of these sites around the province. Will this be a separate registry from the Crown land itself, or will it fall under the normal Crown registry?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. It's all part of the one single registry that exists for all Crown lands.

W. Hurd: Just a question regarding Crown land, once it's sold and falls into a delinquency position on taxes. Does it continue to show up on the registry, or does it go off? Then is it dealt with in any specific manner? I'm aware of specific problems in the province where Crown land has been acquired, and then some purpose has been brought forward on the land and it has fallen into arrears in taxation. Then, I assume, it

[ Page 6987 ]

goes back to the Crown. Can the minister advise the committee on when it shows up again on the registry?

Hon. J. Cashore: Any land that is forfeited for non-payment of taxes within a prescribed time is turned over to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to administer. Then there's a period of time when the process of revesting could apply. During that time, should the owner manage to secure the ability to maintain ownership of the land, then that becomes the result. If the previous owner fails to do so, then it becomes inventoried as Crown land.

A. Cowie: With a full registry of parcels of Crown land, will there also be attached to each one of these parcels a properly suitable land designation? For instance, if a parcel of land is suitable for a ski resort, will that information be available? If it's suitable for cottages, would that sort of information be available?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, but that information is available through other means.

J. Tyabji: Under

section 6,4.3(5) we talk about the exemptions from the Crown land registry. What is the purpose of those exemptions? Why would they not at least be indicated somewhere in the registry and designated as we have them listed under (

a) to (

e) in subsection (5)?

Hon. J. Cashore: Subsection (5)(

a) to (

e) is subject to other legislation. With regard to (e), it's subject to the dedication and vesting of subdivision plans.

J. Tyabji: Will there be any overall registry of lands as we've canvassed before? Is there any intent by the minister, in addition to what we've got under

section 6 here, to have something so that everything can be cross-referenced in some sort of universal inventory?

Hon. J. Cashore: This is the registry of what the Crown owns. It's the registry of all surface interests in that land.

J. Tyabji:

Section 6,4.3(6) says: "No action may be brought by any person against the Province for loss or damage caused by reliance on the records of the registry by that person for any reason or purpose including, without limitation, reliance for the purpose of establishing priorities of interest or reliance on the completeness of the records." As I said in second reading, the way I read this is that if a homesteader -- someone who is third generation -- had their title or deed filed in a regional office and there was a clerical error somewhere and the regional records were in dispute with the Crown land registry, that person has no recourse, and we would automatically go with the Crown land registry.

Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore:

Section 6 is a disclaimer. It should be quite standard in this type of legislation because of the enormity of the scope of the registry. The example that the hon. member gave would refer more to the land title system than to the Crown land registry.

J. Tyabji: Very specifically, then, if a parcel of land appeared in the Crown land registry as Crown land, but an individual who had homesteaded alleged that there should be a regional record showing that it is indeed private property, how does that translate under this section?

Hon. J. Cashore: If it's private property, that information would be in the land title system as well as in the Crown land registry. It would be in both of those locations.

J. Tyabji: I understand that if it was private land, then it should be with those other registries. The point I'm trying to make is that mistakes will happen, as we know. We had the Beaver Lodge lands issue, where the 1931 letter showing what should have happened to those lands somehow got lost, and they ended up in the Crown land registry when they should have been designated experimental forest. Is there a possibility that this

section could be interpreted so that an individual who may have followed the same process as Beaver Lodge lands believes they have title to land, but somewhere the record-keeping has fallen short and the land is in the Crown land registry? That's how I'm reading this, and that's why I would like some assurance. If this is the case, what's the appeal process? The clause seems to exclude any possibility to litigate.

[2:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to that example, a trust would be registered on the Crown land registry.

A. Cowie: We've established that there are various Crown parcels, and these are identified. We've also established that there are other means of finding out how the land could be used, such as community plans, regional plans, area plans or whatever. Will the ministry be advertising and promoting for this use various parcels that they have under this registry?

Hon. J. Cashore: If the hon. member could be a little more specific with regard to "this use," I might be able to focus more.

A. Cowie: The province has done plans showing various lakes and areas suitable for cottaging, for instance. The parcels that are now identified are in the registry. Having established that these parcels are suitable for recreation, will the Crown be advertising them? That's what I'm trying to get at.

Hon. J. Cashore: That question is clearly not related to this section, or if it is, I have not been informed in what way it relates to this section.

A. Cowie: At the present time there is no way of knowing what lands in the province are available for recreation. This would be a perfect system of identifying and cross-referencing that. A person

[ Page 6988 ]

wishing a cottage site could go to the Crown and find out through this registry where there are suitable sites, and then apply. That would be a perfectly good way of using this registry.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is the land information system for marketing, which is a subsystem of the Crown land registry. It operates out of the same office. We put out a regular catalogue identifying those opportunities.

A. Cowie: Also, now that we have a land registry, the recent Ministry of Municipal Affairs report on housing recommends that Crown land be used for affordable housing. Would these parcels where the ministry wants to do housing be identified through such a registry?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is contained within the registry -- as long as it is clear that it is not the registry that is referred to specifically in the act, but the one that I referred to in answering your question: a subsystem that's associated with the Crown land registry. The answer is yes.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to know if there is going to be any public accounting of the disposition of the Crown lands, and in what manner that would happen. More specifically, is there any intention of one of the Crown corporations being B.C. 21 for Crown lands?

Hon. J. Cashore: This does not change in any way the relationship that we have with Crown corporations; we continue the same relationship that we have always had. In answer to the question about accounting, yes, the annual report would be tabled in the House.

D. Mitchell: The minister has indicated that

section 7 doesn't really change any of the relationship insofar as dealing with Crown corporations goes. Certainly the government has the ability to grant land to Crown corporations; it has done that in British Columbia from time immemorial. Why is this amendment required? Why is

section 7 in this bill required, if it makes no substantive change?

Hon. J. Cashore: The reason is that the existing wording is ambiguous regarding the authority of the minister to limit Crown grants to Crown corporations and other government bodies for specific public purposes. The existing wording is also unclear regarding the type of government bodies eligible for Crown grants. The wording that you see before you clarifies and improves the previous wording.

D. Mitchell: Is the need to clarify that ambiguity the result of any specific plans that the government has with respect to the activities of Crown corporations? Has this

section of the bill, in particular, been inspired by some work that is currently ongoing by the Crown corporations secretariat? Is that why it was required?

Hon. J. Cashore: No.

V. Anderson: I'm wondering what controls, accountability or reporting there is in that section. If something is done in a neighbourhood, and the people around wish to appeal that, how do they appeal the decision of the Crown? Is it appealable, and to whom does one appeal?

Hon. J. Cashore: All decisions made under this

section are subject to order-in-council. Therefore they are reported publicly, and in that sense they are subject to public scrutiny.

V. Anderson: You say public scrutiny, but if a community wanted to appeal, where and how would they present that particular appeal?

Hon. J. Cashore: They could appeal to the minister.

W. Hurd: My understanding of this

section is that it gives municipalities the right to redesignate a Crown land parcel for a use other than for which it was originally granted. Just to follow up on the point made by my colleague for Vancouver-Langara, I assume that the original Crown land grant would be subject to the normal municipal requirements of a public hearing. Or is that something that would be monitored by the ministry if, indeed, a request was forthcoming to redesignate the Crown land for a different use within the municipality?

Hon. J. Cashore: The statement of the hon. member is correct about the purpose. Where it relates to a municipality -- the question about review -- it's my understanding that it would be, but that would be pursuant to the requirements under which that municipality operates, which I think are pursuant to the Municipal Act. But it would be my expectation. For example, if the land in question was a fire hall, I would expect that it would be subject to appropriate processes that would enable the people of the municipality to have their input at public hearings.

I am not saying that in an official capacity, because I can only comment officially on the act itself and on the clause within the act. But we would fulfill our part of that, and then those questions about review would be handled within the requirements of the municipality.

W. Hurd: Where the land grant has occurred for some type of park, wilderness or green space within the municipality, and the municipality elects to change the designation in some way that might allow for future development, would this be something that the ministry would expect to enforce -- the prior requirements of reapplying to the Crown lands ministry to have the property so designated? Or would that be a typical situation where the municipality would simply be able

[ Page 6989 ]

to redesignate the land to another type of area protection without having to be bound by the previous requirements under the act, which clearly spelled out the need to reapply and go through the same bureaucratic channels?

Hon. J. Cashore: If there was to be an application for a change, they would have to receive the permission of the minister. If, for instance, it was changing one specified use to a commercial use, they would have to pay for that change.

V. Anderson: I'm trying to clarify this. In our particular constituency, we had an in-care facility for children, which was on government land within the municipality. That was torn down, and now two houses are going on that same property. Does this kind of thing require appeal through the government -- other than just a hearing in the municipality, which was not very effective or proper?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's always difficult to respond to a specific example without knowing more details of that example. It's possible that we had authorized the two houses in the first place. But given the amount of information the hon. member gave me in asking the question, the answer would be yes.

