1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2875 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Mineral Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 51). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 2875

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Guno

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Clark

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Committee stage.

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2884

Mr. Miller

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Guno

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I note with some pleasure

the presence in the House this morning of a longtime friend of mine and

close observer of politics at all levels of government, Mr. Patrick

Palmer. I'd ask the House to welcome a very dear friend.

MR. BRUCE: In the House today are 30 grade 6 students from

Cowichan Station. I'd like to name all of the names, but.... They're

with their teacher, Mr. Hoag. They're here today to see the affairs of

this particular House in action. I'd like you all to join with me in

bidding them a very warm welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I was looking for the first member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). However, I understand transportation

difficulties have caused him not to be here at this time, so with that

said, Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 51.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 51; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Briefly to recap, this bill amends the

Mineral Act. It should really be called the mineral tenure act. It

amends it in such a way as to set up a new and specific regime for the

granting of claims in recreation areas which are not parks but of which

parts might in some future time become a provincial park. It sets up a

certain regime so that owners of new claims know what notice they will

be given to terminate their operations, or under what circumstances

they would be expropriated, and under what conditions. It is really

legislation that applies more directly to land management in the sense

of recreation areas and parks, but at the same time it provides greater

certainty insofar as the mining industry is concerned. Individuals or

companies that have existing claims will similarly have to be bought

out. Nevertheless, if the government of the day decides to change the

status of a recreation area to a park, automatically the claim-owners

are on ten years' notice; they have to either prove up their properties

or cease their interest altogether. If their properties have some

mineral potential, then they will be expropriated at the values

determined at that time.

Essentially that's the purport of the legislation and of these several clauses, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN: On

section 1, I wrote down one phrase that the Minister

of Energy used,"recreation areas which are not parks." The problem

we have with that is that there are several varieties of recreation areas. There

are recreation areas that are within parks but are no longer class A parks and

no longer technically parks. You have recreation areas that are contiguous to

existing class A parks. Thirdly, you have what I think the minister is referring

to, which are recreation areas that are in newly defined areas being considered

for potential park development. How, in this legislation or the Park Act, is

a separation or a distinction made between these different kinds of recreation

areas? Because if it's not made, then it seems to me that the rules apply

equally to all of these different kinds of recreation areas and different classifications.

I'd appreciate some clarification on this, either from the Minister of Energy

or the Minister of Environment and Parks.

HON. MR. DAVIS: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this

legislation applies to the new recreation areas, which are.... I'll

read the definition under 80(1):

"'Recreation area' means a recreation area or a

part of a recreation area. within the meaning of the Park Act, designated by

regulation of the LieutenantGovemor-in-Council, on the joint recommendation

of the minister" — that's the Minister of Mines — "and of the

Minister of Environment and Parks, as a recreation area in respect of which

this

section applies."

So essentially these are new areas. But I mentioned several new areas by name

in second reading.

[10:15]

MR. GABELMANN: I listened carefully to the minister in second

reading debate, and I understood that he did; he named Brooks

Peninsula, for example, and, I think, three other areas in British

Columbia. But neither the definition in

section 1 in the bill we're

debating nor the definition in the Parks Act makes any distinction

between new recreation areas designated by the Parks minister, some of

which are in new areas and some of which are extracted from existing

parks. There is no distinction made about the difference between those

kinds of recreation areas. We have an assertion, or a declaration, from

the minister that it only means one thing, but apparently there is no

legislative assurance of that — no assurance in law. Nor, as I read it,

is there any ability to write regulations based on the law that will

assure that what the minister asserts, particularly in his second

reading statement, will in fact be legally binding, or have legal

standing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll advise the committee that the

question as posed by the hon. member for North Island is legitimate,

and as I advised him earlier privately, the staff from the parks branch

are coming soon to the Legislative Assembly and will be providing for

him that distinction and how the distinction is in place. But if they

could perhaps continue with their debate and then their concerns, we'll

note them down so that an appropriate and technical comment and reply

can be made.

MS. EDWARDS: My question is in relation to this definition,

and I think I'll put it in now. It has to do with recreation areas, and

I ask the Minister of Mines, because it is related to your intention

about where mining can continue. I would like to extend and ask a

question, and I don't want to be out of order on this, but do the

recreation areas include the wilderness recreation areas? They don't

currently, I wouldn't say, by the definition there. But is it the

intention, or would the minister consider an amendment, to include the

forest recreation wilderness areas? I put the question forward because

in those areas they no longer allow logging; which as the minister has

said himself can be very destructive. He used

[ Page 2876 ]

the example of the Akamina-Kishinena area. And

certainly mining exploration can be very destructive of wilderness.

Would an amendment be considered to extend this to recreation areas

that are also under the Forest Act?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I would defer to the Minister of .Environment

and Parks as to the distinctions within the broad definition of

"recreation area."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the question raised by the member with

respect to that activity, that was done in a previous bill debated in

the spring, if I'm not mistaken. But I'll have that verified for you

shortly as well — in the Forest Amendment Act.

MS. EDWARDS: About the Forest Amendment Act, Mr. Minister,

mining activity was allowed to continue in the wilderness areas. I'm

suggesting that we reconsider this. Let's have the Mines minister

consider putting this into the Mineral Act amendment bill, and then

doing another amendment to the Forest Act under that situation. Because

we're talking about wilderness areas, and it is very difficult to

picture wilderness being wilderness when mineral exploration activity

is going on. In fact, the activities can go on under the Forest

Amendment Act, the Mineral Act, the Mining (Placer) Act, the Coal Act,

the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act or the Geothermal Resources Act. It

seems to me that that is not consistent with what is going on here, and

it would be consistent for the minister to extend the definition here

of recreation area, both within the meaning of the Park Act and the

Forest Act, and all it would take would be another minor amendment to

the Forest Act. It seems to be an inconsistency.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member is advocating a. crossover

between the Park Act and the forestry act. This legislation is related

to lands which could become a park and are recreation areas within the

meaning of the Park Act. So we are specifically dealing with parks and

not areas which, like the forest wilderness areas, are within the

Forest Act definition of wilderness area, and under other legislation.

MR. GUNO: My questions are going to focus on the consultation

process. The

section specifies the powers of the cabinet in

consultation with the Minister of Environment and Parks and the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to allow for miners

and recorded holders to explore and develop mineral claims within these

recreation areas. I want to focus for a moment on this consultative

process between the two ministers. I am concerned that the process may

be rather narrow and fragmented and would cater to very narrow

mandates. I wonder if the Minister of Energy would explain how this

process would relate to the present review process, which is stages 1,

2 and 3. Will it be a separate one? Will it parallel it? Will it have

an opportunity for public input into the whole decision-making process?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The simple answer is yes; the entire stage 1,

2 and 3 process will be followed. We're talking about recreation areas

which could at some time become part, or indeed all, of one of these

areas — a park. We're talking about the process of allowing mineral

claims to be established, allowing mining to take place in some

instances where there are mineral values. But all of the steps required

elsewhere in the province to protect the environment and otherwise

protect the public interest will of course be followed in these

instances.

The main thrust of this legislation, however, is to allow the

government to terminate exploration activity, mining activity, on the

occasion when one of these areas is decided by the government of the

day to become a park. There is the matter of ten years' notice, of

course, but we are putting the mining industry on notice in these areas

that in addition to the processes established for protecting the

environment, etc; there is this possibility and indeed probability in

some areas of the recreation area becoming a park and the operation of

the mining company being terminated.