A. Cowie:

Section 7 states that the Crown can transfer authority to the Build BC Act without cost. Similarly, it says that it can grant land to the municipalities. My question has to do with open space within municipalities. I'm thinking of a specific example near the Langara Golf Course. There's about a two-acre parcel beside the YMCA and the golf course that is owned by the Crown. They actually paid for it. Would that also be transferred free, or would there be a cost?

Hon. J. Cashore: When the hon. member said that he was referring to

section 7, I think he made a specific quote. I'm not sure that I was able to identify the exact part of the

section he was referring to. I wonder if he would identify very clearly the portion of

section 7 that he's referring to and restate his question.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

A. Cowie: Maybe it's just my notes. I'm referring to the repeal of

section 48. I have it as

section 7. It says, essentially, that the Crown may transfer lands to the Build BC Act authority -- the new Crown agency -- for free. It's transferring from the Crown to this agency free. It can also transfer to municipalities, regional districts and those authorities. What I'm trying to get the minister to say is that he will give this park space in Langara to the municipality free, rather than having the municipality pay for it. The last government, the Socreds, put a tremendous price on this land that no one could possibly pay. I was hoping this government might transfer it free.

The Chair: Hon. member, could you please refrain, and get back to the bill.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member has now made two references connecting this

section to Build B.C. To the best of my knowledge, Build B.C. is not mentioned anywhere within this entire miscellaneous statutes amendment act. I'm having a difficult time following the question. If it's my fault I apologize, but I would appreciate it if we could have a very specific reference that enables this member to frame a question around a linkage with Build B.C.

[3:00]

V. Anderson: Forget about the reference to Build B.C. It's simply in this act that it's transferred free of charge. This portion of land between the Langara Golf Course and Langara college is Crown land. The question is: will that be transferred free to the municipality so it could be used by the community?

Hon. J. Cashore: It will be dealt with on its own merits if an application is made. I will not answer that question in the House, because it requires appropriate process.

V. Anderson: When property is sold, as it can be under this particular section, do proceeds from that sale go back into a particular pot for replacement of other land?

Hon. J. Cashore: All revenue flows to the Crown land account, which is a subaccount of the consolidated revenue.

V. Anderson: I'm not sure whether this is in order or not. In that regard, are you able to tell us how much is in that Crown land account at the present time?

Hon. J. Cashore: It has an opening balance of about $50 million.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

D. Mitchell: Could the minister tell us if the powers conferred on him by

section 8 would apply to Crown corporations as well? In other words, would the minister have the same powers to amend or replace a Crown grant that had been previously granted to a Crown corporation?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

D. Mitchell: I'm trying to think of an example. If a Crown corporation such as B.C. Rail, for instance, had been granted some land by the Crown and if that land was no longer being used for the purpose it was initially granted for, would the minister, at his own discretion, have the power and authority under this

section to amend that grant, even by taking the Crown land back to the Crown from the Crown corporation?

Hon. J. Cashore: Most land granted for railway purposes has a reverter, which means that when it

[ Page 6990 ]

comes back because it's no longer being used for railway purposes, it would then revert to the Crown.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's answer to the question. The reason I was using B.C. Rail as an example was that that Crown corporation now has a specific mandate in the area of property development. That Crown corporation has diversified into a number of other businesses aside from rail cargo, and is now a property developer in its own right. I'm wondering at what point the minister would use his discretion and his powers under

section 8 of this bill to deal with the situation where a Crown corporation, such as B.C. Rail, was developing properties that had been granted to it in the past but perhaps might now be in conflict with community values. There might be some environmental considerations or other community considerations. Would the minister be able and willing to use his authority, then, on behalf of a community? Is there a potential conflict there in terms of dealing with a Crown corporation? Who would decide?

Hon. J. Cashore: The minister would only go as far as enforcing the provisions of the Crown grant, whatever it may be.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

J. Tyabji: This is one of the most critical sections of the bill.

Section 10(56)(1) states: "If a person does anything that is an offence under

section 57(

a) to (g), the minister may, on notice to that person, do one or more of the following." How will notice to that person be enacted?

Hon. J. Cashore: Notice will be formally served in writing.

J. Tyabji: Will there be intervention by the police or any third body? Is notice in writing through lawyers? Is that at the site? How is that going to be enforced?

Hon. J. Cashore: Preferably it is served in writing and in person by an officer of the ministry.

J. Tyabji: Subsection (1)(

a) requires the person to cease the unauthorized occupation of the Crown land, give up possession of the land and restore the land to a condition satisfactory to the minister. If a hiker on Crown land had been trying to cut a hiking trail through the Crown land, would that be considered unauthorized occupation and activity that required restoration of the land?

Hon. J. Cashore: This is not intended for that use. The Forest Act is the statute under which that sort of consideration would be a factor.

With regard to some of the points made in second reading relating to this section, I wish to inform the hon. member that the need for these changes in this

section was made clear to me before the end of 1992. We are dealing with pressing issues. I would also point out that the Outdoor Recreation Council, which is an umbrella group not supportive of any political party but which represents a great many groups dedicated to outdoor recreation, has been in the forefront of presenting this government with reasons for the kinds of changes reflected here.

There was nothing whatsoever -- and I say again, nothing whatsoever -- in this act that has anything to do with events in the Clayoquot, either past events or events that may happen in the future. I just want to emphasize for the hon. member that if government were contemplating such an action, it would certainly not be within this type of a statute. Even if we were considering having such powers within the purview of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, it would probably happen under the Environment Management Act, where we already have that power. The powers already exist to do the things that we are being accused of by introducing this bill.

J. Tyabji: Is the minister suggesting that the Outdoor Recreation Council is supporting this

section of the bill?

Hon. J. Cashore: The Outdoor Recreation Council supports the general changes that are being made to the legislation so that we can more effectively deal with the circumstances that obtain in the province at this time.

J. Tyabji: With respect to unauthorized occupation of Crown land, restoring the land to a condition satisfactory to the minister under (

a) and (b), if the minister is not trying to restrict access to the Crown lands by groups he might deem not suitable in terms of their activities, what are the specific conditions that necessitated this bill? I'll get to (

c) after I hear his answer.

Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps I could give one example. Correspondence has recently been received by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast regarding trespass by fish farmers on abandoned aquaculture sites. That would be a good example indicating the need for this legislation.

J. Tyabji: Under 56(1)(c), if the person commits an offence, the minister may require the person to pay to the Minister of Finance a sum of money considered by the minister reasonable in the circumstances. If we want to follow up on that one example that the minister used -- and I don't know that I buy that as being a typical example, because I don't know that aquaculture farms would constitute a typical example of Crown lands -- by what criteria will the minister be deeming reasonable in terms of penalizing people who are trespassing under

section 57?

Hon. J. Cashore: What would be reasonable would be to recover costs for cleaning up the mess, and that is outlined very specifically within the bill.

[ Page 6991 ]

J. Tyabji: When we talk about restoring the land to a condition satisfactory to the minister, though, it seems to me that that does allow a lot of arbitrary decision-making on the part of the minister. If I'm to understand that it's going to be direct costs, I'm assuming that those costs are going to be assessed by an independent body, so that the minister will have someone else go in and say, "Okay, this is what it costs," and have it invoiced in that way. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: The basis is the cost to cure the problem that has been created by the trespasser. It's not to be punitive; it is to be fair -- in the stewardship of the land and in the interest of the taxpayer.

J. Tyabji: Since the idea is not to be punitive, I just want to get this on record, so that if we stray off this we can come back to the minister's comments. If it's not to be punitive and it's only to pay back for direct costs, I'm assuming that those costs are only going to be costs as they would be identified by a third party -- someone who is assessing physical damage or something of that nature -- rather than, for example, what the government might perceive to be costs on a specific

section of Crown land.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's either that the individual would do the reclamation himself or herself, or that we would hire a contractor to do it. That's how it would be done, and it's very clearly spelled out in the legislation.

J. Tyabji: Obviously there's no reference to a contractor in the legislation. Under 56(1)(

d) we have the bill saying: "Cancel any lease, right of way, easement, licence of occupation, permit or other disposition held by the person under this Act." I'm assuming that we're talking about the specific incident that is considered to be an offence. That is not spelled out in the bill. And I'm assuming, for example, that if someone were deemed to have committed an offence under this bill on a specific Crown land site, they wouldn't then have any rights or privileges to another site yanked under the act.

Hon. J. Cashore: It all depends on the circumstances. If the individual were to hold a log-handling lease, for instance, and started storing logs off the lease, they might have their lease privileges rejected. The lease could be terminated if they persisted in a use on an inappropriate site.

[3:15]

J. Tyabji: In 56(1)(

e) we have that the minister may: "Direct a sheriff or public officer to seize on behalf of the Crown all improvements, goods, chattels or other materials on the Crown land or in or on water on the Crown land." I think that's a little bit frightening in terms of private property being appropriated by the government. What is the intent of the government with regard to the materials that would be seized?