MR. GUNO: In terms of evaluating the potential for mining in

these designated areas, you stated yesterday that the government then

has an opportunity to decide, having this information, I guess after

the exploration activities have been followed through.... "In other

words, we'll know whether there is mineral potential. We can, if the

mineral potential is substantial and recreation or park value minimal,

exclude these areas." I mean, that's fair enough; that's clear enough.

Then you say: "Alternatively, if we are assured that there is no

ongoing or at least substantial potential, those lands can forever be

proclaimed parklands." Now my question is in terms of another scenario:

if there was a relatively equal value, if you had a very first-class

potential for class A but yet had some fairly substantial mineral

potential, what factors would come into play? Would you not agree that

the ecological damage, or conservation, should be given equal weight

with economic and industrial dimensions? In other words, how is that

kind of conflict going to be decided upon and what opportunities will

the public have in terms of challenging or having some input in that

decision-making process?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think, realistically, if the commercial

values — mineral values on the one hand and, say, tourism and similar

measurable commercial values on the other — were roughly equal, the

subjective elements which weigh heavily on the side of environment,

ecology, preservation and wilderness and so on would first have a voice

through public consultation. But I would say that if those other values

were equal, that would weigh very heavily in the minds of those who

were making the decisions. It would in all of that area, that

particular few square miles, if that's the definition of the mineral

claim, become part of a park and not be mined for its mineral values.

MR. GUNO: I would want to hear what the Minister of Parks

would have to say about that kind of conflict and what his role would

be in that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As the member well knows, and if we look

at the Tener claim of some years ago, in weighing those values one

simply has to look at what type of geology the company can produce. If

it's very solid geology and if the cost to the taxpayer of British

Columbia is going to be extremely high, then we would have to let the

mining activity occur. I guess we make a judgment at that point, but

it's very difficult.

In the case of logging, you can cruise an area and you know what the

value is going to be. That can be determined quite easily to everyone's

satisfaction. In the case of my ministry, we say: "Yes, the cruised

value of the timber is

[ Page 2877 ]

such, but we think the park area value is higher."

So the government is prepared to go out and pay for that standing

timber to preserve it for recreation purposes and for the enjoyment of

people.

We make a determination that a vertical tree is worth more than a

horizontal tree, and establishing the cost of that determination is

quite easy to do. When you're dealing with something underneath the

ground, that becomes very difficult, and the courts have found it

difficult as well. But if the geology is such that we're looking at

millions of dollars, say, in trying to buy out an area, then we have to

make the decision to let the mining company proceed, because that huge

expense to the taxpayer of British Columbia would not be justified to

preserve an area for recreation purposes, if we can allow the mining

activity to occur, have proper reclamation and then convert back to

park.

MR. GUNO: To respond to that and pose a further question, I

think he's aware that our potential, or at least the potential for

wilderness parks, is fast diminishing. In fact. they are at a premium

now. Would that not be a big factor in deciding if there were equal

potentials for mining and for designating the area as class A? Would

that not be one of the big factors in determining class A park

designation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I

didn't hear that question. But I do have a comment I'd like to make to

the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) with respect to the

legislative concern he expressed earlier.

When we're dealing with a recreation area within a park, there will

be no new mining claims. There will be no mining, unless it's a claim

already in existence. When we're dealing with a newly formed contiguous

area or with newly defined recreation areas not contiguous to a park

but just standing alone, then we will make the decision based on the

geological evidence we have, as I explained earlier.

I regret that I'll have to ask you to repeat your last question.

[10:30]

MR. GUNO: I think the Minister of Mines talked about a

subjective kind of assessment that would be made in deciding whether or

not you would continue the mining activity or would designate it as a

class A park. You mentioned some of the factors that you would

consider. I'm asking: are you aware that the wilderness potential we

have is fast disappearing in British Columbia, and that this kind of

legislation would invite more mining exploration? As you said, if it's

valid or viable, then you've got it.

HON. MR. DAVIS: On the contrary, were we not to legislate

along these lines, we would find claims developing on the periphery,

let's say, of some of our present parks and certainly in areas that

could in future be designated as parks. Those claims would, if they

showed promise...no financial limit on the demands that could be placed

on the government of the day, on the treasury and so on. First, we're

alerting the industry: "You're in a recreation area." Second, at any

time, if the government so wishes, it can give you ten years' notice to

complete your exploration and establish whatever commercial values are

there. Then the likelihood is that you'll be expropriated, because we

the government of the day have decided that this will become a

full-scale park. So we're putting industry on notice — not only in

these new recreation areas but in future recreation areas — that this

process will occur and that a date will be set in the future if, as and

when the government of the day decides that that area should become a

park.

So there's an element of certainty introduced as far as the mining

industry is concerned, and I think it largely meets the industry

sector's requirement that it know the ground rules. But it's a process:

it's a sequence. It's a way of dealing with what otherwise could be a

claim lasting indefinitely into the future.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm seeking further clarification from the

Ministry of Environment. I'm comforted by your words, but I'd like to

see it in writing. How can the Legislature be assured that there is a

difference between recreational areas that are within parks or

contiguous with park boundaries? What specific regulation can you point

to that would show that these areas would be treated differently from

recreational areas that are standing on their own?

Can you give us information as to how many recreational areas there

are directly related to parks in some way, either in parks or

contiguous with the boundaries of existing parks as compared to

recreational areas that stand on their own?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With respect to the number within, there

are five or six; contiguous, there are four. In just a moment I'll

provide you with the legislative comfort.

Let me also say in response to my colleague the Minister of Energy,

Mines, Petroleum Resources in the instance of his ministry that this is

legislation that is tightening up the activity that can be taken by his

ministry or his constituency — the mining community.

In the case of my constituency — the park and wilderness

constituency — this is legislation that clearly expands our ability to

set in place recreation areas and does state to the extraction industry

how we are going to do that and how they will govern themselves when

operating within a designated resignation — a Freudian slip —

recreation area.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can I assume then, because the minister was

not forthcoming with information regarding recreational areas that

stand separate from parks, that there are none?

The minister says that the purpose of this legislation is to give

notice to the mining industry with regard to the rules for prospecting

and laying claims within recreational areas. The minister has

previously talked about the Tener case and referred to the government's

liability in connection with those claims.

What this legislation does, in essence, is tell the mining companies

that they can go out and prospect and they have a ten-year time-limit.

From what I can see here, the mining companies just have to rotate in

ten years. They just have to start a new claim. This isn't a ten-year

time-limit from today but a ten-year time-limit from the time of

initiating the claim. In other words, nine and a half years from now a

mining company could come along and stake a claim and they'd have ten

years from that time to prove that claim. It's an ongoing sort of

situation. If I'm wrong on that, I'd appreciate either one of the

ministers clarifying that.

Again, I'm looking for clarification as to the difference in the

treatment of recreational areas that are contiguous with parks or are

in parks and ones that are separate, if there are

[ Page 2878 ]

any –– I have further questions to the minister, if he will clarify this.

HON. MR. DAVIS: As to the timing, we are talking about areas,

some of which have already been proclaimed recreation areas, some of

which are contiguous to existing parks and some of which are not. Today

a mining company or individual can go in and establish a claim. That's

the situation today. They can continue to do so in these recreation

areas until the government of the day decides that that area shall

become a park. Then the whistle is blown, the clock starts running and

ten years can elapse during which the company can work on its claim,

establish whatever mineral values are there, establish if they are of

any consequence. Also the government can, if it wishes, do some surveys

of its own, geological and otherwise, to determine whether this has any

value. But clearly that area is going to be a park.

As the Minister of Environment has said, there are no recreation

areas within parks that will see any new claims or any mines. We're not

talking about areas within present parks; we're talking about new

recreation areas recently established or to be established in the

future, and we're setting up a certain regime that the mining industry

can fully understand and where the industry will be treated equitably.