For example, if it turned out that someone had built some improvements on Crown land, like a dock, and had their own boat tied up to the dock, my reading of this would say that the ministry could therefore seize all of these things because of an offence that might be committed on the land. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: This clause is very similar to the wording in the parts of the act that are being replaced. That provision was already there. That provision is standard. You'd find this kind of provision in a number of situations.

J. Tyabji: That still doesn't answer the question. Am I to understand that someone who had a Crown land lease and had made improvements on that and had private property, such as a boat or a trailer or something like that, the government could seize them because of an offence that is deemed by the minister to have been committed on the land? If that's true, by what avenue does the person receive their private property back?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a power that must be held in order to have an effective enforcement when a directive is given. It must be administered with very great sensitivity, which is the case among the staff of the lands branch at the present time.

J. Tyabji: Under

section 56(1)(f), the minister may require the person to remove any improvements, etc. I'm just wondering in what instance the minister would seize private property rather than direct the person to remove it. If we look at

section 56(1), it says: "...on notice to that person....." Am I to understand that before the minister would seize the boat, dock, trailer and all the things on the Crown land, notice would be given that it was being planned? Why would that be the plan, rather than the way that is outlined under (f), which says that these improvements should be removed?

Hon. J. Cashore: An example would be a foreshore fill, where a party has come in and filled the shore. Under this provision you could require that it be removed. Again, this provision is very similar to the one that exists in the present wording.

J. Tyabji: With regard to the notice that will be given to the individual who, under

section 57, may be deemed by the minister to have committed an offence, could the minister please give us an example -- other than the aquaculture one -- with regards to Crown lands, and most particularly Crown lands where there may be some forestry licence in place? Is there an instance where the public would be deemed to be committing an offence and receive a notice like this from the minister? I'm looking at

section 56(4): "If a person to whom this

section applies fails to act in accordance with the notice given under subsection (1), a public officer...may, on notice to the person, require...a penalty of up to $1,000 for non-compliance with the notice." I'd like to hear some concrete examples from the minister of where this would kick in.

Hon. J. Cashore: This provision already exists within the Range Act and other similar acts and

[ Page 6992 ]

legislation elsewhere in Canada. An example would be where buildings have been constructed inappropriately.

W. Hurd: Just a question to the minister about how this entire

section relates to or dovetails with the new interim guidelines for aboriginal use of unoccupied Crown land, for which we understand there is unlimited access for purposes of hunting and fishing. Would the provision of item 4 enable the ministry to proceed independently of any determination by the Attorney General?

Hon. J. Cashore: The intention would be to be complementary with any arrangement that we have with aboriginal people. I don't know if the question was really clear. When the hon. member refers to item 4, I assume that he's referring to

section 56(4), is that right?

W. Hurd: Yes, that's correct. Assuming that an offence were committed under

section 57(

a) on Crown land, would the minister be able to proceed by way of direct demand to an aboriginal nation or to any member of the aboriginal community for payment?

Hon. J. Cashore: Being cognizant that in some instances aboriginal peoples have special status, the answer would be yes; but there are some instances where, given that special status, other considerations would be brought to bear.

W. Hurd: The minister indicated earlier that his ministry is in receipt of letters of complaint or concern. Would it be possible for an individual, a fish and wildlife group or any other outdoor group to initiate an action under 57(a), or would an action be entirely at the discretion of the minister?

Hon. J. Cashore: People can write, as they do on quite a regular basis. In the final analysis, though, it would be the decision of the minister as to when to proceed.

W. Hurd: For my own clarification, I would welcome an explanation again from the minister as to why, under item (4), we're dealing with such a dramatic increase in the amount of a fine, from $100 to $1,000. Surely that amount in many cases wouldn't be sufficient to rectify any damage. Could the minister advise us why the increase amounts to almost 1,000, or 900, percent? Maybe the first question I could ask, Mr. Chairman, is whether the $100 fines under the previous legislation were levied that often and whether this represents a major new revenue source for the ministry, given the frequency of offences.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, there is an error in the hon. member's assumption: this is not replacing a $100 fine; this is new. As I said before, this is also consistent with the Range Act and with legislation elsewhere in Canada. Being an administrative penalty, the purpose is to avoid costly litigation; therefore the penalty must be such that it will have the desired effect. It is an appropriate amount, given the present circumstances, and should assist by avoiding costly litigative procedures. It's also consistent with some very successful approaches elsewhere. Where an administrative penalty is applied by a regional official, it would be subject to appeal to the minister.

W. Hurd: I thank the minister for that explanation, but it was my impression that the basic fine for trespass on Crown land was rising from $100 to $1,000. Is the minister now saying that assumption was incorrect?

Hon. J. Cashore: There is a $300 fine as part of a litigation process within the existing legislation, which is also being changed in this act. But that has nothing to do with administrative penalties.

V. Anderson: Following that up, the $1,000 fine is like a parking ticket in another circumstance. It's an administrative ticket, given for whatever reason. But I understand that if that administrative ticket is left unpaid, then, as we move into the act, it becomes in effect a certificate which automatically turns into a court proceeding. So it has more bearing than it appears to have just in this area. I know I'm reading ahead, but it has a bearing on this. It seems to me that it becomes a certificate, so it's not only a $1,000 fine but it's also the precursor to a court action. It is essentially the same as a parking ticket in that regard. Is that right?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. Like a parking ticket, it has to be enforceable. There are times when that enforcement has to go through the court system. But the effect of the administrative penalty provision is that it should be much more effective in achieving the desired result, and less costly.

V. Anderson: Talking about this

section earlier, the minister said that the reasons for bringing this

section into being arose from issues that occurred in 1992 and prior. Would he give some illustrations as to what those prior issues were that brought this into being?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. There are many examples. I'll give them under categories. Examples requiring this kind of trespassing enforcement are: illegal log dumps and storage; unauthorized fish farms, which responds to a concern of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and I'm sure he'll be glad to see it here; illegally filled foreshore, which is an example I gave a few minutes ago; and unauthorized cabins. I can tell the hon. member that when I went down the Tatshenshini River last year there was a guide outfitter's cabin that was very intrusive, and it was in an area that had not been authorized.

[3:30]

I think we're all familiar with the old saying that the world is your oyster, and that you can just go out there and do what you want. The fact is that there's no more grass beyond the mountains. There's no more land out there where people can go and just do their frontier thing. In the interest of the people of B.C., we must have a very careful way of caring about the land. So whether

[ Page 6993 ]

it's a guide outfitter's cabin, or a multimillion-dollar corporation that is illegally cutting a line through pristine wilderness, there has to be a way of enforcing our intent so that that doesn't happen. The intent in this legislation is not to be punitive for the sake of being punitive; the intent is to have a regime in place that enables us to appropriately protect the land.

L. Fox: As the minister knows from second reading debate, the third party really doesn't have a lot of problems with the bill. But I have a couple of points that I want to clarify. The minister talked a few moments ago about unauthorized cabins. It begs the question, will these owners -- perhaps better qualified as squatters -- have the option of going through a permitting process, or will an arbitrary decision be made that it's unauthorized and has to go?

Hon. J. Cashore: Always the first consideration is whether or not you can legalize it. If it turns out that you can and you proceed to do so, then they would have to pay back rental for the unauthorized use of the land during the time they occupied it in that manner.

I must say, I have a lot of affection for these people. They're part of an era that is tremendously significant in our history, and it's with some sadness that I see us now being required to go through a transition. I know my hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a real concern for the heritage value of cabins that were built in parts of the province perhaps 80, 90 or 100 years ago and some concerns about being able to ensure that we recognize it as part of our heritage.

At the same time, we have reached that critical mass in terms of the use of the land where we simply cannot allow it anymore. It's one of those difficult ethical considerations that as a society we have to come to from time to time, and we've come to that point now.

I think it's very important that in administering this we do so in a way that shows we have a respect for all of the people we're dealing with. It's a difficult issue to try to administer, but we do need to have the enforcement capability there in order to do it properly.

L. Fox: With the passing of this bill, will there be a deadline for individuals to apply for permitting, or will the permitting opportunity go on until such time as all of these anomalies have been dealt with?

Hon. J. Cashore: Circumstances would not change in that regard, in that we have an ongoing process now. Many of those guide-outfitters, for example, who have built a cabin know whether it's on an illegal site, so they could presently be applying for that. We would carry on the administration as in the past, but with this additional administrative clout.

L. Fox: One further issue. I have in my possession a copy of a letter sent to the minister yesterday by the West Coast Environmental Law Association. Is the minister aware of the letter, and has he had a chance to peruse the contents of the letter on this particular section?

Hon. J. Cashore: I haven't seen the letter. I was at a meeting all morning, and I believe that someone mentioned it to me. Could the hon. member clarify if this letter relates to the connection that's being made with the Clayoquot?

L. Fox: No. So that the minister can comment for the record, I'll read a quote from the letter that is particular to this section. "Although we understand the Land Act currently prohibits `use without lawful authority,' the wording of the act as it stands suggests that there must be some permanency to the use before it becomes illegal." They are suggesting that if there isn't an area for permitting all uses, it may negate the classing of something as illegal. Is that a concern or not?