If it puts any money into claims between now and the time it's decided

to convert the area into a park, they can recover that investment by

perhaps proving up what they had hoped would be a mine, or simply give

up.

MR. GABELMANN: We still don't have any clear definition in

statute of the difference between a recreation area that is newly

designated in a new area, for example Brooks Peninsula, and the

recreation area that sits in the middle of Strathcona Park, for

example. There is no difference between those two recreation areas as

far as statute is concerned. There is an assertion from both ministers

that in the Strathcona Park recreation area, existing claims can be

worked on and resolved one way or another, mined or quitted — if that's

the right word — but no new exploration can take place. In Brooks

Peninsula, exploration can take place and you may decide at some point

to start the ten-year clock ticking. But there is no statutory

difference between those two recreation areas.

I don't understand what would prevent, under the law, a mining

company from going in and exploring in a recreation area that happens

to be a former park; it's no longer a park, it's a recreation area. The

only thing that stops them right now is that they can't get permission

from the parks branch. But if we pass this legislation, what's to stop

them from doing it, and if they're challenged, going to court over the

case and saying: "This is a recreation area. We have the right. There's

no difference between these recreation areas. So what authority does

the government have to stop us from exploring in this recreation area

when we're allowed to explore in the other recreation area?"

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can appreciate the member's concern, and

he is correct: it's not spelled out by legislation. But what we have

done in terms of our own process and in terms of stopping what you

expressed as a concern — and I appreciate your concern — is an

order-in-council reserve over all areas. Before any activity can take

place, part of that OIC would have to be dropped to allow that. I can

assure you that under our current policies, and particularly with

Strathcona or any recreation area within a defined park, the Ministry

of Environment and Parks would not allow that. You know why: because

the public pressure would be horrendous, and you and I both know what

it is.

Although I can't give you legislative comfort at this point, I can

assure you that it is the expressed opinion and policy of this

government that there will be no new exploration within parks. Where

there are recorded claimholders, then we have to look at Tener and know

that if the geology is such that we're looking at a very expensive

expropriation, we cannot subject the taxpayers to that type of cost.

Where it's less money involved — in the case of a recorded claimholder

at present we're only looking at his initial exploration costs — we

will approach him, and we have a budget for that within the ministry,

to say: "We're prepared to grant you the costs that you've expended so

far in expropriation. Will you make a deal with us?" To that extent

we've been reasonably successful, and I think that we'd like to be more

successful in stopping that activity in recreation areas within parks.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to separate the Tener thing from this

current discussion. There's all kinds of legal opinion that says Tener

applies in the situation at Wells Gray and that alone, and doesn't

apply in Strathcona, but that's another issue. We've had that debate

before, and it's not appropriate under this section.

What is appropriate under this

section is a debate about what the

minister just said. The minister said that in recreation areas within

existing parks there is no legislative protection from future mining

exploration; not development of existing claims, but future mineral

exploration. The only protection against that is a declaration of the

minister and a current policy of the government expressed through an

orderin-council. That's not good enough.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

It's no wonder that people who are concerned about our parks express

a view which goes along these lines: we don't believe the government;

we don't trust the government; we don't believe it really means what

it's saying in respect of recreation areas within parks. If it really

meant it, it would bring in a law.

[10:45]

I don't understand, given all the time we've had, given an awareness

on the part of the Minister of Environment and Parks that this was an

issue for some time, given all the confusion that came out following

the first Friday, I think, in October when there was a briefing session

in Richmond for the whole question of the recreation areas, and given

the widespread belief in the community of people who are concemed about

our parks that in fact it was going to be wide open for exploration in

all recreation areas.... That was a widespread concern then. The

government has said it doesn't want that to happen; it only wants this

exploration — and the minister's been clear. I'm not quarrelling about

how clear both ministers have been in this debate. But there's clearly

widespread confusion and uncertainty and fear out there that this is

the policy today, but what's the policy tomorrow?

If, for example, a company, while working up a particular claim in a

recreation area in a park which it has a legitimate right under the

current rules to proceed with, discovers that there is an even richer

body right next door to its area, which

[ Page 2879 ]

it hasn't claimed and no one else has claimed, it

is going to come to the cabinet and say: "Look at this. This is going

to provide X number of jobs; this is going to provide untold wealth.

Allow us to extend our existing claim or allow us to do a new claim."

At the present time government policy, through cabinet

order-in-council, is to not allow that. But what public scrutiny will

there be of that request? What protection is there to prevent that kind

of request? None. Simply an order-in-council which can be changed every

Wednesday, or more often if you have a special meeting.

So I don't understand. I'm not questioning the sincerity of either

minister on this point; I want to make that clear. I'm not questioning

your sincerity when you state that you do not want further exploration

in the recreation areas in the parks. If in fact you want to make sure

that your policy is guaranteed, why don't you make the necessary

amendments, either through this particular bill or through some other

mechanism? I think it can be done through this particular legislation,

and I would urge the ministers to think about standing this down and

going back and looking at guaranteeing the protections that they argue

are in place and we know are not in place legislatively — the minister

has just agreed.

So let's go back, rework this legislation, put in the necessary

wording. It might mean that you have to define the recreation areas

differently; you're treating them differently. Let's set up a statutory

requirement that absolutely prevents mineral exploration forever in our

parks. It's bad enough that we're going to have development in those

parks now. But that's another debate. Let's make sure it doesn't happen

again. Let's make sure there are no future situations where the

pressure will be such that: "Well, we'll have to extend this particular

claim." We can do that legislatively. It might take a couple of days;

we've got that time in terms of working up the language.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The member is right in drawing a distinction

between law as passed through this Legislature word for word....

Orders-in-council, most lawyers contend, are also legislation. There

are orders- in-council which establish mineral reserves. The word

"reserve" really means reserving the land, the territory, from mining;

mining cannot occur, and exploration cannot occur. In the recreation

areas within parks — and there are very few of them, but the notable

one or two are in Strathcona Park — there is by orderin-council a

reserve or reserves which prevent any exploratory activity whatsoever

taking place outside historically and presently established claims.

Now the hon. member's concern is that at the whim of the cabinet

this reserve or a portion of the reserve could be lifted, and that's

true, but as far as I understand it, this government is committed to

maintaining that reserve indefinitely and hopefully over time to

extinguishing the existing claims. But there will be no opportunity —

and certainly that's policy — for mining companies or individuals to

establish new claims anywhere in the recreation areas within parks. The

reserve system ensures that that will be so.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd just like to respond to the member. My

cabinet colleague has agreed that we recognize your concern. But let's,

however, look again at the principle of this section. This is not

legislation that allows holus-bolus mining. As a matter of fact, had we

wanted to continue with that policy, we wouldn't have this act at all.

This act is in place to protect recreation areas, as they're defined

either in a current park or in a new recreation area that we want to

have. As my colleague said, it's got a time factor in it that blows the

whistle. The whistle is blown, if you notice, in

section 1(4)(b): "the

first publication of a notice, addressed by the Minister of Environment

and Parks to all free miners...." That's when the whistle blows.

So in fact we are not trying to court debate and opposition to our

policy in this legislation, but to assure the people of British

Columbia that we do have a policy for expanding recreation areas,

because that is clearly what we are doing. The minister spoke in his

second reading notes to all the new recreation areas we've established

— and they're extensive. By this Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

legislation, we are further stating what the regulations are going to

be with respect to recreation areas. I see this as a very positive move

on behalf of the government of British Columbia, and particularly my

ministry.

Suffice it to say that it would be nice to just turn our backs on

the whole problem. I'm sure the minister would be delighted not to have

legislation like this, because it restricts the activity of his

constituency quite dramatically. I think it's great. Maybe you think

it's only half a loaf and you'd like the whole loaf; nevertheless, this

legislation does protect the integrity of recreation areas. It does set

out for the public what we want to do and for the extraction community

how they're going to behave and handle themselves in our recreation

areas. So it's very positive from an Environment and Parks point of

view.

Just one more comment with respect to amendments. As I said earlier,

I'm not prepared to entertain any right now, but I can give the member

advance notice that there may even be a tabling of first reading of a

larger act — I'm advising you that as House Leader — during this

session by the minister. We may let it sit until spring and look at

amendments, because a lot of this will be in the new act that the

minister will be presenting. There could be a legislative remedy there.

I'm not promising anything, but maybe it's something we can look at,

because I do recognize your concern with respect to spelling it out in

the statutes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: You've just said that what this legislation

does is expand recreational areas in this province. You've referred to

this legislation as governing recreational areas both inside and

outside of parks, to quote you just a minute ago. What you've done with

this legislation is to compound a situation that is perceived by this

government to have been brought into play by the Tener case. What you

have done is, instead of cutting the government's losses — and I want

to make it verv clear that I do not agree with the government that the

iener case binds you in all claims — compounded the problem with this

legislation. It increases the liability the government has to pay out

existing claims because it invites prospecting and the establishment of

claims in recreational areas. What you have done by not bringing in

legislation that restricts prospecting in recreational areas in

connection with parks is to invite prospecting.

Clearly, this side of the House has voted against this legislation.

We will continue to do that

section by section, because you have chosen

not to bring in legislation that will allay the concerns of people in

this province who have been very disturbed by the government's actions

over the past year in regard to diminishing the value of our park

system and increasing recreational areas. You've done nothing to allay

[ Page 2880 ]

those concerns, except to suggest that there may be

legislation coming down the pike and that that legislation may address

our concerns.

Both of the ministers have said that orders-in-council are the only

devices you have to restrict activity in recreational areas in

conjunction with parks. Now I'm not a lawver, but I'm under the

impression that legislation has far more clout in the courts than an

order-in-council; that policy isn't something the citizens in this

province can take in their hands to a court case that would protect the

integrity of parks and connected recreational areas. If the government

is truly trying to cut its losses, as far as its liability in these

claims goes, then why not deal with this legislation before us? Why not

address the concerns that are expressed to us by the people who have

been so disillusioned by the government's actions in the spring? Why

not deal with legislative changes that make a difference between

recreational areas that are separate from parks and recreational areas

that are within or next to parks?

In addition to that, the Minister of Environment and Parks indicates

that he is trying to preserve the integrity of the park system by

bringing in legislation that will encourage protection. I see nothing

in this bill that would make any difference in the way of increased

environmental protection in the handling of mining or other such

industrial activity in parks. The Minister of Mines has clearly said

that the existing legislation will be in play. The existing legislation

is not good enough — I'm sure the Minister of Environment would agree

to that, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas, in areas that

are recognized as having some value. I say "recognized" because both

ministers have said that it is the intention to upgrade these

recreational areas to park status. That says to me that there is some

recognition of environmental sensitivity and value in those areas. Why

not increased environmental protection?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let's begin with the necessity for this

legislation. The necessity for this legislation is that we have added

three-quarters of a million hectares to the recreation area base in

British Columbia this year. Prior to that initiative by the Ministry of

Environment and Parks, that land was simply Crown land. We have added

750,000 hectares of recreation area. That would be....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll get the facts on that. The majority

is standing outside. It's an addition, hon. member, because this is in

fact an expropriation, if you will — an alienation to some degree by

the Ministry of Enrixonment and Parks of Crown land where any activity

can take place. We have to set up guidelines for the extraction

industry under which they are going to function, because the Ministry

of Environment and Parks has alienated or expropriated land for

purposes other than what was originally intended for lands on which

people thought they could undertake any activity. So we have added.

You talk about cutting the losses. I'll remind you again, hon.

members opposite — and this seems to be a basic failing in your

philosophy; but I don't want to get political, because this is a pretty

good debate so far — that governments don't have any money. Taxpayers

have money. You refer to cutting losses. I'd rather refer to it as

cutting expenses that you and I as taxpayers, and your constituents,

have to pay. If you want me to go in and buy out $5 million or $10

million claims to stop a mining activity that may disrupt the surface

and the area for five, seven or ten years, you make that point. But I

don't think you can consciously make that point on behalf of the

taxpayers of British Columbia or your constituents, because when it

gets very, very expensive and the rubber hits the road, you're going to

find out that that type of notion is quite unpopular. Remember,

governments don't have losses; the taxpayers do.

Thirdly, with respect to the handling of recreation areas and parks,

you're going to have to accept our regulations. I think they're quite

tight. As a matter of fact — and I can't discuss details now — the

ministry will be in court soon, unless we have a resolution on an

activity that's taken place that we're not too happy with. Sub judice

prevents me from saying more, but some of you might know the activity

I'm talking about in the area I'm talking about. I won't say any more

about that. But our regulations are extremely rigorous. They're tough,

they're demanding, and we think they satisfy the public interest with

respect to proper exploration in a recreation area.

[11:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to thank the minister for so generously pointing out where the money comes from. I assure him that was not necessary.

I again want to stress and have on the record that in this

legislation, rather than limit the activity in recreational areas,

rather than recognize existing claims and put restrictions on the

development of those claims or a time limit on the development of those

claims, what this government has chosen to do is invite more claims,

therefore increasing the liability, increasing the potential cost to

the taxpayers of this province.

If the government feels that it has responsibility to the existing

claims, then what the government has done is compound the problem,

increase the potential for tripling or quadrupling the liability that

the taxpayers of this province have in protecting their park system.

For that reason, this side is voting against this bill on behalf of

not only the heritage of the park system and the preservation of that

park system for the taxpayers, but also because we believe that we

should be limiting any potential liability to the people of this

province. What the government is doing is increasing the cost to the

taxpayers of this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I could eliminate that liability

immediately with a stroke of a pen by taking back — and, by the way,

the figure is 600,000 hectares free-standing — by rescinding all those

ministerial orders of those recreation areas. Then the public would

have no liability.

Now, Madam Member, can you honestly sit there and say you would

agree with my rescinding and taking away the designation of all the

newly established recreation areas? Would you rather have them returned

to Crown land? Can you nod your head or would you care to comment on

that? Because I'll do it. If you're so concerned about the public

liability, we can rescind all the designated recreation areas — 600,000

hectares this year. Do you want to see them just put back into Crown

land and not be recreation areas?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The process: as the hon. Minister of

Environment and Parks has said, this government and he as minister have

designated to the province as recreation area

[ Page 2881 ]

some 600,000 hectares of Crown land which were not

parks, were not recreation areas, were open to exploitation in various

ways, including mining.

First, those vast areas have been designated as recreation areas.

Still, that initiative alone would not have contained mining activity.

There are some existing claims in those areas, there are existing

claims in Strathcona Park, but this legislation puts the mining

industry on notice that at any time in the future — no dates mentioned

— the government of the day can state that ten years from now there can

be no mining activity.

If you want to establish values, you perhaps put some money into

your claim. If you want to establish values, you've got ten years in

which to establish those values. The wilderness committee in its report

advocated 20 years, not ten; so the government has reduced the timespan

in which the company or individual which has put some effort into a

claim can fully establish the value of that claim.

So here a new regime is being established, really setting up

guidelines for the mining industry — mining activity, exploration

activity, which might have occurred anyway. Now they know that they're

on notice. At some date in the future, which might be tomorrow or might

be 20 years from now, that area can be designated as a park.