Hon. J. Cashore: It doesn't change the legalities of trespass occupation. If it was a trespass before, it would continue to exist.

L. Fox: One further question asked in this letter:

"We understand the intent of the amended

section is to allow the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to deal with commercial back-country users -- such as heli-ski operators -- and squatters. However, in attempting to regulate this sort of use, Bill 25 appears to criminalize the right to access to Crown land, which all British Columbians take for granted."

Although I'm sure I know the answer to that, perhaps the minister would like to comment for the record.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. J. Cashore: I can't say how much I appreciate that question, because it gives me an opportunity to put on the record that that is clearly not the intent. I want my words on the record saying that, so that members of the public can realize that I've been willing to put this on the record: that is absolutely not the intent. As a matter of fact, the intent really is to protect Crown land so that it can be available in the most appropriate possible condition for the public. It's the very opposite to that concern. The intent of this legislation is to ensure that the public is able to enjoy Crown land in the state that it should be for their enjoyment.

L. Fox: I know that I know the answers to all the questions, but for the purposes of the record I will ask this. I quote from this letter:

"Our concern is that by making it an offence to use Crown land without lawful authority or to construct works without authorization, generally accepted public uses of Crown land will be prohibited. There is a potential for abuse of the

section by ministry officials unsympathetic to public uses such as wilderness viewing, trail access construction to raise wilderness preservation awareness, or legitimate protest of controversial logging."

Would the minister like to comment?

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, on the contrary, there is no change in this act with regard to those concerns that are cited. I have the greatest admiration for the West

[ Page 6994 ]

Coast Environmental Law Association, but I hope they would be aware that this bill does not change the legislative regime with regard to those items that they're expressing concern about.

Any legislation is always as good as the people who have the responsibility to administer it. I would have to say that I'm very pleased with the record of the people who do administer this legislation, but in the final analysis it is appealable to the minister. Again, I want to say for the record that one of the purposes of this legislation is to ensure the protection of the land for public use. To somehow find in here a means of keeping the public from using the land would really be the opposite of its intent.

Having said that, I think we all know that with our large population, the multiplicity of recreational uses and the fact that there are different uses of the land, we need to have some way of managing that in a thoughtful and useful way.

R. Neufeld: I'm pleased to learn that the Minister of Agriculture has brought up his concerns about cabins and that type of thing in the wilderness where he comes from. I represent an area of British Columbia that has a tremendous number of lakes and mountains, an awful lot of guiding and outfitting and trapping, a lot of cabins that were built many years ago and probably some cabins built recently on lakes for fly-in fishing, where that's the only access.

I also know of an instance in my constituency where a cabin that had been there for years was burned down because of some discrepancies between the ministry and the person who owned the cabin. I feel for what the minister is saying about the fact that ministry staff will be very careful in their determination. I appreciate that, but sometimes, after the fact, it doesn't help. Some of those cabins can be used for search and rescue. People go down in aircraft in those areas.

If you go down in an aircraft and you're able to walk away from it, some of those cabins can be pretty handy when it comes to being able to stay alive.

I wonder if you could give me a bit more assurance that ministry staff will be very careful, understanding and consistent before they go out into the mountains -- and I'm talking about my constituency, which is huge -- and make determinations with regard to some of those cabins. As I've said, we know that in the past that has not always been the case. We have to be careful. There is some heritage out there that we all have to look at really carefully. You can only access some areas by aircraft -- not all of the public is going to be able to get into them -- so there has to be some discretion.

Often the legislation is so rigid that ministry staff can say: "I followed it to the letter of the law" -- and actually they did -- "and everything is fine." But there has to be some kind of buffer and appeal.

Hon. J. Cashore: Again I welcome the opportunity to put my words on the record on this. The last resort is to destroy or burn down. That would happen in an instance where there is a real public controversy. An example, which I cited awhile ago, is the unauthorized cabin on the banks of the Tatshenshini. The first attempt is always to try to find a resolution that doesn't necessitate that. One way the person who has erected on the site can participate in that process is to make an application to have it legalized.

I think members of the public would recognize that that is a responsible approach. We're not going to be administering this in a draconian way; we're going to be administering it in an appropriate way. For instance, in your area, hon. member, the regional director of lands in Fort St. John is someone who, I believe, would use a great deal of discretion in dealing with that. In the final analysis, it could be appealable to the minister.

R. Neufeld: The Alaska Highway in my constituency was, of course, built by the federal government, and it is maintained by them. But the province has authority over the right-of-way. The right-of-way is fairly wide; I believe it's 300 feet along the whole length of it. There has been a lot of controversy about signs. Some signs are on Crown land, of course, because most of it is Crown land north of Fort St. John. But there are some older buildings, and some buildings have been erected which I think are infringing on highway rights-of-way, which would be Crown land under the province's jurisdiction.

I wonder how we will handle that. We're talking about buildings that were built a long time ago, sites that have been in place since the highway was built. What kind of process are we going to go through to adjudicate those situations?

[3:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Transportation and Highways would have the lead responsibility in the example the hon. member has outlined.

V. Anderson: Because of a comment the minister made earlier, I presume that he will be giving due consideration and encouragement for the preservation of heritage facilities, which have a historical concern, and that he will be cooperating with heritage groups in trying to preserve those.

Hon. J. Cashore: We work very closely with heritage groups in evaluating these circumstances. As I said before, I know the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be watching this very closely as well. He has been in on many occasions to meet with ministry officials and me on this topic, and has regaled us with stories that were reminiscent of his television program.

Anyway, I won't go on with that, hon. Chair, because I'm getting off topic. But I do want to assure the hon. member that we will be continuing to consult very closely on the heritage concerns.

V. Anderson: I'm delighted to hear that, because although it's not in the forestry area per se, we have a heritage building in our riding. It was the original infirmary prior to becoming part of Pearson Hospital, which is on Crown-owned land at this point. They are currently dealing with that as a heritage site in order to use it in the community as a heritage museum. So we

[ Page 6995 ]

will be following that up with the minister. I'm glad to know that the precondition of concern is there.

As mentioned earlier, I would ask if we might have a comment about the compliance with an administrative request, which now, under

section 58, becomes a certificate which then becomes a court order. Would the minister like to comment on that switch. How does a certificate fine become a certificate, and what are its implications?

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to ask the hon. member if he would kindly be very specific in the portion of the amendment to

section 10 to which he is referring, because we were not able to understand the question.

While I'm on my feet, I want to say that another individual in cabinet who is very concerned about heritage issues is the Minister Responsible for Tourism and Culture. She also makes sure that we are very cognizant of these issues.

V. Anderson: It's under

section 10, listed under 58(2). It indicates that if the person fails to pay the penalty after service that had been mentioned previously.... Then, referring to 56(4), this now becomes a certificate, and in effect it automatically becomes a court order. Am I correct in that? If so, how is that being handled?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

V. Anderson: I'm trying to understand the actual implications of

section 58 in relation to what has gone before. Could the minister just please explain the implication of 58.1?

Hon. J. Cashore: The implication is exactly as the hon. member has said. It could potentially then move into the court process.

J. Dalton: I am going to follow up on what my colleague from Vancouver-Langara has raised, because I confess that the more I read these four subsections brought in under

section 10, the more uncomfortable I am. I have a feeling that if we're not dealing with double jeopardy in the law, it could be quadruple jeopardy.

Let me take the minister through this possible scenario. I'm looking now at the new 58.1, which is the last part of

section 10 in the bill. Would the minister agree that trespassing, for example, could be an offence under

section 57?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

J. Dalton: Given that possible scenario,

section 58.1 is providing that if, for example, someone is convicted of trespass -- we're talking now of basically a criminal or quasi-criminal matter in the provincial jurisdiction -- they could also be ordered under the new

section 58.1 to compensate the Crown for any loss or damage caused by the trespass. Is that not also so?

Hon. J. Cashore: The reference to it being criminal is incorrect; it's not criminal. It's not appropriate to use that term in reference to this legislation. But to the second part of the question, the answer is yes.

J. Dalton: I did correct myself; I did say quasi-criminal in the provincial jurisdiction. I agree it's not a criminal matter; that's only federal. Provincial laws, of course, create things which in the legal world we sometimes describe as being quasi-criminal in nature.

We now have a situation where somebody may have been convicted under

section 57 for trespass. They may have been ordered to compensate the Crown under

section 58.1 for any loss or damage as a consequence of the trespass. If I can take the minister back to 56 in the first part of

section 10, we could also have a scenario where someone has been ordered to make restitution for the very thing that has given rise to both an offence of trespass and compensation to be ordered under

section 58.1. Is that a possibility?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a possibility, but it's managed with discretion.

J. Dalton: All right. I won't pursue this any further. I think the minister has satisfied me. We do have some rather intriguing possibilities.