All of this is positive from the bon. member's point of view. I

can't see why she would vote against the legislation. The legislation

is obviously in the direction she would like us to go. Perhaps she

would rather we legislate as of today that those wilderness areas are

parks — I mean, that's really what she is saying — and that from now on

there can be no claims and so on.

What seems to be missing in this debate is the recognition that

claims that exist still exist until the owner of the claim is bought

out. Just like your home exists; it's still your home until it's bought

and paid for by someone else, including the government. The

expropriation of past claims is something else. We're dealing with

future claims.

Recreation areas within parks: substantially there is only one group

of recreation areas within parks, and they're within Strathcona Park.

They are tightly drawn around the present mining activity. The mines

there are a fact; they're there. But there is very little area around

them which is recreation area in which they could conceivably establish

further claims. By order-in-council we have precluded those mining

companies in Strathcona Park from establishing any more claims close by

their existing mining operation.

So the order-in-council concern of the hon. member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann) is related to Strathcona Park only, a very small area

around existing mining activity, and we are telling him that it is

government policy not to revoke the mineral reserves in that very small

and limited area.

So let's not be misled by the reference to orders-incouncil. This is

law; it's up front; it's in front of you now; it's positive. It's in

the direction you want to go, and you should vote for it, not against

it.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Minister of Advanced

Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) has requested leave to make

an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's with a great deal of pride that I stand

in the House today, as the MLA from Comox and Qualicum, to introduce to

you some friends from the Kwalikum Secondary School. We have with us

today Mr. Art Skipsey and Kay Howard, teachers, and about 60 grades 9

to 12 students from Kwalikum Secondary School. Would the House please

help me in bidding them welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry that the Minister of Mines doesn't

understand why we're voting against it. I believe we have made our

concern very clear. Both ministers have recognized that concern is

valid. Now the Minister of Environment says that they have created

600,000 acres of recreational areas....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hectares. Multiplied by 2.5.

MS. SMALLWOOD: ...hectares of recreational areas in the

province. According to the numbers I have, almost half that again is

within the parks area or connected to park boundaries. That is

specifically our concern. The area that I have for recreational areas

in this province is 1,100,000 hectares. So almost half again that value

of land is in or connected to our parks system.

Our primary concern with this legislation is protection of the

recreational areas that are in conjunction with parks right at this

time. In addition, we are concerned that you have not brought in any

legislation that increases the protection of that area and that you

have instead invited more activity and indicated to the mining

companies by your prospect legislation that thev are welcome in those

recreational areas and that the only threat to them is that when you

plan to upgrade those areas to parks — having downgraded them just a

few months ago — they then have ten years to prove their claim or face

expropriation.

That seems to me to be very clear. That is a fundamental flaw in

this legislation. You have done nothing to protect the parks system.

You have done nothing to protect the environment, in the way of

additional legislation, recognizing the environmental sensitivity. And

you have done nothing to cut the cost to the people of this province

should they ever get to the point of having to expropriate those

claims. But what you have done again — and I'm reiterating what has

already been stated on this side — is increase the cost to the people

of this province. You have brought before us a piece of legislation

that I would call a prospect act and not a mineral act at all.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think you'd call this a prospect

act if you were a prospector, because it is stated here that it is

pretty rigorous. They have time limits. The whistle blows, as my

cabinet colleague said, and it's a very good notice to the extraction

community.

I don't know how many times I have to say this: we have added

extensively to the recreation area in the last year. I am quite proud

of it. It was land that could have been mined at any time. You're

saying shame because we've added? That's interesting. The environment

critic says shame because we've added 600,000 hectares in recreation

area. That is interesting. However, the record is there; the land was

added to recreation areas. It has its protection. There's a time limit

on the extraction activity that can occur, and I don't know what else

we can say.

[ Page 2882 ]

MR. GUNO: In response to that, I think the concern is not so much the quantum of hectares or the size, but really the quality.

But I want to focus on the clarification of the expropriation

provisions in this legislation. According to subsection 4, "the powers

of expropriation conferred by

section 11 of the Park Act are not

exercisable in relation to that recreation area until 10 years after

the occurrence of the later of the following events: (

a) the evaluation

of the mineral potential...." and the first publication of the notice

addressed to all free miners having resource use permits.

The minister stated yesterday that it was the wilderness committee's

recommendation last year that mineral exploration be allowed for a

limited period on lands which could be designated class A parks. Ten

years has a nice, elegant ring to it, but I wonder if the minister can

provide a more detailed rationale for that period. Connected to that,

would the minister not agree that in excluding the appropriation for

ten years, the government's ultimate weapon for controlling bad

corporate citizens — the right to cancel or take away those permits for

exploration — would be effectively taken away?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Today in these areas, 600,000 hectares, any

individual or company can establish a claim. They work on the claim to

the extent that they put their own money, time and effort into it. They

establish an interest. In effect, it's property. This government

recognizes those efforts. It's employment. It may lead to a useful

mining activity; it may not. Nevertheless, it becomes an item owned by

a free miner, a company or a prospector. The hon. member is really

talking as if those efforts could be expropriated overnight for a

dollar. The fact of life, at least following the policy of this

government, is that if we wish to stop mining or extinguish the claim,

we buy out that operation. We may have to have an independent

evaluation made, but the individual or company that has put that effort

into that claim in that area will be bought out.

[11:15]

The point of this legislation is to put future claimants on notice

were a prospector looking at a possible ore body in one of these

recreation areas, I would be a bit concerned. This recreation area is

under this new legislation. The government, at any time, can suddenly

say: "You've got ten years to prove it up to any value, and we're going

to expropriate you anyway, so you do what you think best. We can

expropriate you within that time limit." It's not like old claims,

which cannot be expropriated out of hand. These will be expropriated,

and they will be expropriated under different guidelines because notice

is given right now, the day this legislation is proclaimed law, that a

government at any time can declare that there's only ten years left in

which to prove up the ore body or, if it isn't attractive, simply

forget it right now.

It does, on the one hand, limit the exposure of the people of

British Columbia to having to buy out these operations. It does cause

anyone who goes into these recreation areas with the idea of mining to

think twice about whether they should go in or not. It doesn't, as the

hon. member previously said, entice them in. It simply tells them:

"Look, there is some degree of risk here which is in addition to the

usual risks of whether or not you find useful ore."

It certainly recognizes property values, and it will treat

prospectors and miners fairly in the future. But the area is a

candidate park area. It may never become a park, but nevertheless they

are under the risk that the government at any time may give them ten

more years to prove up whatever they have there and then get out.

MR. GUNO: I just want to go a little further on that and

explore exactly what you mean by saying that once the notice has been

given, then the mining company has ten years to prove up. Is it not

that once the ten years is given, you have in effect designated this

particular area as a class A park at the expiration of ten years; or

does it mean that if he can prove that there is mineral potential, then

it's not?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There are various scenarios. But let's assume

that there has been very little work put into this rock face, if that's

what we're looking at. The prospector or the company has ten years.

They may, under some circumstances — the most hopeful of circumstances,

as far as they are concerned — find a valuable mine, a Sullivan mine

for example. Yes, the clock has started to run; in ten years that's

going to be a provincial park. But I can well imagine the government of

the day, ten years after the whistle blew, looking very hard, or

reviewing the boundary of the park, and saying,"Well, you know, that's

an incredible resource for the people of the province; there's a lot of

employment," and so on. So the park boundary might be changed. But for

the vast number of claims, as the hon. member well knows, they're high

on hopes and very low on realization.

We're dealing, I think, with the great majority of cases here. But

there could be the rare exception, where a Sullivan mine was found to

exist. And I think the hon. member would agree that perhaps that would

be good news for everybody.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to explore the question a little

further. It seems to me that it could be, let's say, a declaration of

faith if the government said, when the legislation were proclaimed:

"This is your ten years' notice." Recreation areas, as far as I've been

able to determine.... I've made an attempt to be fairly clear on what

recreation areas are, what they mean. I've been told consistently — and

I really haven't heard anything that changes my mind over this, I don't

think, so I would like clarification — that recreation areas are

destined to be parks. If they are destined to be parks, why not

declare, when the legislation is declared, that this is your ten years'

notice? I'll leave it at that for the moment until I get an answer.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think the member is right. The legislation

says, though, that these are recreation areas. The hon. Minister of

Environment and Parks may want these recreation areas to inevitably

become parks, but this legislation does not say that these recreation

areas are inevitably to become parks. The chances are that large parts

of them, or perhaps all of them, in the fullness of time will become

parks, but for the moment it's possible to stake claims in these areas.

We are merely establishing a mechanism for dealing with those claims,

on the assumption that at some point in time, in some of these areas,

the government of the day will decide: "This will be a park."

It isn't right to say that inevitably every last hectare of these

recreation areas will become a park; certainly not in the next ten or

20 years. The hon. member suggests that instead of this legislation, we

should simply legislate that ten years from now these recreation areas

are a park. Well, that's like

[ Page 2883 ]

establishing an extension of the park right now. It

would also be saying that no one can go in and establish a claim. You

would then deal only with existing claims. That decision has not been

made by this government.

This government has decided that for the moment Crown lands which in

these last 12 months have been declared recreation areas are still open

to exploration by prospectors and mining companies, and so on; but that

there is a mechanism now in place, in law, for all to read, whereby we

can deal with these people, treat them fairly, and make sure that their

activities cease when the government of the day decides the recreation

area becomes a park.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Also to the member, there is a process in

place where the Ministry of Environment and Parks will be funding the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to do mineral

surveys, to find out what the value is. To set the clock running right

now I don't think would be appropriate to the taxpayer of British

Columbia, for my purposes or for the purposes of the mining industry.

We want to do some surveys and studies, and we are doing that now.

That process is in place to establish what the real mineral value is,

if there is any. If there is none, then we have no problem in going

ahead and setting the clock running and, as we state in the section,

publishing a notice to all free miners. That blows the whistle and

begins the clock running. But I don't think we can leap into this thing

right now on this day, or on proclamation day, and say that these

600,0000 acres are within ten years totally alienated from the

extraction industry.

MS. EDWARDS: I certainly would like to clarify to the

Minister of Energy that I didn't expect that I was going to get the

answer that in ten years all recreation areas would be parks. What I

was suggesting was a ten-year limit on anyone who did file a claim.

That would, in a sense, give a better time-limit than the limit that

you say you're putting on now, where in fact in some areas somebody

could stake a claim now and have an unlimited length of time almost. As

you say, inevitable can be a very long way down the line.

It seems to me that at least there is the indication that you intend

to use this ten-year period fairly extensively — and more extensively

than you have said so far. Right now it's a very weak weapon, I think,

in the sense that when we decide to declare, we will tell you ten

years. That's a long time to do park planning. I certainly am not

against long-term planning, but I do think that if you want to be able

to do planning within a reasonable length of time — as far as parks are

concerned — and perhaps extend, that would be a possibility. However, I

am more concerned with probing again to the Minister of Mines on the

definition of recreation areas.

As the member on this side particularly interested in recreation, I

would like to not accept your answer that the definition for recreation

area has simply so far been the parks branch. When you indicate the

attitude you have toward recreation areas that are under the Park Act,

why would you not consider including recreation areas — particularly

recreation wilderness areas — in the definition, particularly when

logging has not been allowed in there, which is another extractive

industry that creates some havoc and is not allowed? Why would the

recreation areas, which are defined under a different act, not be

included here?

HON. MR. DAVIS: This legislation deals with minerals; it

deals with mining, so this will add clauses to the mining legislation

which gives notice to miners. This isn't the Forest Act; this isn't

giving notice to foresters. So the bill is cast in these terms. It

doesn't deal with the whole matter of extractive industries in a

prospective park area; it only deals with the mining aspect and it

deals with it within the confines of the Mines Act. That's why it

doesn't address forestry wilderness areas, for example.

I think to go over the regime again, these areas are new areas. They

aren't existing parks. They are possibly parks or prospective parks.

The mining companies and prospectors can still go in and establish

claims if they meet all our other requirements. Their main uncertainty

is when the whistle will blow, and they then have ten years to prove up

what they have or forget it.

At the same time the government has an opportunity to go in and do

its own independent evaluation on mineral resources and then reach a

conclusion and make a settlement. It's simply a regime which the mining

industry can live with in areas where there may already be some claims.

Essentially we're dealing with future claims. We're really limiting, I

think, the number of future claims which will be made in those areas.

We're facing up to the fact that there may well be claims and there

may well be some mineral values, and we don't know all we might

eventually know about those areas. The hon. member says: "Why not ten

years now?" Over the next ten years there may not be developments in

technology in the market for minerals which could occur in later

decades, and the view of things may well change as to what is of

economic value and what is not.

Again we've tried to roll with technology, roll with time, but to be

firm and definite to the mining industry; to tell the mining industry

exactly what the rules are in these new recreational areas and that

when the whistle blows, they're under a ten-year limit — the wilderness

committee recommended 20 — in which to prove it up or forget it, and

the government likewise to prove whether or not they have values and

settle with those companies that are going to be extinguished.

MS. EDWARDS: To the Minister of Mines again. As you say, this

bill deals with minerals and with mining, and that's why I am

concerned. Considering what the minister has said about his regard for

the environment and his recognition that recreation areas have a

certain status — that's my question. It does deal with mining, and it's

the mining exploration in the recreation areas that I'm suggesting be

expanded. Why do you deal only with recreation areas because they're

under a certain act? Why not deal with recreation areas that are

defined under the acts in the province, where this provincial

government has said that we want to set aside this kind of land for

recreational use? It seems to me that that would be consistent.

[11:30]

HON. MR. DAVIS: In developing this legislation, there's been

considerable consultation, not just with the mining industry, as one

might expect, but with environmental groups and certainly with

officials in Environment and Parks. We've had a number of

interministerial discussions. I would have thought the hon. member

would have agreed that we have leaned over backwards in the direction

of readying lands

[ Page 2884 ]

for possible park designation. While I think the

mining industry now will say it was consulted, if the mining industry

were frank it would say,"Here's another large

section of the province

which is really denied to mining activity for the long term; the

government has simply set up a process which gives us notice," and

grudgingly they're going along with it. They are consulted, but I would

like to assure the hon. member that environmental, park and

recreational concerns have been given full weight in all the

considerable discussions that have gone on preparatory to this

legislation.

MS. EDWARDS: To the Minister of Mines again. Are you saying

that you did not consult with the mining industry about wilderness

recreation areas; that the recreation areas that you talked about are

only these, and that's perhaps the reason why it's not here?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, I didn't say that. We have consulted with

the mining industry. I can't say we have the mining industry's

endorsement, but certainly we wouldn't be asking the mining industry

about whether a given area should or should not be designated a

recreation area. That's a much broader concern, of course, and that

certainly was a given when we talked to the mining companies: just what

would be their reaction to this kind of legislation. It really is:

"Well, at least you've given us some notice." But also we are

extinguishing their longer-term claims; we won't have claims that go on

in perpetuity any more in these areas — not newly created ones.