We're also looking at some very significant increases in current penalties, but we will come to this under the next section. Perhaps I'll just make one comment. It seems to me, hon. minister, that many of the people you may be trying to prosecute -- or in some other way trying to enforce the law against -- are not likely to be ones who are going to be in compliance with the laws. The Crown may find itself in a difficult situation of trying to prosecute or otherwise enforce the penalties under these provisions. It may in large part be an exercise in futility. Putting aside the concerns that I've already voiced, we're looking at some very serious questions of double, if not other jeopardy.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, that is not an appropriate use of the term double jeopardy. This is a normal process. One measures an administrative penalty; it comes into being. In most cases it works. When it doesn't work, then the next stage clicks in. That's not double jeopardy.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

V. Anderson: Could the minister explain why there is such an increase -- from $300 to $20,000 -- under

section 11? There was some question earlier about the $1,000 increase in the other particular portion.

Hon. J. Cashore: The current maximum fine of $300 under the present legislation, which may be levied by the courts for a Land Act offence, is not a sufficient deterrent. I think we all agree with that. Why such a whopping increase to $20,000? The proposed trespass fine exceeds the range of Saskatchewan by $5,000. In

[ Page 6996 ]

other provinces where there are trespass fines, these ones are considered to be very low by their provincial authorities. This fine is within the range of similar statutes and resource legislation in British Columbia. In most instances administrative means would be used to resolve these issues, but as I said before, you need a deterrent that recognizes the importance and value of the land to the people of the province.

As I listed when I was asked for examples -- and that was only a partial list -- there are activities going on within the province that need to be dealt with, and there has to be a deterrent. It's a deterrent in the last analysis, and a deterrent that would provide considerable leeway within the decisions of the courts. It is the opportunity to administer a penalty of that amount where, for instance, a corporation was involved in wilful neglect, and therefore that is not too great a potential deterrent.

But again, I think hon. members would agree that our courts do exercise discretion in the administration of the instruments that are available to the courts. This legislation makes it possible for the court to consider a variety of ways in which to address a particular instance.

The bottom line, hon. member, is that the land out there is finite. We simply cannot go on saying that it goes on forever and that there's always more. Every bit of land is a responsibility of, and an asset of, the people of British Columbia.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's reason for the extension of the amount. Could he explain the difference between the charges or why a person might be fined up to $20,000 in this category as compared to the other category of $1,000, which then also goes to the courts? What's the distinction? What falls under one area, and what falls under the other area?

Hon. J. Cashore: If the hon. member thinks about the Motor Vehicle Act, he would have a good example of how the system works. It's an administrative penalty, the potential being up to $1,000. It works in a different system. There is provision to go to court if that doesn't work; it does not preclude the opportunity to go the litigative route if that's the choice given the severity of the circumstance.

J. Tyabji: Based on the line of questioning that we've had so far with regard to the minister and ministerial staff and people who are judging whether or not an offence has been committed, I'm a little concerned that under

section 11.... The original act as amended will read: "Every person who is convicted of an offence against this Act, for which no penalty is provided, is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 60 days, or to both the fine and imprisonment." So far in our discussion on this bill, when we've talked about notification and follow-up, it has been more or less about officers of the minister. Now we're talking about the police being involved and convictions and, I would assume, court cases.

In second reading we talked about the resources of the ministry as opposed to the resources of the individual. Are we then talking about a civil conviction, or a criminal conviction? I'm not sure how this breaks down and how we moved from talking about things being enacted by officers of the ministry to talking about the Criminal Code.

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: No charges are proceeded with unless Crown counsel approves.

J. Tyabji: So the way I'm understanding this is that even though in previous sections we have ministry staff basically deeming whether or not there should be an expropriation of private property because of an offence, now it would have to be Crown counsel deeming that the offence should go to court. Is it correct that a fine will not be imposed unless the charges are laid by the police officers rather than through the ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to ask the hon. member to restate the question.

J. Tyabji: Although in the previous sections the offence could result in an officer of the ministry expropriating private property if the ministry deemed it appropriate, in this instance the fine could only be levied against the individual if they had to go to court. They could only go to court if they had been charged by a police officer. For example, we couldn't have an official of the ministry levying a fine on the individual.

Hon. J. Cashore: The proper term is a "peace officer." In regard to the point the hon. member is making, this is no different than the situation that existed prior to this legislation.

J. Tyabji: That is my point. We have the original Land Act from 1979, but there is a differentiation here with regard to the offence. So far, when we've been talking about the offence as deemed under

section 57 of the act, that was something that someone within the ministry was deeming -- the minister doesn't want to say "punitive action" -- what the appropriate action should be with regard to removing the lease or the rights and privileges for Crown land and expropriating private assets. That was all done by ministry officials. I am surprised to see convictions and potential imprisonment set out in

section 11 of the original act. I'm wondering why the ministry wouldn't have chosen to have fines levied through the ministry rather than going to court through what appears to be a criminal conviction.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's standard procedure. One is an administrative measure; one is a litigative measure. That's the line of demarcation. Depending on which one of those situations obtain, the process is different.

J. Tyabji: Why has the minister chosen to make this a matter of litigation, keeping in mind how much more that costs the ministry, and keeping in mind...? Let's say a hiker has cut a trail on Crown land, and for the purposes of this act that is deemed to be an offence and

[ Page 6997 ]

the ministry decides to press charges. All of a sudden it is incumbent on that person to have financial resources to deal with the litigation. That's where the question is coming from.

Hon. J. Cashore: There are circumstances where the issues are extraordinarily complex and where the court is the appropriate venue to sort that out. The use of the courts should not be abused, in the sense of being brought in indiscriminately or inappropriately. That is why it is subject to Crown counsel's approval. There are instances, in the judgment and wisdom of Crown counsel, where they would say: "Yes, in these circumstances it does behoove us to go the court route." That instrument is available in lawmaking, and this is a law.

J. Tyabji: So through this bill, in effect, the ministry will not be levying fines over $1,000 to people unless it is deemed by Crown counsel that it should be litigated?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

V. Anderson: I would just like to follow up and clarify what the minister is saying. If they feel someone is in breach of the rules or regulations, the minister is in a position, through his officials, to impose a fine of $500 or whatever, and if you don't pay, then you go to court. So you are given a choice of paying a fine of $1,000 or risking having to pay $20,000.

Hon. J. Cashore: You can't do both at the same time; you have to choose to go the route of an administrative penalty or the route of charges. If you started on the route of an administrative charge, you would have to follow that route through.

J. Dalton: I have to disagree with the minister on that. It seems to me that the administrative penalty could be levied under the previous

section and, at the same time or before or after -- whatever you like -- there could be a prosecution under the provisions of the offence section. One is an imposed administrative penalty and so, if the Crown chooses, is ultimately a civil liability. The other is a prosecution under the offence provisions in this amendment.

Hon. J. Cashore: We're dealing with a wide variety of circumstances here. In general, if you issue the administrative penalty and in some instances it doesn't work, then you have the option of going to the courts on the basis of that administrative penalty, when you're following that route. I'll leave it at that.

D. Lovick: Hon. Chair, I wonder if the House would give me leave to make a very brief introduction.

Leave Granted.

D. Lovick: I have just returned from having a pleasant meeting with a group of some 25 grade 5 and 6 students from McGirr Elementary School, along with their teacher, Mr. John Secuur. We had a nice chat. I'm happy to note that these students are now in the gallery. I'd like to make them welcome on behalf of my colleague the member for Parksville-Qualicum, in whose riding these students are from. Would the House please join me in making these people welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to make it very clear that if you're going the route of the administrative penalty, and if that does not succeed, and if there is a continuing trespass, then at that point in time you could decide to go the litigative route. But in the reasonable application of this, you would try very hard to make the administrative penalty approach work.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

J. Tyabji: I'm wondering why this bill has amended

section 106 of the original act to allow the rate of interest to be prescribed. Why would the minister want to be able to prescribe the rate of interest?

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be unfair if some people made use of process to avoid paying a fine. They need to know that if they do that, it would be subject to the standard rates. That should be an understandable and reasonable incentive for the timely payment of the fine so that we can keep the Minister of Finance happy.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I would like to introduce to the House a couple of constituents who are visiting Victoria today. Surrinder and Kartar Bains are in the gallery. I ask all members to make them welcome.

J. Tyabji: The reason I'm wondering why we need

section 12 is that we have proposed

section 58, "Enforcement of payment," under

section 10. With regard to the penalties, it says: "bears interest at a prescribed rate." Or is

section 12 only in reference to

section 11 and not to the rest of the bill?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I apologize; I did not get that question. I would beg the indulgence of the hon. member to please ask it again.

J. Tyabji: I think the minister meant most humbly beg.

I was wondering why we need

section 12 when we already have penalties being deemed to bear interest at a prescribed rate in proposed

section 58 under

section 10. It seems redundant to me -- unless

section 12 is only in reference to

section 11, which I don't believe the bill makes clear.