Sections 1 through 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 61, Mineral Amendment Act, reported complete without amendment

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 59.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 59; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 5.

MR. MILLER: I do have some difficulty because the minister

responsible for the First Citizens' Fund, and the one who presumably

could answer questions that I have on the amendment, is not in the

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have within our standing orders a vehicle

whereby this can be set forward until later, if it's agreeable to both

sides of the House.

MR. MILLER: I'm capable of talking for a bit if the minister

is on his way, Mr. Chairman. But there are some serious questions that

need to be asked about the operation of the First Citizens' Fund and

the changes that are being proposed, and the shortcomings that I see in

the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you could proceed then, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: I think there might be some confusion in the

ranks of the government members as to the order of business this

morning. We will be debating sections 5 and 6; hopefully we'll be able

to finish those by noon. This afternoon we'll be onto

section 7. So the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) may want to take advantage of that.

I see that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) is here, so that's appropriate for

section 5.

MR. MILLER: I had started to outline some of my concerns with

respect to the amendment. I should say at the outset that I'm not

opposed to devising a scheme whereby loans could be made available.

Clearly there's a problem now in terms of individuals on reserves being

able to obtain loans. One of the principal reasons, of course, is that

they can't put up their property as collateral; the property is common

property of the band, and no individual on band land can say, "I'm

going to mortgage my property in order to get money," for whatever

purpose.

From my understanding, the First Citizens' Fund is inundated with

requests for grants. I would say that it is probably not large enough

at this point to meet the requests that are coming in. I have some

concern that by using some of the money in the form of loans there will

be even more pressure on the fund, and it will be even more ineffectual

in terms of its original purpose, which was to provide funding for a

variety of purposes for our first citizens. Perhaps the minister could

just comment on that question, and I have some others.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I suppose we could have quite a long

argument or discussion about how much money is in the fund and what the

purposes of that money are. Those moneys that are lent under this new

amendment to the fund will be returned and will be a revolving loan

from the fund. Certainly there are lots of applications to the fund.

Some of them, quite frankly, are a little frivolous, but they're not

dispensed with by me. They are dispensed by first citizens who sit on

the board of the fund. Remember, it is native people who make the

recommendations to me for those particular grants that go forward. It's

from them that this original idea and recommendation came that we be

able to make loans to those people who would like to have them.

If we develop a loan portfolio over two or three years, the thing

can probably be self-sustaining on that basis. If you assume that most

of the loans are paid back, and I have no reason to think that they

won't be paid back — the people who are borrowing the money certainly

intend to pay it back — then we'll actually have accomplished two aims.

That's not to say that at the same time I might not be requesting

additional assistance or topping up of this particular fund, but that's

a subject for another discussion.

One of the other points you made is that when a native person goes

to borrow money, their property can't be enjoined by someone lending

them money. Neither can their property be seized. Therefore, if they

are making a loan, even

[ Page 2885 ]

a conventional loan for a piece of machinery or

something of that nature, which is clearly commercial and outside of

the scope of the kind of funds that would normally be made available

under the First Citizens' Fund.... What we're trying to do is to be

able to assist native people who want to get into some kind of

production of whatever kind of goods they want to do. They might have

great difficulty making that argument to their colleagues who say: "No,

we'd like this to be used for more specific purposes." I think I've

canvassed the area as well as I can, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: I could understand why there would be a request

for access to money that could be loaned to native Indians. But in a

sense there's a real danger here that the original intent of the fund

could be subverted and in fact turned into, instead of an original....

I think it was originally $25 million that was put in trust, and the

moneys from that were used for grants. We could be turning the First

Citizens' program into some kind of quasi-bank in terms of lending

money to native Indians. I'm not certain that that jibes with the

original intent of the establishment of the First Citizens' Fund by, I

believe, W.A.C. Bennett.

In that context I have some concern because of remarks made by the

Premier during the privatization debate. I want to clear up any

misunderstanding that may be out there with respect to those remarks,

because as I interpreted the Premier's remarks, he was somewhat

critical of moneys that had been spent to establish economic

development initiatives. Principally the two instances that the Premier

cited were the Port Simpson cannery and the Bums Lake Native

Development Corporation sawmill.

Perhaps the minister could advise me if I'm incorrect, but I clearly

got the inference from the Premier's remarks that he was saying it

would have been preferable to put money into welfare or social programs

rather than into these projects that are now proving very useful in

terms of jobs for people, paycheques and the kind of boost in morale

and general improvement in community life that comes from having access

to that kind of economic development.

When I bring that back to the amendments you are making to the fund,

I have a very great fear that it dovetails in with the Premier's

remarks. I hope I'm not straying too much beyond the amendment by

asking: is this it? Is it the govemment's policy now not to fund any

more of those kinds of activities like Burns Lake and Port Simpson, but

simply to change somewhat the original intent of the First Citizens'

Fund and to make loans out of that fund to individuals? That, in the

overall context, is not going to achieve the kind of thing that I think

needs to be achieved in these economically depressed areas which really

require major funding of economic development initiatives. Clearly the

government has a role to play in that regard.

The government has said publicly that it doesn't subscribe to the

concept of aboriginal title, that it's none of the government's

business and it is not going to get involved, unlike the federal

government that has provided core funding. An example — and this is a

concept that I think would be much better for the minister to bring to

this House than a simple amendment saying we can loan money from the

First Citizens' Fund — is the Tillicum business development fund that's

controlled by the North Coast Tribal Council, where core funding is

made available to a tribal council, who in turn can loan that out to

businesses and individuals for the development of a realistic business

enterprise.

Is it intended. Mr. Minister — is this the government policy — that

this amendment will really do all the job that's required in terms of

providing that kind of support to native Indians and to some of the

economically depressed communities? Is what the Premier says a fact.

that that's the extent, that you don' t believe in greater funding for

larger economic development initiatives?

[11:45]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to offend

the rules, and I'm afraid that my colleague opposite is tempting me to

offend the rules, because he'd like to get into a debate on subjects

which are not currently before this committee for discussion. We are

only discussing this particular minor amendment in the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act to the First Citizens' Fund act. As I said

yesterday and will repeat again today, this is merely broadening the

scope for this one particular aspect of the way the provincial

government has assisted the native community and will continue to

assist it.

Now your questions on policy and your questions on matters you wish

to discuss with the Premier and on his statements I think should be

canvassed in this assembly at a different time and not during this

particular debate. I'm not interested in getting involved in a policy

debate right now, because I don't think it's appropriate — perhaps

during my estimates or at some other time it may be more appropriate.

But this is not to be considered the only assistance we will be

making available to native people; it's merely to allow us, under the

First Citizens' Fund, to have a little more flexibility in the way the

funds are made available to native people.

MR. MILLER: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I do think

that my question relates to the bill, because it's a very valid

question to ask the government when they bring in an amendment to a

program or to the First Citizens' Rind, which has been up till now a

fund that is given out in the form of grants for various requests made

by native Indians. The government is proposing to change that so that

the First Citizens' Fund becomes a lending institution, and it's quite

valid for me to ask: is that all?

Now the minister could clear it up by saying that he disagrees with

what the Premier said and that this is very minor; that this isn't the

extent of the kind of funding that should be made available. The

Premier made some very serious statements in this House, and when the

Premier speaks, I assume he speaks for the government. He chose the

opportunity of the privatization debate to make the remarks; therefore

he must have considered them quite seriously. I got the suggestion from

the Premier that that's it as far as native Indians go; all they're

going to get is a minor change to the First Citizens' Fund, and there

will be no other programs.