Hon. J. Cashore: Unless I still don't understand the question, it seems to me that the question is: given that there's another

section of the bill that sets the amount of the penalty, why would you have

section 12

[ Page 6998 ]

to set an interest rate? If that is the question, I suppose the next question is: why didn't you do all of this in that same section? I don't know. It has to do with legislative drafting.

But the question may be: why would you apply an amount of interest to a fine when there is a failure to pay that fine? If that is the question, I would only answer the way I did before. There should be a penalty for that, because it isn't fair to individuals who pay a fine promptly when there are other individuals who don't pay a fine promptly.

J. Tyabji: Actually, no, that wasn't the question. This is where I don't understand what's happened. In the proposed

section 58 under

section 10 we have: "If a person is required to pay a penalty...the penalty is due and payable...and bears interest at a prescribed rate." So we already have that there. That whole

section is on enforcement of payment and interest rates. Then in

section 12 we have an amendment that allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations, including prescribing the rate of interest. Unless we're saying that the prescribed rate of interest that is referred to in proposed

section 58 under

section 10 is outlined in

section 12.... If that's the case, all I need is clarification of that. That's one part.

The second

part is: why does it just say "for the purpose of

section 58(1)," rather than saying for the purpose of all of

section 58?

Hon. J. Cashore: In

section 12 it says: "may make regulations, including regulations prescribing the rate of interest for the purpose of

section 58(1)." There could be further additions to that section, and in that case it would be through regulations prescribing the interest rate in perhaps more than one instance.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps it's because I don't understand why this was drafted. Proposed

section 58 under

section 10 talks about a prescribed interest rate, and then

section 12 talks about interest "for the purpose of

section 58(1)." Is that maybe a mistake, and was it meant to say "for the purpose of

section 58"? Or is it that 58(1) is different from 58.1?

[4:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: It's not a mistake. This makes provision for prescribed rates in

section 58(1), which is the only place where we need to prescribe rates.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

J. Tyabji: When we have a bill before the House that is an amendment to the Waste Management Act, why would we have this portion, sections 13 and 14.... Why would we have this

section of it in this bill? What is the purpose of that?

Hon. J. Cashore: This amendment does not apply to contaminated sites.

J. Tyabji: Is this amendment more applicable in the Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act than it is in the Waste Management Amendment Act?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, in that this is a miscellaneous statute which is dealing with some minor amendments -- relatively speaking -- to a number of different acts. It is fitting and appropriate in this bill.

J. Tyabji: When we were in second reading stage, the minister talked about the Waste Management Act.

Section 13 says: "No person shall construct, establish, alter, enlarge, extend, use or operate a facility for the treatment, recycling, storage, disposal or destruction of a special waste...." Is that the reference he was making to underground storage regulations?

Hon. J. Cashore:

Section 13 deals with the wording of

section 3.2 of the original act, which contains a redundant reference to a permit, approval order, waste management plan and the act. Other sections of the act establish requirements for permits or discharges and storage of special waste. This

section should simply establish the requirement for special waste facilities to be operated in compliance with the regulations. The existing wording has caused confusion in the past, and this new wording improves our ability to be successful in enforcement.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

J. Tyabji: With regard to the pollution prevention orders, is this what the minister was making reference to in second reading about what he is expecting to happen with underground storage as it affects gas stations or small businesses, for example?

Hon. J. Cashore: No.

J. Tyabji: To what extent does

section 22.2(2) differ from what we would call somebody who is potentially contaminating a site? Isn't "an activity or operation has been or is being performed by a person in a manner which is likely to release a substance that will cause pollution of the environment...." what we're also dealing with in Bill 26? Not that I want to proceed with this, but it seems to me that there's a lot of overlap there.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no; this is preventive. This is to prevent contamination through an order.

J. Tyabji: Obviously we'll deal with it in Bill 26. We do have some preventive measures coming in Bill 26.

Could the minister give me an idea of how, for example, in the process of monitoring the activities of these persons as they are defined, the manager will be acting in any manner so that they will know that a person is doing this? Is it going to be through a public

[ Page 6999 ]

reporting process or in the manager's daily rounds of the neighbourhood? How is that going to happen?

Hon. J. Cashore: It will be through circumstances that are brought to our attention.

J. Tyabji: Am I to understand that this isn't what we call an initiative of the manager, where the manager will.... As the minister said earlier, this is a preventive measure. Will the manager be taking any action to bring to his or her own attention potential activities that may be occurring? Is it only going to be in a case where it's brought to their attention by the public? If so, in what manner will the public be bringing it to the manager's attention? How will that happen?

Hon. J. Cashore: There are a variety of ways. It could be by somebody phoning the Surrey regional office and advising them of an occurrence they are concerned about. It could be a conservation officer, in a routine review, observing a situation. Sometimes good enforcement people might be out to observe some event and notice that something else is happening, and then they would make sure that the appropriate follow-up is taken. There are a variety of ways in which a manager would become aware of a situation where there was the potential need for a pollution prevention order.

J. Tyabji: For example, if a development was in process and a septic field was being put into an area where someone hadn't met the perk tests or where the activity was going to result in pollution and that came to the manager's attention, would that then fall into the pollution prevention order if there was the potential for groundwater contamination or, worse than that, surface water contamination as a result of a faulty septic field?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, it could. But normally a septic tank type of example would be under the purview of the Ministry of Health.

J. Tyabji: I find it a bit frustrating. I'm thinking of a specific example where for the last nine years there has been a bit of a tennis game going on between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Health with regard to surface water pollution from a faulty septic system. I'm talking about the Wood Creek subdivision, as the minister may be aware. When I was reading this, I had some hope that perhaps the pollution prevention order here would finally be the kind of legislation under which the developer could be called to task to prevent the further pollution of that area. That's why that comes to mind.

I'm hoping that the Minister of Environment would therefore be able to take action under this legislation.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the answer is yes. I think we have heard about the Wood Creek example, but it's not one that I know the details of off the top of my head. If it's a situation where the septic system is not yet operating but the way in which it's constructed is such that you can be sure that once it starts to operate it's going to be bad news, yes, that could potentially be addressed under this legislation. But we would have to remember the role of the Ministry of Health in dealing with these issues.

However, if this septic system was already operating -- if it had already been permitted and was underway -- it would not be subject to a pollution prevention order; it would be subject to a pollution abatement order, which is already provided for in another part of the act.

J. Tyabji: Obviously I can't stray off this bill. I can't possibly ask why, if there is already legislation in place, it hasn't been dealt with in the last nine years. So I won't.

The Chair: You came through the back door very well there, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: With regard to the potential future construction of sites, if there was an existing development and there had to be some pollution abatement and there was some construction underway, I'm assuming that this legislation would then apply.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, not in an abatement situation. That's dealt with elsewhere. But if it were a pollution prevention situation, the answer is yes.

J. Tyabji: Subsection 15,22.2(4) states: "An order under subsection (2) may authorize a person or persons designated by the manager to enter land for the purpose of preventing the pollution." Could we get some details on that? How does that translate? For example, what are the limitations on preventing the pollution? Is that something for which the ministry could order the construction of some kind of dam or change the land or put something in place and then bill the person responsible. Is that how that can be interpreted?

Hon. J. Cashore: If I'm looking at the same section, it simply enables the manager to authorize persons to enter land for the purpose of preventing pollution. It would enable the person who is working on behalf of the ministry to enter that land and deal with the situation.

J. Tyabji: In my mind I have images of large corks being put into big hoses where pollution is coming forward, which I don't necessarily have a problem with it if that's the intent of the legislation. But what does "prevent the pollution" mean? Do they go and put a little sign on it saying that this will be dealt with, or do they actually take action?

For example, if a hose were emitting waste water and pollution was occurring, would the ministry have the ability to go onto that land, prevent the pollution by whatever means necessary -- if that meant reversing the flow or stopping the hose or however that happened -- and then have the person responsible for the pollution deal with it in terms of the costs and whatever would happen on the other end? Is that what the

section deals with? In preventing

[ Page 7000 ]

pollution, do you have a little red cape on and do you sort of fly in there and solve it? How does that translate?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure how far I want to go with this one. The

section that the hon. member is referring to is clearly authorization to enter property. That's all it is, pure and simple. With regard to the question, I'll say again that it is not a question of abatement. The pollution hasn't started yet. In an instance where the ministry becomes aware of a circumstance where pollution is obviously about to start, it is important that officials have the ability to be on site. The contamination of an aquifer could be in question. The ministry has to be able to enter the site to investigate the situation and begin a procedure to deal with it.

And no, hon. member, nobody is wearing a little red cape, but somebody could be wearing a conservation officer's uniform; somebody could represent one of the technical aspects of the ministry. Having gained access, they would have to assess the situation and advise on the necessary steps, given the circumstances.

J. Tyabji: I understand that the pollution abatement legislation is separate. So if it's something that has occurred in the past or is ongoing or has just started, this legislation isn't going to.... This is pre-emptive legislation. Is that correct? It's not preventing; it's pre-empting. Okay, that's fine. I have no further questions on this section.

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think I heard that word clearly. It's preventive legislation.

C. Serwa: In recognizing the expanded powers of the regional waste manager, there is no adequate definition of pollution. What is the determination of pollution? Is it indicated in degree? What type of pollution? Could the minister advise how that determination will be made, and on what basis?

[4:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: Pollution is defined in the act. If the hon. member would like me to, I would be willing to read that into the record.

C. Serwa: No, thank-you very much. Is the minister confident that the definition of pollution is adequate and effective within the expanded parameters of the regional waste manager so that there can be no question? I have not seen what constitutes pollution described to a degree. The concern here is that the lack of a firm, fixed definition may provide too much latitude and too much uncertainty.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is judgment involved on the part of the manager, that's true, but the manager's decisions are subject to appeal. Since this question has been asked, I would like to read for the record the act's definition of pollution: "the presence in the environment of substances or contaminants that substantially alter or impair the usefulness of the environment." I do recognize that this is a broad definition, as it should be. Let's bear in mind that the managers are trained and experienced people who bring that to bear at this stage of their decision-making.

C. Serwa: I appreciate that it's really a broad definition, which is perhaps part of the problem. There's a fair bit of subjectivity in determining a substantial change to the environment. How does the regional manager make a determination on that? That's the question.

Hon. J. Cashore: The recommendation of the regional manager would be based on past experience and on the probabilities of the situation -- knowledge of what happens when similar circumstances are allowed to carry on. That kind of experience would be brought to bear.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Cashore: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 16.

EMPLOYMENT INVESTMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 16; E. Barnes in the chair.

section 1.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm waiting for questions on

section 1. I thought perhaps I could give some explanation. This

section permits employee venture capital corporations to deal in fractional shares. Fractional shares are parts of shares, such as a half or a quarter. This is designed to allow investments made in round amounts, such as $1,000 or $3,500, to be processed without having to handle small leftover amounts. For example, if an investor wishes to invest $1,000, and the price per share determined under the particular plans evaluation formula is $7.03, only 142 whole shares could be purchased. This would leave $1.74 of the $1,000 tendered uninvested.

Handling these small leftover amounts is costly and makes payroll deduction plans difficult to administer. By having the ability to issue fractional shares, the employee venture capital corporation would simply issue 142.2475 shares to the investor -- in my example -- so as to completely invest

[ Page 7001 ]

the $1,000 tendered. This way there is no leftover amount to cause problems.

L. Fox: As we suggested during the second reading stage, the bill really streamlines the process, allows some accommodation and reflects what happens and should happen in practice. As a party, we will be supporting the bill and really don't see a lot of need to go through the process at any great length.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 16, Employee Investment Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Committee on Bill 15, hon. Speaker.

ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 15; E. Barnes in the chair.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report astonishing progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply B on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

(continued)

On vote 32: $375,354 (continued).

L. Fox: Given the organizational difficulties, both parties are obviously having difficulty deciding which critic should be in the House at this time, because it seems that it changes very rapidly. Would the Chair give us a few moments so our respective critics can get back into the House? We just went looking for the Advanced Education critic because of the previous....

The Chair: The request is granted, hon. member. We will just wait.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't mind making a few remarks on the Ministry of Environment estimates. As members know, members of the executive council sometimes don't get a chance to participate in this debate, as we used to when we spent some time on that side of the House. We proceeded to become quite effective in opposition after many years. I know that members opposite, after many years in opposition, will improve in their jobs, and I know they will have a lot of opportunity to practise their respective roles.

[4:45]

I would like to make a couple of comments on the Ministry of Environment estimates. I think this is an area where so much is being done that is positive in terms of environmental protection and promoting real improvements in the quality of the environment in British Columbia. In fact, so much is being done that generally I don't think we're doing a good enough job -- if I can say this to criticize my government -- of communicating the kinds of initiatives we've taken.

Just off the top of my head, I want to review some of the progress that we've made. When I talk to environmentalists or people in my community, they're usually astonished to realize that we've protected the Khutzeymateen, where there has been a long-fought battle by the environmental movement to protect one of the last grizzly bear preserves in British Columbia and, in fact, in the world. That was done without much fanfare by the Minister of Environment. I applaud him for moving to protect that wilderness area.

I hope and expect the government will move further to ensure that that area is protected in perpetuity, because that is indeed a major environmental victory -- one which I think the government can be proud of.

Look at the legislation on waste management -- the member for Nanaimo did a lot of work on waste management legislation -- and environmental assessment, and a variety of other major legislative initiatives, some of which are before the House today, but I won't discuss them here. They promote the sound treatment of waste and toxic waste, the reduction of waste, recycling and a whole range of initiatives in that regard -- more in one year than we've seen in many years under previous administrations.

Look at some forest practices and land use decisions; look at the initiative in the protected-areas strategy to double the amount of parkland. I think it rolls off your tongue very easily to go from 6 percent to 12 percent of the province's land mass in parks. We're not there yet, but we have made significant progress in dramatically enhancing the amount of land that we're preserving for future generations and protecting for park or wilderness designation.

Look at the Parksville flats acquisition by the government, where we worked with private sector groups to preserve a pristine area; look at the work being done in the Boundary Bay area to protect the vital

[ Page 7002 ]

habitat; look across the province at all of these hot spots. There has been significant action by the government to move to protect, preserve and enhance wilderness values in protected areas. The old-growth strategy is another major initiative. I must say, it's one of the few started by the previous administration. This administration has continued and enhanced it to protect the dwindling supply of ancient forests. We want to make sure there's a working forest to protect and create jobs, but we also want to ensure that we protect -- for our heritage, for our children and for the future -- tracts of ancient forests from harvest. We want to protect and preserve those kinds of initiatives.

The Minister of Environment has taken action to ban the illegal sale of bear parts. Poaching is and has been a big problem in this province. I might say that Treasury Board approved the budget which dramatically increased the number of conservation officers, so we can police and enforce good-quality regulations -- some of which have been on the books for some time but have been ignored.

So when you look at the preservation of parkland and wilderness areas, at waste management, environmental protection legislation, at recycling and toxic waste initiatives, and when you look at the protected-areas strategy and the old-growth strategy, when you look at those initiatives -- all of which took place in about a year and a half -- you can see the dramatic gains have been made in environmental areas. I'm very confident that, with this minister and the government's commitment in this regard, this is just the beginning of continuing to lead the country -- in fact, North America -- in protecting and enhancing our environment.

As we all know, in British Columbia you don't have to go very far.... It doesn't matter whether you're a business person, a Social Credit voter or even a Liberal voter, because across the province there is a high degree of support for environmental protection. There's a high degree of support for aggressive action by government to stop pollution, to preserve elements of old-growth forests and ecosystems which haven't been protected. There is a high degree of support regardless of party lines or region. I know the steps that we've taken in the first year and a half have been significant; they've been major. But I know that there are more steps to come.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to interject in this debate -- because I haven't had a chance to do that very often -- to congratulate the Ministry of Environment for the work that's been done to date. I know this is just the beginning of continuing to lead the country on environmental awareness and environmental protection.

F. Jackson: I beg leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Jackson: It is quite something to follow the Minister of Finance.

I have a rare pleasure today. In the gallery, from Rayleigh Elementary School in my constituency, is a group of grade 7 students with their teachers Mr. Blackwell and Mr. Atkinson. These young people put on a concert today outside in the rain -- a very gallant performance. They have spent some time touring the House and have now come to see how we behave in this most august chamber. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and follow the Minister of Finance, with his high-profile recognition of the importance of the Ministry of Environment. While the Minister of Environment wasn't exactly dancing on the tables, I know that his toes were tapping a very busy and happy tune when he realized that the Minister of Finance was actually on his side. I sincerely hope that fine speech indicates that the Minister of Environment has impressed the Minister of Finance with the important role that his ministry has to play in B.C.

I also hope that the Minister of Finance will recognize that role and enable the Ministry of Environment to continue to expand on the fine job that they are already doing. So I thank the Minister of Finance very much for that speech. It's certainly an important speech to go on the record.

I would like to put a few questions to the minister on the State of the Environment Report for British Columbia. The minister knows full well that the environment is in fact very important. The State of the Environment Report for British Columbia is a thoroughly researched and very well-written piece of work. It not only documents what the current government is striving to do and has done in their brief period as government, but it also recognizes a long history of environmental concerns on the part of British Columbians and British Columbia governments.

The state-of-the-environment report takes a snapshot that we can use as a foundation and for future assessments on the progress that we're making. And indeed, we all recognize that we must make progress. The question, though, is not with the report per se. The question to the Minister of Environment is: how do we stack up with other countries around the world; how do we stack up with other jurisdictions?

Right now, with the breakup of the socialist group and the Soviet Union, we're hearing all sorts of horror stories coming out of those areas that were kept under control. Communication was not available on the amount, degree and type of pollution that occurred in those countries, whether they were industrialized or not. Certainly the Haida people, as they paddled towards Paris, I believe, were appalled at the conditions of the major rivers in France.

We hear all sorts of concerns about our jurisdiction. But on the whole, the state-of-the-environment report indicates that while we haven't arrived, our journey has been fairly successful. We always can and must strive to improve our environmental record, our cleanup and our monitoring of what's transpiring. Perhaps the minister would indicate whether he has any comparisons with other jurisdictions, either in Canada or in other countries in the world.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I would like to say how much I appreciate the words of the Minister of Finance and his excellent grasp of the length and breadth of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and

[ Page 7003 ]

Parks -- which, after all, covers a spectrum that's as expansive as all outdoors. I was very pleased to see that the hon. Minister of Finance has such an outstanding grasp of those issues. I think all members are aware that he could actually give a speech like that with regard to any ministry of government, because he is cognizant of what is happening in all those ministries.

I couldn't agree more with the point he made that all of us on the government side have to recognize that we haven't succeeded in telling the very positive story with regard to what has been accomplished. He listed many of the accomplishments that have taken place during the last 18 months, and I think it's an outstanding record.

With regard to the question from the third party's Environment critic, I do appreciate his remarks with regard to the state-of-the-environment report and the specific question about how we in British Columbia stack up in comparison to other jurisdictions. I think that's an excellent question. It's a question which one could go on about for a long time, because there are many jurisdictions with which to compare ourselves.

Just to get a bit of perspective, let's remember that in British Columbia, with a population of approximately 3.3 million, we have responsibility for an area which is the size of Germany, Switzerland and France. When you compare our population to the total population of those three countries, we're looking at something in excess of 100 million people. They face enormous issues over there compared to the issues that we face. It's kind of interesting when you look at the international comparisons; sometimes you will find people in one country having a perspective of what's going on in another country.

For instance, from my perspective I could say that I am very concerned about the environment in Europe. After all, because of acid rain the Black Forest is dying. People in Europe are so fond of referring to the cathedral nature of our old-growth forests, yet in some instances their very cathedrals are crumbling because of pollution -- especially acid rain.

If we are acting globally, we need to find ways that we can cooperate rather than take potshots at each other. B.C. is doing well, as the state-of-the-environment report says, and so it should. Given the amount of natural area that exists within this beautiful province, B.C. should do better. Let me give one very specific comparison.

Those of us who live in British Columbia like to think of our province as being the finest in Canada. The fact is that B.C. has the highest incidence in Canada of water-borne disease within water systems. Beaver fever has to be taken very seriously, and that's why we have embarked on an ambitious program to bring our water legislation up to date and to recognize the fact that the present water legislation is only allocation legislation; it does not deal with quality.

We very seriously need to take well-planned, incremental steps towards having the appropriate legislation in place that not only deals with water as allocation but also recognizes the importance of groundwater along with surface water, given that groundwater is not presently protected in the Water Act.

[5:00]

We will very shortly be going out to the people with a discussion paper on the stewardship of the water resource. That follows up on previous discussion papers that have gone out, including a study done by the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

On top of that is the water export issue, which is very serious. We have a tremendous responsibility to ensure that we have an appropriate policy. As I've said many times, my own feeling is that creating value-added jobs here is the way we should approach it. We should not be considering large-scale diversions that create jobs somewhere else.

In terms of comparing us to other jurisdictions -- the member mentioned areas behind the Iron Curtain -- one could have any kind of base line for comparison, but I think the most useful base line is one that recognizes that there are serious problems of neglect with regard to pollution in many of those areas. This is, if not a responsibility, an opportunity for us to be looking into ways we can assist people in that part of the world with technology, where technology will help. But let's always remember that a technofix is never a solution to environmental problems; it also has to be concomitant with an environmental ethic, which means that we change the way we think and we change attitudes.

As I look to the gallery and see many young people present, I think that perhaps one of the things that is wrong with our society is that children haven't done a good enough job educating their parents. I know that in the area of the environment, children do have a role in educating their parents. I applaud you for that and encourage you to continue to push us on these environmental issues, which are so important to your future and the future of your children.

C. Serwa: I appreciate the minister's response to what was a fairly broad question. There's no argument from this side of the House with respect to the degree of the concerns we share. The minister quite accurately pointed out that it's often easier to point to some other jurisdiction and talk about their faults rather than looking at ourselves. That seems to be part of human nature.

The minister also touched on an area with respect to water. Certainly the issue of surface water and underground water is a very important. There is concern not only with the volume pumped from the aquifers but also with drilling and the potential for polluting those underground water sources. In an area such as the Okanagan, a substantial portion of our domestic and irrigation water comes from underground aquifers, as I believe it does in the Cariboo and in the lower mainland area. So there's a great of deal of concern there.

It's poetic justice perhaps that the Minister of Finance is in the House at the present time listening intently to this debate. One of the realities that prevails is the problem the Ministry of Environment has processing water licence applications under the current act. I don't know what the time delay is, but at one time it was approximately two years. The challenge there, of course, is the limitation on the staff resources in all

[ Page 7004 ]

regions of the province. There is a very heavy demand. If the minister is talking about expanding their role, and not specifically for high-demand areas for groundwater but incorporating groundwater resources throughout the province, then we're looking at a tremendous increase in the number of individuals that will be required to look after the expanded Water Act. I am very interested in how the minister proposes to be able to handle the role of expanded responsibility under the expanded Water Act, over and above the present demands on the Ministry of Environment.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, in going out with the study, we have to take it one step at a time. I believe that the information that will be available to the government as a result of that process will be very important and valuable. However, the hon. member makes a good point, and that is that we have to be fiscally responsible when it comes to the cost of infrastructure and increased staff. We're starting with the issues that are most important to deal with in the short term. Through this process, which will be part of the discussion paper process, we will be better able to identify where it needs to begin.

We're going to have to assess the need and deal with it one step at a time and in a way that is achievable, given the need to be fiscally responsible.

C. Serwa: Still on the topic of water, organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the B.C. Wildlife Federation continue to express concern that there is no accommodation under provincial legislation for the legitimate use of water for fish or wildlife. I think we recognize that fish is fundamentally a federal area of control. The province has been allocated the responsibility, but under the British North America Act, for some reason fish are federal and not provincial in nature. As a province we control the water resources.

At the present time there appears to be no protection with respect to the legitimate use of water for fish and wildlife resources. These organizations would like some sort of comment from the minister that he is aware of this and that some accommodation will be forthcoming, perhaps in legislation.

Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the comment of the hon. member. I know that he is very familiar with the B.C. Wildlife Federation. As he is aware, I have extensive contact with them and with other groups concerned about water quality issues as they relate to biodiversity, and specifically as they relate to fish.

I would say in answer that every time I've had the opportunity to speak publicly on the issue of water I have put my name and what I've said on the record; that is, that we need to recognize the importance of fish and use of the water resource by fish to biodiversity issues and, therefore, their importance not only to economic issues and the way in which people make their living but also to lifestyle issues. There's a number of tremendously important issues that we need to address as we revise and update this legislation.

C. Serwa: Moving to another topic, earlier we discussed Boundary Bay at great length. The minister recognizes the importance of estuaries with respect to international obligations and not just national and provincial interests. There is a great deal of concern from conservationists about all of Boundary Bay in that the title to the foreshore rests within the Ministry of Lands at the present time, which is perhaps not the appropriate place for foreshore title to rest.

At this particular time we have a Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks who has the flexibility, through new legislation, to perhaps look at this particular issue and contemplate whether it would not be appropriate to convey the title to another government ministry, such as the Ministry of Environment, where there would be more confidence in the permanency of the utilization of that very important estuary area. Or perhaps title could be negotiated into the hands of an organization such as the Nature Trust of B.C.

Again, if we look at the long-term involvement and at the migratory birds and abundant raptors that frequent the area, the people in the lower mainland who recognize that as a rather wondrous place are vitally concerned. They are also concerned with the amount of land that's publicly owned. It is fundamentally agricultural land that was accumulated primarily for the purpose of development -- to expand the coal-loading facility or the ferry terminal. Perhaps other facilities could be utilized. As property values make it impossible to have those facilities elsewhere, it could start to compromise what is a very special piece of the province's environment.

Hon. J. Cashore: We're all aware that Boundary Bay is an area that has had a great deal of attention and is of great concern to the residents of Delta and Tsawwassen. We know that there are a number of issues that involve the study that is underway on the backup lands. There's the port corporation. And so many have put themselves on record as seeing agriculture and wildlife as the primary uses of the area. I know that people are anxiously awaiting the results of the studies that have taken place. Some of the studies are now complete; others are in the process of completion. There's a need to bring some of those findings together.

With regard to the issue -- hypothetically put, I guess -- of the responsibility for the foreshore lands being given to a different ministry, the fact is that this ministry is now incorporated as three, so it's a branch of a ministry. It's appropriate to say that the environmental ethic is present within all three of those branches of this ministry, as it is within other ministries of government. We need to be working to ensure that the Ministry of Environment is not the only pla