If the minister doesn't want to answer that, I could ask him what

the maximum loans are that would be available under the amendment to

individuals or businesses.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's yet to be determined. Obviously it

would be based on the recommendations of the committee. Successful

kinds of programs that have existed in the small business and small

loan areas often involve very minor amounts of money — in the $10,000

to $15,000 range that some of these people need for startup. I will

look forward to recommendations coming forward from the committee, and

perhaps if the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) wants to add

[ Page 2886 ]

a few things.... At this point, it's obviously not

a multimillion-dollar loan portfolio, because it doesn't have that kind

of flexibility. But some of the people are saying to us: "We'd really

rather have a loan than a grant; can't you make it flexible and allow

us to have a loan that we could pay back so that other people could use

the money?" That's really all we're trying to do in this particular

amendment.

MR. GUNO: I'm glad to make a few points on this. I'm

interested to hear the minister refer to a number of individuals who

have called for this kind of lending institution. I think that that

kind of program is much needed.

I am concerned, however, about the effect of this amendment. I note

this minister's comment that's it's minor, but I think for the native

people it's very serious because it changes the whole complexion of the

program. I'm concerned because it is taking away a very valuable

resource for Indian communities and reserves to fund cultural,

recreational and social events. Very often these are communities or

individuals who are so poverty-stricken, who have so very little

resources to fund these sorts of events and programs, that the First

Citizens' Fund does provide a very valuable resource for them. So to

dilute that by also opening it up as a lending institution without any

significant increase in the funding level is, I think, to render it

almost impotent in terms of meeting these kinds of programs. The demand

is reflected in the incredible amount of applications every year, as

you are probably aware.

You refer to the fact that First Citizens' is administered by a

board comprised of a number of Indian individuals. That's another

question. The northern communities feel that they're not part of that

process, that the makeup of that board is heavily weighted towards the

south. Like our white brethren, northern natives also feel somewhat

alienated from some of the things that go on in the south.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I'm going to try to get some Tahltans

on the board, and then perhaps they'll look at people as far south as

Prince Rupert as southerners — as they do; you're right. We are

constantly rotating people through that board. We don't want to have a

static board. I've been trying to get a balance of people from

different parts of the interior.

One of the good examples of this thing is.... If I look back at what

we've done in the past in terms of outright grants, in some cases we've

made grants to small businesses that have become successful. They could

have repaid the loan. The money could have been recycled. There are

quite a few examples of that. Port Alberni has a very good example of a

small business being started off by a First Citizens' Fund grant. How

much better that would have been had it been a loan. Then we could have

had the money replaced to the fund and gone out to start another one.

Sometimes they're not always going to be successful, but many of them

have been.

You're right, there are an awful lot of applications. Some of them

are for different things. Some of them are cultural or educational, but

some of them are commercial. Quite frankly, I think there are a lot of

times when these people could.... If that commercial grant had the

opportunity to be a loan and they became commercially successful, then

that loan should be repaid to the very fund it came from, not to

general revenue or to anything else. If it came back to the fund, then

it would end up helping one more community.

MR. GUNO: I just want to follow up on that. I don't have any

argument about setting up a kind of commercial lending institution for

native people. I think — and I've said this before — that it is a very

much needed kind of program. For a province that has the second-largest

native population, we're quite stingy as far as providing these kinds

of resources for native people is concerned. There are native

entrepreneurs who would want to have this kind of resource, because, as

you say, their capacity to borrow from banks is somewhat limited

because of the fact that they're somewhat immune from the usual

collection process.

I think if we're going to create those kinds of lending institutions

for native entrepreneurs, then it should be significant — not just

dipping into an already limited resource which is providing very

valuable funds for communities that cannot otherwise afford.... Like

Good Hope Lake, for instance — it's not even a reserve; it's a

community that's somewhat in limbo. It's in the northern part of my

riding. They've been working for the last two years, trying desperately

to raise funds just to have an ice rink for the young people, to have

some kind of alternative to the drinking patterns going on in those

communities. So the First Citizens' Fund does provide a valuable

resource for those kinds of communities.

I think if we're serious about providing a resource for native businessmen, then let's make it more significant.

MS. EDWARDS: I just have a concern that I wanted to put

forward from the area council from my constituency. They point out to

me that the First Citizens' Fund can give allocations of anywhere from

$3,000 to $25,000, and their experience indicates that there may have

been a limitation put on — that it's only $3,000 grants that come out.

They ask me to ask you to assure that because in fact we now have a

different way of allocating.... They're not against having loans made

as well as grants. But can you, assure the House that there will be no

limitations or policy directions put on it, and also that when the

money begins to come out as loans there will not be pressure to

continue that limitation to keep the allocations at the very low end of

the scale?

HON. MR. ROGERS: There is always pressure on this particular

fund, but in some of the applications that have come forward before the

committee, committee members have said: "You could go and borrow this

money. You don't need to have it as a grant." In fact, they can't go

and borrow it, because it can't be enjoined.

Quite simply, we just said: "Let's try and adjust this thing so we

can allow them to borrow some money when, in the committee's opinion,

the business opportunity is viable and flexible." Some of the loans

will undoubtedly be turned into grants, but wouldn't it be nice if they

had the opportunity to repay those loans and have the money recycled?

That's all we're trying to do. The rest of the program is not to be

changed.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, there are a number of questions

flowing out of the change, particularly the lack of guidelines. We're

taking a fund that has been a grant fund, one that has a board of

directors comprised of native Indians who review requests that come in

and make decisions about which ones to grant. That's a difficult enough

process. We're

[ Page 2887 ]

now proposing to change it into the smallest

lending institution in British Columbia. There's a little less than $2

million in capital.

Why didn't the minister establish guidelines? What consideration has

been given in terms of lending money? Are there to be other primary

sources of loans before loan applications are accepted by the First

Citizens' Fund? Is there a certain percentage of the less than $2

million that will be allocated to be used as loans?

Most of the applications that I'm aware of come in for a variety of

reasons. For example, a tournament that's famous in British Columbia,

the All-Native Basketball Tournament in Prince Rupert, is held every

year and bands come from all over the north coast to participate in

that tournament. A lot of those are funded through the First Citizens'

Fund. They are clearly not repayable. Are people now applying for

grants going to be told that they should borrow part of the money?

Lastly, you are taking a board that has been used to dealing with

giving out grants, and dealing with some sensitivity because they are

native Indians and they have some familiarity with their community, and

you're saying to them: "You're now going to be a lending institution."

Is there going to be backup staff? How are these applications going to

be screened? Are there good ones or bad ones? Is it a good loan or a

bad loan? Are you going to make more backup staff available to the

board so that they can make those determinations?

It seems to me that a whole host of questions flow from the

amendment. I don't know if it's really good enough to say: "We'll make

the decision first and figure that out later." There seems to be some

problem in British Columbia now with that kind of approach to

government. Could the minister answer those questions? I'll have to

read Hansard , if I can apologize in advance to the minister, but I do have a call in my office.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Before you go, I hope you have an

opportunity to also know that the International Aboriginal Indoor

Soccer Tournament is being held over the last three or four days, and

the final is tonight. We are assisting, not under the First Citizens'

Fund. But not only is the basketball tournament very well done; they

now have visitors from Australia. It's a very active program that's

taking place. This is totally out of order, but I thought I'd mention

it since you're interested.

I'm looking to the board to make the guidelines. I'm going to look

to the board of directors to make the guidelines. I'm going to look to

the board of directors to make the tough decisions on whether it should

be a grant or a loan. I'm not going to tell them that I have all the

answers to all the subjects. We haven't determined what percentage of

the fund would be going to loans as opposed to grants, but I would

imagine it would be probably less than 10 percent.

Based on that, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise — unless you want to let it go through?

Section 5 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada