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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 23

[ Page 6935 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Hon. J. Cashore: This week has been proclaimed Environment Week in British Columbia. Therefore I would like to invite all members of the House to join me in welcoming and warmly congratulating nine individuals and organizations whose outstanding contributions to the environment are being recognized this year through the 1993 minister's environmental awards. These award recipients will be guests of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor at a special awards ceremony at Government House this evening.

Ms. Marjorie McGee and Ms. Glenna Cheesman are here on behalf of the late Gayle McGee of Nanaimo, who is being honoured with a posthumous award in the individual citizen category. Ms. Laurie MacBride of Gabriola Island is also the recipient of an award in the individual citizen category. Ms. Leba Rubinoff and Ms. Rina MacKillop are from the Environmental Youth Alliance, which is receiving the youth group award. Ms. Ruth Foster, Mr. Rod MacVicar and Mr. Jim Mattson represent the Centennial School salmon project of Coquitlam -- that's in my riding -- which is also receiving a youth group award.

Kelli Speirs and Candace Gordon from the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society of Maple Ridge are being recognized in the organization category.

Mayor Anne Fiddick and Councillor Dan Rye represent the village of Gold River, which has achieved a 65 percent reduction in solid waste going to landfill; they're receiving an award in the community or municipality category. Mr. Jerry MacDonald and Ms. Sharon Lamontagne-MacDonald are here from the Cariboo Observer of Quesnel for the media award. Not present this afternoon but also receiving awards are Ballard Power Systems Inc. of North Vancouver in the business or industry category, and Dr. Milt McClaren of Kelowna for his contribution to environmental education in British Columbia.

These citizens reflect the high level of environmental awareness and commitment of citizens throughout the province. In concluding, I would like to inform the House that tomorrow is Clean Air Day in British Columbia, and there will be exhibits and activities on the front lawn of the legislative buildings.

I ask the House to join me in applauding and warmly congratulating the winners of these awards.

F. Gingell: I rise not to make a response to the ministerial statement that has just been made but rather to introduce to the House Brian Wallace, treasurer of the Law Society of B.C.; Rob Gourley, president of the B.C.

section of the Canadian Bar Association; Mr. Jack Webster, one of the laymembers of the board; and other members of the board. I would ask this House to please make them welcome.

J. Pement: I rise today to ask the House to bid welcome three classes from Chandler Park Middle School in Smithers that are in Victoria to learn about the Legislature. They travelled over 800 miles to get here, which really says something for the teachers, the schools and the fundraising that was done to get them here. I ask you to bid them welcome.

L. Reid: I'd ask the House to please welcome 50 students from R.C. Palmer Junior Secondary School in my riding. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Larry Nelson.

Hon. G. Clark: When there is someone in the chamber who is unauthorized, we say there's a stranger in the House. What do we say when there's a bencher in the press gallery?

I'm delighted today to introduce a visiting tax delegation from Taiwan -- I apologize for my pronunciation, if it's incorrect -- Mr. Teh Fu Tseng, Mr. Mau-kong Lee, Sheng-tau Lin, Chieh-chih Lin, Ying-chu Lee and Der-yang Horng. This delegation has been meeting with Ministry of Finance officials for some time, and we know it has been mutually beneficial. I'd ask all members to welcome them here today.

W. Hartley: I'd like to take an opportunity to extend the Minister of Environment's speech this afternoon by welcoming a couple of members of my constituency. I do so because of the tremendous impact they've had in the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows area for over ten years. Their commitment and service to the environment has been outstanding. They've been leaders for government not only at the municipal and regional levels but also at the provincial level. The public education and hands-on work that they've done for recycling in the province needs to be commended. Again, please welcome Kelli Speirs and Candace Gordon.

F. Garden: I would also like to join the Minister of Environment in further congratulating constituents of mine who are in the gallery: Jerry MacDonald and his wife. It's not often that a politician gets a chance to say good things about a newspaper editor, but Jerry is just an exemplary volunteer in our community. He works hard with young people on ice-skating. They are great supporters of the Billy Barker Days. If you get up there this year you might see Mrs. MacDonald as part of the cancan troupe. We bid them welcome. Also in the precincts is Helen Kuhn, another constituent of mine. Give them a very hearty welcome today.

D. Streifel: I ride on with the warm greeting from my colleague from Pitt Meadows in welcoming and thanking Kelli Speirs and Candace Gordon. The reason I do this is that their influence on recycling spreads far beyond Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. In fact, they are the reason why the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District is already well on the way to recycling 50 percent of its solid wastes, which is within the minister's goal. We're at 25 percent out there, colleagues; we're way ahead of the rest of the province. Thank you, Kelli Speirs and Candace Gordon.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'd like the House to send congratulations to Brent Carver, who was born in

[ Page 6936 ]

Cranbrook. He has performed throughout this province for many years. Last weekend he won a Tony, the most prestigious acting award on Broadway, for his work in the Canadian-produced musical, Kiss of the Spider Woman. Would the House send that congratulation to him.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. G. Clark: Bill 36 proposes a variety of amendments to the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act, the Financial Information Act, the Home Purchase Assistance Act, the Hospital District Finance Act, the Real Estate Act, the School District Capital Finance Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act. Many of the proposed amendments to these statutes are housekeeping or administrative in nature. However, some substantive measures are proposed for the taxation statutes to maintain equity and assist in the collection of taxes due to the Crown.

As well, the amendments to the Real Estate Act and the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to directly appoint members-at-large to the Real Estate Council of British Columbia and public governors to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, respectively. Additional provisions establish the necessary authority for the funding of the recently commissioned inquiry into the Vancouver Stock Exchange and its market participants.

Hon. Speaker, I move this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 36 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

B.C. TRADE DEVELOPMENT FINDER'S FEE

F. Gingell: A question today for the Premier. Small entrepreneurs in British Columbia who are interested in international trading opportunities are becoming increasingly concerned about the B.C. Trade Development Corporation -- is it friend or foe? Is the Premier at all concerned that B.C. Trade Development is becoming a top-heavy bureaucracy that is doing nothing for small entrepreneurs?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, I'm not. I'd like to know what the next two questions are from the Leader of the Opposition, so I can see what his point is. So far the point is very elusive.

F. Gingell: Then can the Premier explain why B.C. Trade Development is charging a non-refundable finder's fee to entrepreneurial companies merely to guarantee bank loans? What kind of incentive would a small business firm have for even bothering with B.C. Trade? They all claim that all B.C. Trade is doing is acting as a broker for loans from major banks.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think I got the gist of that question. It requires a thorough response, so I will take it on notice.

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS

L. Hanson: I have a question for the Attorney General. As the minister responsible for the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, is it the Attorney General's understanding of the act that a confidentiality agreement involving a member does not exempt that individual from disclosing any gifts or gratuities received by him or her?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Rather than try to answer that question off the top of my head, I will take it on notice.

COMPENSATION FOR HEMOPHILIACS

L. Reid: My question is to the Premier. Three provinces have now taken action with regard to individuals who have contracted AIDS.... The province of Alberta, in the throes of an election, has reached a just decision. What is this government's reason for continued inaction?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Minister of Health is not here today. I'll take that question on notice for her.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, a question taken on notice cannot have a supplemental.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

V. Anderson: My question is to the Premier. On July 27, 1990, in a discussion in this House regarding freedom of speech, the Premier indicated that the opposition wanted to preserve freedom of speech, and I quote: "We made it very clear that it's fundamental to a democracy." Does the Premier still affirm that this is the position of the then-opposition, which is now government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If the member is referring to the amendments to the Human Rights Act that were tabled yesterday, we are going to have a chance to fully debate that issue. But yes, this government does support freedom of speech. This government supports the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which preserves that right to free speech, but that right has limits on it in that you cannot harm other people. That's why we have libel and slander laws, that's why we have hatred laws,

[ Page 6937 ]

and that's why we have laws that say you can't stand up in a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!"

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

V. Anderson: I refer the Premier to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

section 2(b). To remind you just exactly what it is, it talks about the fundamental freedoms of "thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Does the Premier affirm that our government stands behind that charter declaration?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the member knows, this government is governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which preserves the basic rights of freedom of expression, of a free press and of assembly. But I say again that those rights have limits so that you do not harm other citizens by promoting racial hatred, or through libel, slander or other irresponsible acts.

REPORT ON CHANGES TO EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister confirm that he has received Mark Thompson's report on the expedited changes to the Employment Standards Act, and can he further confirm that Mr. Thompson's report deals with the repeal of

section 2(2) of the act?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to confirm that I officially received Mr. Thompson's report on Friday. As the hon. member knows, the terms of reference attached to Mr. Thompson's work required him to make a determination with regard to

section 2(2) on an expedited basis. He has complied with those terms of reference.

The Speaker: Supplemental, Leader of the Third Party.

J. Weisgerber: I think it's no surprise that we will be seeing legislation dealing with that in the near future. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to table the report in the Legislature today, to give all interested British Columbians an opportunity to examine the report and study it in anticipation of legislation.

Hon. M. Sihota: I would be happy to table the report, but I will not do so today. The report was just received by me on Friday. The ministry has not had an opportunity to review it nor, quite frankly, have I had time to review it, and there are other organs within government which must review it. It will ultimately be tabled, and I'll be happy to do it. I suspect that it will happen before this session is through.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: I have no doubt that Ken Georgetti has already had a look at it. You should extend that same courtesy to other affected British Columbians. The minister, I'm sure, doesn't anticipate changing the report. If you're going to table it in the future, why not stand up today, table the report and give everybody an opportunity to look at the recommendations?

Hon. M. Sihota: I can appreciate the fact that the opposition may be anxious to see the report. I would anticipate that the opposition shares the same concern the government has with regard to those unions and other agreements that fall below the floor established in the Employment Standards Act. I would hope that the opposition is supportive of any changes which make sure that working men and women in British Columbia have rights which are more than the provisions in the Employment Standards Act.

FORESTRY OFFICE RELOCATION

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier advise us how much money his government is saving by moving 150 employees from leased space in Burnaby to a brand-new building on land which this government will have to acquire in the NDP stronghold of Nanaimo?

The Speaker: The member for Surrey-White Rock.

W. Hurd: A supplemental question to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour confirm that under terms of the employees' contract with the Ministry of Forests in Burnaby, the government is required to pay the full moving costs of all employees because the move is more than 16 kilometres from Burnaby? Is it a policy of this government to pay those moving costs?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to answer this question on behalf of the Minister of Forests. The member is correct that we are moving the forestry office from Burnaby to Nanaimo. I know members opposite are concerned about relocating government offices into regions where the work is done. We know that the cost to government of renting space in Nanaimo is generally cheaper than the cost of renting space in Burnaby. All in, the cost difference is zero; it nets out at zero. We're doing something which we said we would do when we got elected -- moving services closer to the regions.

I think the people in Nanaimo are proud of the fact that we're relocating forestry workers into that community and contributing to economic development at no net cost to the taxpayer.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Can the minister advise the opposition and the people of the province why so many employees of this particular office of the ministry are calling the opposition to advise us that their client base is in the lower mainland and that they can't rationalize why their workload is being shifted to Nanaimo?

[ Page 6938 ]

Hon. G. Clark: You can rely on the opposition to stand up every day and defend the status quo. They stand up and say, "No, we're not moving services into communities like Nanaimo," even though land is cheaper and economic development is critical in those regions. We know that members of the opposition will stand up and defend the status quo, even though it makes more sense to move bureaucrats out of Victoria and the lower mainland and put the services into the regions that need them.

AIRCARE LABOUR DISPUTE

A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General. Mr. Troy Marshall, president of the Automotive Technicians Association, suggested a way to get the stations back to work during the AirCare strike, saying that the repair facilities have lost a lot of money and that the technicians would carry out the same test as the AirCare centres. What is the Attorney General doing to avoid the making of a mess and perhaps respond to this request?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I saw a report earlier today which indicated that the association might contact me in ten days if the strike hadn't ended. I look forward to their communicating with me.

A. Warnke: My supplemental is also for the Attorney General. With the backlog of more than 80,000 vehicles that has built up over two months, and given that over $1 million has been lost, where is the minister headed, and what is he likely to do to deal with this situation before it becomes a tremendous mess, which is where it's headed?

The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, that is a very broad question and a hypothetical one, and it cannot be allowed in question period.

A final supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: What steps are being taken by the Attorney General to deal with this situation with regard to the AirCare strike, which is getting out of hand?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: A number of initiatives are underway. The parties have been engaged -- and I understand are still engaged -- in direct talks to try to resolve the dispute. In addition, senior officials within the Ministry of Attorney General have been assessing the issue and working to ensure that the public interest is preserved in this matter.

CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO A-G MINISTRY

C. Serwa: My question today is directed to the Attorney General. Tim Agg is a former NDP regional executive member and a longtime personal friend of the minister. His $5,000-a-month contract with the ministry was supposed to have expired last August. Can the Attorney General confirm that he worked beyond that date and is, in fact, still working full-time on contract with the ministry?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can confirm that Mr. Tim Agg continues on contract to the ministry. I do not believe it's full-time. In fact it's a part-time contract for services. Mr. Agg is working on the question of legal aid initiatives that may well flow from the report he did for me and for government last year. That work continues.

C. Serwa: I guess I have some confusion in my mind as to what is determined with full-time and what is part-time, because I know that the Attorney General indicated that he considered full-time service contracts illegal. Perhaps the minister can explain why he entered into a contractual agreement that the minister himself believes is illegal.

[2:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I think the reference to contracts that are illegal is when you have full-time government employees working as contractors rather than public servants. That's the situation that Revenue Canada identified as a significant problem. Mr. Agg is the executive director of an organization in the lower mainland called PLEA. He continues in that position.

He is on contract to provide a particular service to help the government deal with the legal aid issue, which, as members know, is a matter of serious concern not only to members of the government but also to taxpayers in this province -- given the escalation in costs that were faced and given a number of problems that we inherited. Mr. Agg produced an excellent report, which has been made public. That report is being assessed and is being considered. Mr. Agg is playing a very valuable role in that process.

Hon. B. Barlee tabled the annual report of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority for 1992-93.

The Speaker tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library for 1992.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I would advise members of the House that Committee A will be dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in the Douglas Fir Room. I also wish to advise that the House will be sitting tomorrow at 2 o'clock.

Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 24.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. B. Barlee: This bill amends two existing statutes: the Animal Disease Control Act and the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act. I move the bill be read a second time.

The Animal Disease Control Act establishes an inspection and quarantine system to protect British Columbia domestic animals and wildlife from communicable diseases. The proposed amendments

[ Page 6939 ]

improve and strengthen that system by empowering government, by regulation, to extend the coverage of the act to new animals. This change will ensure that if a new disease threat arises, government is able to respond quickly and effectively to that particular threat.

The Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act establishes the framework for the regulated marketing and supply management of British Columbia agricultural products. British Columbia led the way for all of Canada when it established legislation in the 1920s and 1930s for the regulated marketing of agricultural products. Since that time, the act has enabled British Columbia's producers to cooperate to ensure that all British Columbians will have access to a stable supply of high-quality agricultural products, and that producers will receive an equitable return for their labour.

The regulated marketing and supply management systems have come under a great deal of pressure from external sources in recent years.

I am supporting these amendments to address concerns raised by producers, concentrating on the appeal and enforcement provisions of the act. The British Columbia Marketing Board, which is the supervisory and appeal board for all marketing boards and commissions, fully supports these amendments. The amendments will improve the efficiency and fairness of the appeal and enforcement components of the act, giving producers greater confidence in the regulated marketing and supply management systems.

These amendments are basically to ensure that marketing boards and commissions have the right to be a party to court appeals from decisions of the British Columbia Marketing Board. Having them as parties to an appeal will ensure that a court receives full information on each and every issue. It also authorizes the British Columbia Marketing Board to extend the deadline for producers to file appeals from the decisions of marketing boards and to order parties to appeals to provide the board with documents relevant to that appeal. These changes will make the rules fairer for all involved in the appeals.

It also establishes filing fees for commencing appeals and authorizes the British Columbia Marketing Board to award costs on appeal hearings. This change will promote accountability in the system. Finally, it updates penalties for noncompliance with the act and regulations. That change will respond to producers' requests and will promote respect for and compliance with the regulated marketing system.

R. Chisholm: We are not overly opposed to this bill. In effect, this bill corrects some issues in the present legislation and updates to the 1990s what needs to be updated. But there are things in this bill that will need to be clarified in committee stage, such as: what the penalties might be, how the ministry came up with the figures they arrived at, how it will be applied to individual farmers, and whether these regulations will encourage single farmers and organizations to come before these marketing boards or whether it's going to scare them away. At this point we are backing this bill in principle, along with the government.

H. De Jong: I really have no great problem with this bill. The minister has given a fairly good explanation about what it will do. However, I'd like to address a couple of concerns at this point in time, dealing with the timing after a marketing board has made a decision or issued an order -- not necessarily dealing with one farmer who may be aggrieved but with the commodity group. Quite often these decisions are not really comprehended in short order by the agricultural community or commodity groups. I have some difficulty with the 30 days for receiving notice of that. The minister might want to give some thought to that particular

section before we get into third reading.

The other area that concerns me is the level of fines that have been introduced -- up to $20,000 for contravention of this act. If we go back 30 or 40 years to when most of the marketing boards were established -- sometime in the fifties and sixties -- we are talking about a change from $100 to $500 to $20,000. Even if the times had changed that much in terms of climbing prices -- which they haven't -- a thing that cost $100 in those days, back in the fifties, does not cost $20,000 today. I know it's the upper limit that's being set in the bill.

However, it's a concern to me, because when there is an upper limit, the upper limit can be used and may be used. Again, I have some concern, too, on the filing fees, but I think I will further research that area at third reading. All in all, I think that it's a reasonably good bill, with the exceptions that I have noticed.

Bill 24, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading of Bill 25.

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. This bill contains urgently needed measures to improve the administration and operation of the activities of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks throughout the province. The bill amends five separate acts: the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act, the Land Act, the Waste Management Act, the Water Act and the Wildlife Act.

The Commercial River Rafting Safety Act has been in effect since 1988 and has accomplished its goal of enhancing the safety of commercial river rafting in this province. However, experience in administering this act has shown that a few minor amendments are necessary to clarify certain sections of the legislation. These amendments will clarify the intent of the act by defining the type of vessel we wish to regulate. The diversity of vessels used in commercial rafting has caused confusion both to the rafting industry and to enforcement agencies.

By clearly specifying the types of vessels that fall under the act and providing a means of exempting certain vessels, we can better regulate the industry. We will also amend the act to simplify the

[ Page 6940 ]

permitting process and minimize administrative costs. The present wording of the act requires a separate permit for each river that a rafting company operates on. The amendment will allow operators to receive multiple-river licences. These are minor amendments that are required to better administer this act. The rafting industry has been consulted and supports these amendments.

The bill also includes two important amendments to the Land Act. First, it will provide a statutory basis for the Crown land registry. This amendment will ensure that a single record of Crown land administered by the government is maintained and that there is a reliable inventory of Crown land. Second, the bill will increase penalties and improve enforcement for trespass on Crown land. The current act does not provide effective mechanisms to handle trespass issues or sufficient penalties to deter trespass.

The amendment will introduce a scheme of administrative penalties that will assist in the more efficient enforcement of trespass offences. In addition, the Land Act is being amended to give my ministry the authority to distribute and set fees for the sale of land-related information, such as maps and air photos. The bill will also clarify the granting of Crown land to Crown corporations and other government bodies and provide the authority to amend the Crown grants where it is in the public interest.

Since 1982 the Waste Management Act has been the primary legislation used for the protection of the environment in this province. These amendments clarify and improve several areas of the act. The amendments will eliminate confusing language within the act, allow regional managers to issue pollution prevention orders and provide for the delegation of the administration of proposed underground storage tank regulations to local governments.

The use of pollution prevention orders will give regional managers the much-needed authority to protect the environment before pollution occurs. At present, a regional manager can only issue an abatement order after pollution has occurred. To ensure that these orders are not abused, the bill requires that an order against a municipality be made by the minister. In addition, no order may be issued where a person is acting in compliance with the authorization under the act or regulations.

[2:45]

The proposed underground storage tank regulations are being drafted in accordance with a national code which has been developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The efficient administration of these regulations requires that those municipalities that are willing and able to do so be given the statutory authority to take on this responsibility. The amendment reflects extensive consultation with municipalities. It provides local government with the authority to collect fees and enforce the regulations. In addition, the amendment will give liability protection to any municipality that volunteers to take on this important task.

The Water Act amendment will continue the process of decentralization that we started last year under the Water Amendment Act, 1992. At present, the holder of a water licence must given notice of abandonment of that licence to the comptroller of water rights in Victoria. The public is more accustomed to dealing with regional staff for water licensing matters, and their decision to abandon a licence often arises from their communications with one of our regional offices. This amendment will convenience the public by giving the regional water manager the authority to accept these notices.

Finally, the bill includes an amendment to the Wildlife Act. In a recent judicial review decision, the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld that the ministry could not hold a disciplinary hearing against any guide-outfitters who have allowed their licence to expire. This decision would allow guide-outfitters to break the law and leave the government with no recourse against the guide-outfitter certificates. Guide-outfitters hold certificates which give them the exclusive authority to act as hunting guides in designated areas of the province.

These certificates are of great value and are issued for a ten-year period. In addition, the guide-outfitter needs an annual licence to guide resident and non-resident hunters. This amendment will remedy this problem by giving the ministry the specific authority to take action against the certificate. The amendment will have a significant impact on guide-outfitters who break the law and will improve the image of the industry in the eyes of both the visiting public and residents of the province.

In conclusion, this bill reflects this government's continued commitment to create a modern and responsible framework for the management of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

J. Tyabji: I appreciate the housekeeping aspects of this bill, but I also want to flag, for those following the debate, some significant changes that this bill will represent. Most particularly, there will be a change with regard to jurisdiction over Crown lands, potential public access and punitive action against those who seek public access to public lands. There are also some potentially problematic aspects of the housekeeping when we look at inventories of existing maps and cross-referencing with regional records.

Under one

section of this, where you talk about granting of Crown lands.... There is always a concern from the opposition benches about public accounting of disposition, methods of disposition and the rationale behind it. With the passage of Bill 3 in the Legislature this spring -- B.C. 21 or the Build BC Act -- there is a lot of concern from the opposition benches that the aspect of this bill regarding the granting of Crown land could allow Crown land grants to the new Crown corporations through the Ministry of Finance.

As we saw in Bill 3, there could then be some sort of capital projects planned for Crown lands with no real public accountability for the disposition of the lands, for the strategizing of the disposition of those lands or for the public's role with regard to public lands. That's a very serious concern.

When we look at the

section about trespassing on Crown land, we see that there are now some direct punitive measures that the minister may impose on those who are perceived to be committing an offence

[ Page 6941 ]

under

section 57. We see a section, for example, that removes any rights or privileges of individuals to any Crown land, rather than it being specific to the site where the incident occurred. I think that there should be an amendment proposed to that

section of the bill. Obviously that will come forward in committee stage. That goes straight through all of

section 10 of the bill where we talk about lawful authority in both the original act and in this act. We see that the minister has a great degree of discretion under

section 10 of the act. How lawful authority will be interpreted by the courts remains to be seen. That causes some concern, particularly if we start to get cynical as to the timing of this bill, in recognition of the impending civil disobedience protests against the Clayoquot decision.

section 10 of the bill we see reference to the abandonment of private property. The minister can take action against that. It is a serious concern that the minister's

interpretation of abandonment may not be consistent with the

interpretation by those whose private property it is. That's a potential problem in principle.

When we talk about liability for contraventions of

section 57 of the original act, there is a very serious concern from the opposition. To some extent, loss or damage may be defined by the minister. The minister's resources for defining loss or damage in the courts would be significantly higher than the resources of those who may be defending themselves against the ministry. There could be significant punitive action taken by the ministry to the detriment of the public who may be seeking access to public lands. We definitely distinguish between illegal activities, such as tree-spiking which may take place on public land, and legal activities.

Obviously, illegal activities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, there may be an arbitrary determination by the minister of loss or damage caused by an offence under

section 57. That could then be taken to the courts, with the significant resources of the ministry on one side and what would be -- no doubt -- limited resources on the other side. This, I think, causes a great deal concern in terms of the public having some comfort to protest on public lands.

section 11 there is a substantial change in the potential punitive impact of the bill. The fact that we have a $300 fine increased to $20,000 gets back to the cynicism of the timing of this bill with regard to potential civil disobedience. There is a great concern with regard to the

definitions that the minister may place on this. The ultimate ruling of the courts may be in favour of the defendant, but the minister may choose to take action against a member of the public who is protesting on public lands. Although the ministry might not win that case, just the potential fine of $20,000 and legal costs in winning that case would be a significant deterrent for a lot of people who may have legitimate reasons to protest against the government, and who may want to do so in a very peaceful and currently legal manner.

When we look at waste management and pollution prevention orders in the bill.... I would like to encourage the minister on the pollution prevention orders. I think that they are fairly straightforward. We will look at that in committee to determine more clearly the opposition's position with regard to each different

section of the pollution prevention act. I do appreciate that the minister is now going to be more able to take action against a municipality. I hope that when that occurs, there will be prior consultation and some weighing of the intent of the municipality, so that we don't end up -- as we saw last year in the Waste Management Amendment Act -- with a great degree of downloading of the Ministry of Environment onto municipal and regional districts, which basically resulted in a cash cow for the ministry.

The ministry's penalties came in before the infrastructure of municipalities could be changed significantly, so that on the one hand, the ministry was using the stick to get the infrastructure changed, and on the other hand, was getting significant money for it. So I'm hoping that this

section -- with regard to the minister's power on municipal pollution -- will not be implemented as we saw last year, but that there will be some prior consultation with the municipalities, and the minister will only act on this

section when the intent can be proven, or when there is bad faith being exercised by the municipality.

I'm happy to see some talk about the underground storage areas and legislation with regard to underground storage of gas. I think it's encouraging to see the Wildlife Act tightened up to take in certificates as well as licences. So that gives a general overview with regard to the opposition's perspective.

Now that I've given a general overview, I want to return to the sections of the bill that are most problematic in principle to the opposition -- as we are dealing in principle. I want to preface that by saying that I made reference earlier to the cynicism with which one might view this bill in terms of the timing.

I'm very interested to hear the minister's closing remarks on this bill, because certainly in this day and age, we see many sectors of the population -- many people and groups within the public; not even collectives or interest groups per se, but disparate members of the citizenry -- rising up and trying desperately to be heard by the government.

When one sees the kind of heavy stick that's being wielded in this bill, one can only feel a little bit cynical, perhaps, in anticipation of some major acts of civil disobedience -- or demonstrations in the form of rallies, peaceful walks or peaceful parades, or banners or leaflets.

We see public access to public lands potentially being restricted by this bill. We see a $300 fine going up to $20,000 for a potential offence -- and I'm not talking about serious cases of vandalism, but a potential offence under the act. We see that the minister has a fair amount of discretion in terms of the

interpretation of the bill; there's no question that the minister has more than enough resources to bring against members of the public who choose to act in a peaceful way to bring to the minister's attention some very strong feelings they may have on specific issues. Of course, the minister knows that I'm talking about Clayoquot Sound in this connection. There are other issues coming up, and a dangerous precedent is being set here. We may be

[ Page 6942 ]

restricting public access to public lands, not only in a real sense, but in terms of the kind of perception that gives out. I think it's very unfortunate when we see that many people have moved to British Columbia for the very purpose of having access to public lands.

I know that the minister will stand up at the end of this and say: "It's not the intention of the minister to deny a hiker access to hiking trail." But we also know that when we debated the labour bill last fall, it was not the intention of that minister to allow that to be interpreted the way it has been. So there's very little public confidence in this government. We have no idea what direction its agenda is going in.

It's with great trepidation that the opposition looks at the tendencies of this act to restrict access, to wield a large stick, to be punitive against the people who may be either seeking access to public lands, which is a longstanding tradition in British Columbia, or may be trying to stage some kind of protest on public lands.

Section 10 on trespass on Crown land makes me very nervous. We will explore it piece by piece at committee stage, but I get extremely nervous when I read something like, "If a person does...offence," then they may "cancel any lease, right of way, easement, license...permit, or other disposition held by the person under this act."

Let's say a person decided that they had a reason to protest against this government in civil disobedience on Clayoquot Sound. Let's say that the government took action in a collective manner against the protesters because one or two of them got out of hand, and let's say that one of the people within that collective had an interest, lease, permit or anything under the act somewhere else. This

section says that this minister can yank it. I hope that that is not the intent of the bill. If that is the intent of the bill, then we will leave it there and we can argue about that in committee stage. If it's not, we may want to amend that in committee stage so that it would be only as it relates to the specific incident and/or the specific site.

[3:00]

How can we feel any comfort at all if we are not sure how this will be interpreted? I am sure that this minister isn't going to say that he will not allow public protest on public lands. If he won't allow it, I would like to hear that from him. But if he's saying, "No, in principle, I accept that the public may protest on public lands," I want to hear that as well. If the minister is going to say no to that.... We know that precedents have been set in the courts whereby any attempt to remove or restrict public access to public lands is going to end up being ultra vires and ultimately ruled out. From this perspective,

section 10 may be deliberately nebulous so that it will only be the threat and the potential

interpretation that will be a deterrent and/or a penalty to the people who choose to protest.

Section 7 deals with the grants of Crown lands to Crown corporations and other government bodies. I look forward to debate on this as it pertains to B.C. 21. I didn't hear the minister say anything about that in his opening comments, but we know from the debate that we had on Build B.C. and B.C. 21 -- Bill 3 basically -- and the fundamental change that that represented to our financial institutions, that Crown land can now be granted without public accountability and public knowledge of this happening. I can see no reporting procedure as to how that would be interpreted in B.C. 21.

We can then have disposition of those assets in B.C. 21, as we know, through lease, sale or giveaway. We know that Bill 3 allowed sweeping disposition of the assets, and that it allowed expropriation -- and any method of disbursement of lands that had been expropriated, given or sold to B.C. 21.

We have here in

section 7: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, Crown land may...as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers advisable, be disposed of by Crown grant under this act, free or otherwise, to a Crown corporation...." Crown corporation is number one on the list. What a surprise! B.C. 21 happens to be a Crown corporation. I'd like to know if this government is going to reveal whether or not

section 7 of this bill has anything to do with B.C. 21. I'd like assurances that it doesn't, or -- if this government is intending to have some reference to B.C. 21 -- that there's a public accounting procedure and a reporting process, which I don't see.

Let's put B.C. 21 aside for a second. Where is the public reporting process here? I don't see it. We know from the Environment estimates that there is no proper inventory of B.C.'s lands yet. We know that Lands and Parks are trying very hard to update the maps and to get inventories in place. But if we don't have an inventory of what we've got now, how are we going to know where it's all going? This minister has got to have a feeling that the public has a bit of anxiety. In this age of financial hardship, the one thing that we do have is our Crown land, which is an asset. There should be some measure of knowing where it's going.

One reason I bring this up is that we know that in Tod Mountain, and some other developments around the province, there has been Crown land disbursement at below market value, with no public accounting process and no tender. That falls under this minister's purview. I guess this minister doesn't feel that this is a very serious issue. It might be one reason why the public isn't feeling confident with this government's management of their lands.

In principle, we have great difficulty with

section 7. There's no public accounting process, there's no avenue for debate whatsoever, and we don't know if the Crown corporation it is going to go into is B.C.

Section 6 is with regard to the Crown land registry. I'm very curious to know if this minister is going to allow some retroactive expropriation -- if we end up with regional maps that are in conflict with the provincial inventory that this is attempting to put together. I know we'll canvass it in some detail in committee stage. But, in principle, there should be some recognition here.

If, for example, a third- or fourth-generation landowner or homesteader -- somebody who ended up locating in an area -- said: "Gee, I just can't remember where the deed to the property is, but it was with the regional office...." The way I'm reading this bill, it looks like the regional office's records are not as important as the provincial registry. This minister knows that we had a problem with the Beaver Lodge

[ Page 6943 ]

lands; we know that the records aren't perfect. So what happens in a case where private property was duly bought and paid for, was on a regional map, and that regional map is in conflict with the provincial archives? According to the way it reads here, it would be too bad for the person who is relying on the regional records. In principle, that's something the opposition is going to have great difficulty with.

The rest, I think, are some housekeeping things. We definitely have some concerns for committee stage. I am concerned, as well, that we see regional water managers gaining more power again. We canvassed the potential problems that may arise from that fairly extensively last year, when the minister brought in his amendments to the water management act.

With that in mind, I'd like to put on record that while the opposition understands the housekeeping aspects in principle, we have grave reservations about the disbursement of Crown land and about the potential arbitrary decision-making with regard to trespassing on Crown land. We are not sure how the punitive measures being proposed here are going to be implemented by this government. If we had found this to be a credible government that kept its word, we might have a lot less discomfort with this bill.

But basically, although I think this minister has good intentions, one can only be cynical about a bill like this coming out in anticipation of civil disobedience against a decision that was very bad in the first place and that will no doubt precipitate a widespread civil uprising by disparate groups within the public. That's something we can canvass more in committee stage when we hear this minister's perspective on the potential legal

interpretations of some sections in this bill. I hope we will have some of our concerns allayed. At this stage, I look forward to the rest of the debate.

C. Serwa: I won't be too long on this in second reading. [Applause.] It's nice to have that type of support.

Normally a bill such as this could be explored in a fuller context in Committee of the Whole,

section by section. I pretty well appreciate that particular factor. As the minister indicated, there are five statutes here. On the whole, I can see that the amendments to the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act, the Land Act, the Waste Management Act, the Water Act and the Wildlife Act are fundamentally housekeeping matters.

The area that really concerns me is with regard to amendments to the Land Act. There is a substantial amount of concern, as has been voiced by the hon. member for Okanagan East, with respect to the agenda on the amendments to the Land Act. We can stand here and speculate a great deal about the agenda -- the hidden agenda -- and perhaps we will find monsters in the closet. But at this point it's very difficult to understand the rationale for a number of the amendments to the Land Act.

When we look at the

section on trespass on Crown lands, there is a reason for concern. My concern is not so much with the individual's right of access to Crown land. The government of the day is just as aware as I am of the rights of citizens in this province to have access to Crown lands, rivers and lakes. I think they would guard that with care and caution, as a fundamental right of a citizen in British Columbia.

Nevertheless there are some concerns -- whether it has to do with a commercial violation or a commune-type violation that the minister is perhaps concerned about, or maybe the utilization of Crown lands for which an individual does not in fact have title. I recognize that when the minister is talking about Crown lands, he is indicating all lands that come under the Ministry of Lands and not Crown lands that are under the purview of the Minister of Forests. Crown Lands, fundamentally, has the mandate and domain over all alienated and surveyed blocks of land, not over all of the unoccupied Crown land in the province. I think it's important to emphasize that particular fact at this time.

The concerns I have with respect to the philosophy and principles here have to do with drawing out, during the course of Committee of the Whole, the reason for the concern with trespass on alienated Crown lands and the concerns under the sections dealing with offences and why they are listed, and what challenges or problems developed for the ministry that caused the need for this particular legislation. On the whole, that takes care of my particular concerns in second reading. As I said, we'll canvass the various amendments

section by

section far more fully in Committee of the Whole.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise today in debate on second reading of Bill 25, the Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1993. As with so many omnibus bills that change statutes in a variety of areas governing the people of British Columbia, we have to be extremely careful to go through each

section and understand exactly what its underlying principle involves. We recognize that one of the primary bases of a strong, free and open democracy such as we enjoy in British Columbia is the protection of public assets: our Crown lands and those public assets that the Crown lands support -- our forests, waterways, lakes and so on.

I rise specifically to deal with

section 10 of Bill 25, although there are other areas that I'm sure my hon. colleague from Okanagan East, the Liberal Environment critic, has already commented on. I rise with respect to

section 10 because second reading is supposed to be on the principle of a bill, and I have some sincere and rather grave concerns about what this government is attempting to do under this section. We are repealing sections 56 to 58 of the existing act and replacing those with a new

section on trespass on Crown land -- i.e., we are now going to put greater restrictions on public access to and public activity on Crown lands. That is a fundamental principle that I and the Liberal opposition have some concerns about, notwithstanding the need for protection against those who would engage in criminal activity on Crown lands.

We all understand that right now we have a heightened awareness of those people who would like to access Crown lands to engage in criminal activities: blockading duly constituted and licensed activities,

[ Page 6944 ]

particularly in the logging industry; tree-spiking; or establishing temporary settlements on Crown land. We understand that all of this is going to be looked at and dealt with rather severely by this ministry. Quite frankly, in light of what I think all of us would recognize as the public interest, those who engage in criminal activities on Crown land should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I don't think any of us would argue that those who perpetrate criminal acts should not be dealt with harshly.

[3:15]

But there is another side to this whole question. It has to do with two aspects of this bill that we need to deal with in principle. The first is the traditional use of and public access to Crown lands that will come under increasing restriction through this bill. Referring to the particular powers the minister will have, it suggests that if a person does anything that is an offence under

section 57(

a) to 57(g).... That's spelled out in this act under "Offence," which says: "...(

a) occupies or possesses Crown land without lawful authority" -- I think we can recognize that occupation of Crown land needs to be defined -- "(

b) uses Crown land without lawful authority, (

c) being the holder of a lease, right of way, easement...." -- and so on; those kinds of activities. We have to understand that there is an attempt here to change the nature of public access to those lands. We also don't want to have those people who would be guilty of any default on a lease, right-of-way or easement, who construct buildings or structures or in any way try to perform activities...abandon vehicles, and so on.... All of those are offences under this act. Then it says that you cannot have anything that unlawfully interferes with or removes a sign erected by or on behalf of the minister, and so on.

The Speaker: Order, please. I do regret interrupting the member, but all of us need to recognize that second reading debate should be on the principle of the bill and references to specific sections are better handled in committee. I would just remind the hon. member of that.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that direction, hon. Speaker, because it will allow me to go much further afield than I had originally intended.

We recognize that the regulations as spelled out with respect to this bill are going to put impediments on public access to public land. As legislators, we have to be very cautious about the extent to which we put those impediments in place. All of us in this House know that there are likely to be areas of great conflict in B.C. this summer because of opposing points of view. There are those who feel that public lands forested by old growth or in areas with unique watershed or vegetation should be protected.

Activities undertaken on behalf of the Ministry of Forests by companies licensed by the Ministry of Forests will come under scrutiny. In some instances there may be acts of civil disobedience.

We believe that this bill is being put in place largely to allow this government and this minister to be able to deal -- and deal harshly -- with those who engage in civil disobedience. I've said before that none of us would allow illegal activity to impede legal activity. However, we also have to recognize the fundamental principle that the public has a right to access an asset in the public domain and the public trust. It has the right to speak on it and to engage in honest debate and discussion, even the right of direct public access in order to confront a situation that they feel is offensive.

All of us in this province have to understand that this resource, which we have long taken for granted and exploited in order to generate wealth in our economy and our society, is in a diminished state. The great forests of this province are quickly being taken from underneath us as we go further afield and take species of increased diversity and smaller and small diameter. There are those who are alarmed by that activity and wish to engage in honest and open discussion and debate with the government. In the opening days of this session we witnessed the frustration of people who wanted to demonstrate their concern.

This bill says that in principle the government should allow itself powers to invoke closure on public lands. My difficulty with this is not that there shouldn't be a legitimate way to say that you cannot impede access but to recognize that there will be increasing pressure to keep people off Crown land because it is slated for forestry activity.

If we are going to avoid confrontation, which is certainly my desire -- and the desire, I hope, of all rational British Columbians -- the way to do it is not by putting in place a punitive bill whereby the minister can invoke a fine of up to $20,000 for unlawful -- in the eyes of the minister -- access to Crown land. The way to do it is to enter into a more meaningful and long-lasting dialogue so that we can resolve those conflicts before they get to the stage where they're likely to be this summer.

Similarly, we recognize that in the protection of this public asset there are those who have a long tradition of accessing public land for recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking -- for all kinds of recreational activities.

In this province there has been an ongoing battle between those companies that have licence to cut, to close roads -- often built under the Forest Act, which provides for public access and provides that those roads should be open to the public on days when there is no ongoing logging activity underway.... There is an ongoing fight within this province to keep those roads open to the public. It is, after all, a public asset. As a result of that, we have to be very clear, in our attempt to bring about a legal definition of what constitutes an illegal act on Crown land, that we do not overstep the bounds and say that we are now going to become restrictive of access to the resource in itself.

Similarly, we have to be careful, in our haste to increase fines so that they can act as a deterrent to the activity that exists there, that we do not put powers in the hands of this minister, albeit that this minister may be compassionate and wise. Not all ministers of the Crown may be as compassionate and wise as this Minister of Environment may like to think himself to be. To allow a minister to invoke those kinds of fines, without due process and legal recourse, is a travesty of individual liberty and justice in British Columbia.

[ Page 6945 ]

We know that this government is moving us closer toward the removal of individual liberties. We witnessed that in the provision of another act that was brought down yesterday, which obviously is not the subject of this debate. But in the interests of the principle of this debate, I think it can be discussed.

In looking at the provision of legislation to remove one's individual liberties -- freedom for discussion, freedom for debate, freedom to be able to state one's opinion -- it is not much different in principle than saying we are going to invoke legislation that will remove one's right to access what is essentially a public asset: Crown land. When we invoke this kind of legislation we have to be extremely careful that we do not unnecessarily infringe upon those kinds of civil liberties.

When we invoke fines against illegal activities we also have to make sure those fines are reasonable and are applied in a manner that is fair under the laws of British Columbia and, most importantly, provides the right of appeal.

Right now in the province we are witnessing something called a SLAP suit. These are lawsuits that are being brought against "environmentalists" because of activities that companies have deemed to be counter to their interests. That is one small part of the road down which this bill is taking us. One can argue the merits of those suits in another forum and another debate at a time when it's more appropriate, but they provide tremendous powers and protection for companies that have access to Crown land. They provide virtually no protection for people who are subjugated to those suits.

And I would welcome any minister of the Crown, the Speaker, or any member to take a look at the actions of those suits.

We understand that we have to maintain a working forest; it is critical in British Columbia. We understand that we have to have a guaranteed supply if companies are to succeed with longevity -- that's critical. We also have to have laws that are fairly applied to both the corporate sector and to those that are considered the environmental sector, in order to provide fair protection for both sides when disputes arise over the use of public assets on Crown land. I'm not sure this bill does that. In that

section I think it provides powers to the minister to exercise authority and jurisdiction over access to Crown land which, one could argue, has to be looked at in a manner that is going to be negative to those who have had a traditional use of that land.

There are hikers in my own riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast, active hiking groups in Powell River who have had outings for many years. There is a senior citizens' group that likes to hike, get onto the logging roads and go up into the meadowland, which is a tremendously beautiful part of the Powell River region. Those British Columbians who haven't been there should go. That is my advertisement for Powell River, a truly remarkable part of this province. That meadowland is only accessed through roads that were put there through logging activity. It crosses Crown land.

Some of those roads are under active logging. There is a tendency and desire by companies to close those roads off. There are other roads that are being closed by order of the ministry, because they don't want access onto that Crown land.

We have to recognize that the legal use of Crown land is something that can be determined by the minister from time to time. This says that unauthorized occupation, possession or use is a contravention. I know we can't speak to the actual language of the bill, but that's what it says. I suggest to you that in this

section the powers provided to the minister are extensive, in light of the kind of land use conflicts that we witness in the province; and those powers are going to be exercised not in the interests of the public good, but largely in the interests of the corporate sector, which has for many years desired much greater closure and less openness on lands to which they have licence and access.

In the interest of fairness, I would say that when we get to this

section in third reading, we're going to want to hear from the minister. The minister is going to have to defend this

section of the bill. We anticipate that Bill 25 is going to be the removal of yet one more civil liberty that we have in this province: the free and open access to lands which essentially are public assets. It's a fundamental principle -- one that we have provided for many years. I can recall that a great Premier of this province -- one I did not always agree with politically, W.A.C. Bennett -- made it very clear in the granting of licences in occupation of Crown land that when those roads were put forward, it was a policy that they must be deeded to the public when they were completed.

We have to maintain and protect that; we have to make sure that those roads will allow us public access to those lands which are deemed in the public trust. This bill is step one in the removal of those kinds of access provisions. What is happening is that the conflict over the use of those lands is ever increasing and ever greater.

[3:30]

In conclusion, let me simply summarize this bill by saying that as an omnibus bill there are some things in this that we like. Not all of this bill is bad; there are some things in this bill that are good. The Crown land registry is good -- although we would think that in principle not only do we need a Crown land registry, we need a comprehensive inventory of resources in this province. We've been saying that for many years in this province, and for the last couple of years as opposition. We're hoping that sooner or later it will sink through to the government.

There is much in the

section on waste management with the special waste and disposal facilities that has merit. Therefore we would not necessarily argue against that. But we also recognize that the minister's power respecting municipal pollution in this

section of the bill needs a lot of thought and work, because the municipal

section under administration of storage tanks.... I can tell you that in my own riding, Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- one I try to represent to the best of my abilities -- there are matters that are going to be of great significance in terms of cost, location and maintenance. There is a real financial consequence to what is going on here. We can't lose sight of that, even though in principle we would say we're moving in the right direction.

[ Page 6946 ]

As you can see, underneath this omnibus guise, there are some things that are good; there are some things that are not so good; there are some things that in principle we have some serious difficulties with. It's a little bit like a smorgasbord at a Chinese take-out: there are some things that you like to dwell on, feast on and say is very good; there are some things that you simply don't feel are to your palate. In general terms, I think that the principle of this bill needs to be looked at in terms of the question of public access to public land.

It is a fundamental right of British Columbians to access their land. It is a fundamental right of British Columbians to make sure that government does not provide unnecessary impediments to the access to and use of Crown lands, especially once there has been access or licence provided to other users or companies to extract the resources and open up that land.

When we get to the committee stage this minister must be prepared to defend that section, because we will be vigilant in making sure that every line of that

section is questioned. In his defence of

section 10 on trespass on Crown lands, and of the sections on offences and on the enforcement and payment of penalties -- sections 57 and 58 -- the minister will need to give some words of comfort to British Columbians, who want to make sure that this minister is not providing himself with powers that ought not to rest with the Minister of Environment but rather ought to be seen through the litigation process in the courts, under statutes that provide for the prosecution of criminal activity.

I look forward to entering into third reading debate. I hope that through the committee stage we will be able to provide some amendments that will make the people of British Columbia somewhat more comfortable than the language of this particular act makes them feel today.

L. Fox: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the principles and philosophies of Bill 25. I must say that after the last speaker I chose to reread sections of the bill, because his

interpretation of it is certainly much different than mine. I see nothing in this particular bill that reduces or restricts the utilization of forest roads or the natural resources that we all enjoy for recreational purposes. I do see, however, the authorization for the ministry to police and restrict unauthorized buildings and unsightly areas. If the member who just spoke came into some of my area of the province, he would see the vacant vehicles and the refuse that has been left behind, and would recognize that there has to be some way of dealing with those kinds of concerns.

Further to that, I hope this particular bill will allow the ministry to deal with all of those who trespass, irrespective of race or creed. I am well aware of cabins that are being built all over the northern regions of the province without authorization, and I hope that we're not going to see another form of discrimination whereby this will be enforced on one segment of the province and not on others. That is a concern to me, and perhaps the minister will deal with that issue at third reading.

I speak in favour of the bill, hon. Speaker, and see nothing contained within it that the previous member spoke of. I believe there's a need to control the misuse of our wilderness in a way that protects the natural state but still respects the fact that we must have a working forest. We must have the jobs and opportunities, but we must be able to control the environment at the same time.

The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.

Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the comments of all hon. members and during committee stage will be responding to specific points that have been made. Just in a general sense, I would say that the concerns expressed by the members for Okanagan East and Powell River-Sunshine Coast reflect absolutely no intent within the bill. There are no correct assumptions in any of the comments that they have made with regard to their projections about the land aspect of the bill.

I would also say that I very much appreciate the comments of the members for Prince George-Omineca and Okanagan West, who made all the comments that I would want to make in trying to respond to some of those points at second reading stage. I will simply acknowledge the points they have made, which more than adequately respond to second reading debate.

With that, hon. Speaker, I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 25, Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 26.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. J. Cashore: This amendment to the Waste Management Act reflects a thorough reform of the way that contaminated sites will be managed and regulated in British Columbia. This bill introduces many innovative features that will make B.C. a national leader in the identification and cleanup of these sites. The bill is the result of several years of consultation with interested parties, both inside and outside government. The issues addressed by this bill have also been the subject of much deliberation by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The result of this consultation is represented in this modern, well-thought-out approach to the administration of contaminated sites.

The proposed amendments will maintain the principle that the polluter pays, but introduce fair and consistent administrative processes. This will ensure that innocent persons and government, to the greatest extent possible, do not have to bear the costs and

[ Page 6947 ]

liability associated with the identification and remediation of these sites.

The bill provides for the identification of contaminated sites in a number of ways. Site information reporting will be required as part of the municipal approval process on applications for subdivision and rezoning. Vendors will be required to disclose information about a site when selling land which has been used for commercial or industrial ventures. Information will also be required whenever a mine or petroleum or natural gas well is closed or abandoned. Finally, the ministry may require information, reporting by order, whenever there is good reason to suspect that contamination has occurred at any site.

An important feature of this bill is that it establishes an orderly process for the assessment and cleanup of contaminated sites. There are a series of stages in the process. Basic site information is acquired through a site profile. If the site profile indicates the necessity, this is followed by a detailed site investigation. Responsible persons for remediating sites are identified in this process. If remediation is required, a site remediation plan is prepared to determine the most effective and responsible way of cleaning the site up.

The bill spells out that a broad range of factors need to be considered when determining appropriate remediation options. These factors include the potential for adverse affects on human health or the environment, technical feasibility, risks, remediation costs and economic benefits and costs of the various remediation options. There is provision for public consultation to ensure that interested persons have an opportunity to comment on the plan. Finally, there is the actual cleanup or remediation process. When this is completed, the ministry will issue certification of satisfactory cleanup.

Another important innovation is the establishment of a site registry. There is an increasing need for various persons to have information about contamination or absence of contamination of specific pieces of land. This information is routinely requested by purchasers of property. At present there is no effective method of making such information available to persons who need it. The new registry will remedy this. It will record information about the condition of each individual site that has been investigated and the status of the remediation process. Most importantly, it will provide for public and legal access to a

summary of the information on file with the registry. This is in keeping with our commitment to open government.

The amendment establishes rules and principles that define responsible persons and govern the liability provisions for site cleanup. "Responsible persons" means anyone responsible for the contamination of a site and can include site owners or operators and, under certain conditions, producers or transporters of substances that have contaminated a site. Many exemptions have been included in the bill to protect innocent parties and limit the liability of certain lenders, trustees and receivers.

Where a person has contributed in only a minor way to the contamination of a site, there is provision for limiting that person's contribution to the remediation process. In circumstances where there is a dispute over who should be held liable, an alternative dispute resolution mechanism is available to avoid costly court actions.

These amendments introduced consistency and fairness of process, which does not currently exist in the act. Those persons who are responsible for the contamination will be held absolutely liable for the cost of cleanup and remediation. The liability is retroactive, and all responsible persons are jointly and severally liable. In this regard the bill maintains the liability principles of the existing pollution-abatement provisions of the act. However, these amendments focus the requirements to ensure that liability is directed at only those persons responsible for contaminating sites.

These tough provisions give meaning to the term "polluter pays" and will ensure that the taxpayer is not left holding the bag for the activities of polluters past and present.

Other changes have been incorporated into the bill in a variety of areas. Where it is mutually agreeable, we will be able to delegate certain parts of the administration of the legislation to municipalities. Furthermore, to ensure efficiency in government regulatory processes the bill will enable delegation of certain functions to other ministries. The ability to charge fees is available to defray the cost of administration. There are also provisions to encourage voluntary and independent remediation of contaminated sites by responsible parties.

Contaminated soil relocation has become a complicated and difficult issue, with many municipalities establishing controls in the absence of provincial legislation in this area. The bill provides for a mechanism to re-establish some consistency of requirements for dealing safely with contaminated soil movement.

Finally, the bill includes provisions that will allow the minister to carry out remediation activities where necessary and to recover the cost from the responsible parties. The bill also enables the minister to undertake remediation of high-risk orphan sites, in which case costs are shared on a fifty-fifty basis with the federal government.

Since the bill received first reading, my ministry has been in consultation with major industry organizations, including those representing lenders, developers and municipalities. As a result of these discussions, I will be making several amendments to the bill during committee debate, which will clarify some aspects and make the legislation more effective in implementing the principle of fairness. After the bill is approved, a significant regulation package will have to be developed to implement the contaminated sites management system. Development of these regulations is expected to occur over the next several months and include consultation with affected parties.

[3:45]

The innovations and refinements contained in these amendments reflect the commitment of this government to clean up historical contamination in the province and ensure that those who have caused the contamination will pay the bill. A modern and progressive regulatory approach to contaminated sites will give British Columbians the most cost-effective and

[ Page 6948 ]

comprehensive cleanup and remediation system in Canada.

I now move second reading of the bill.

J. Tyabji: I am happy to rise to speak to a bill of this magnitude coming before the House. All of us can support the principle of the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of the excellent initiatives in this bill are the panel where they will be discussing contaminated sites and the contaminated-site registry. I am happy to see the contaminated-site registry being put in place, and I am assuming that it will be cross-referenced with the other land maps and inventories that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks will do. I think it will be extremely useful for the people of the province to have access to that kind of inventory resource.

There are a lot of problems in principle with this bill, and we will canvass them in the committee stage to hopefully allay the concerns. Some of the things that come up immediately when reading this bill are jurisdiction, due diligence and who defines due diligence and to what extent aboriginal land claims are going to affect the jurisdiction of this provincial legislation when we take into account the sections on potential migration and downstream effects of contaminated sites.

We know that in this bill there are references to responsibilities being put aside in the event of

an act of God being deemed to be the cause of the contamination, yet we don't know how widely that will be defined and whether or not lawyers might argue that a farmer who has a factory farm -- by the act of God with regard to the activities of those farm animals -- is going to end up with downstream contamination.

I think the question of who pays is at the root of the contaminated-site legislation. Although it is extremely important that the government act very quickly in the areas where potential impacts of contaminated sites are imminent and where there is a degree of imminence and urgency, I think the delegation of responsibility will probably provide a lot of work for a lot of lawyers, and possibly incur a lot of costs for people who may have acted in good faith in the past. I am thinking most specifically of farmers and people in the Fraser Valley or in the Okanagan.

We know that throughout the years there have been examples of government legislation and regulations allowing things to occur in agricultural areas where afterwards it is found that the activities have resulted in some harm to the environment. I can think of examples like DDT or 2,4-D. They were acceptable at one point and then afterwards they were not acceptable, yet the farmers were acting in good faith, acting within the laws that were brought forward by the government.

One could almost argue that since it's the responsibility of government to licence and regulate things like pesticides, perhaps it is the government that has been negligent in the licensing and regulating of pesticides. When individuals who have acted in good faith used these products within the law, it is grossly unfair for them to be retroactively penalized by regulation through legislation such as this. That's a very important concern.

We know that this is an enabling bill and is not the final word on how it will be implemented. It is setting up the structure through which the regulations will be brought in. How will we reconcile the enabling bill before us with the new jurisdictions that will be set up by this government on aboriginal lands? When we start to deal with aboriginal jurisdiction in the part of the bill regarding potential downstream contamination or the migration of the contamination downstream, will this legislation apply? We don't know.

When I was talking to the ministry staff, they didn't have an answer, because we know that the ongoing negotiations for jurisdiction on aboriginal lands is outside of this ministry and outside of any third-party input or negotiation.

Although we have good legislation and regulations on the books, we could end up with a situation where we can't enforce them on non-provincial or aboriginal lands. So we may be sitting on non-aboriginal land and receiving contamination from aboriginal sites. This legislation might be on the books, but it won't have any application. That's a serious concern, especially when we go to the question of who pays.

If it is argued by those who have jurisdiction over the aboriginal lands that the contaminated site was there prior to their getting title, or if it is argued that under the provincial legislation on non-aboriginal lands that downstream contamination is an important issue for the government, then we could have a situation, through this enabling bill and the migration aspects in this bill, where the aboriginal peoples could file for the government to pay for the cleanup of the site, yet this government would not be able to regulate what's going on on the site.

Because it doesn't deal with jurisdiction, and because we don't know what we'll be left with and what the map will look like at the end of the land claims, I think we can have a lot of concerns about the implementation of the regulations and legislation before us.

I think that intent is extremely important when we talk about who pays. This government will be setting up a panel and to some extent the minister will have discretion as far as defining due diligence, who is responsible and what was the intent of the person who is ultimately responsible for the site. There is a lot of concern about how we define intent and what the limitations of intent are.

When you talk about due diligence, if somebody acting in good faith and within the letter of the law still obviously intentionally used the products that ended in the contamination, is that person then liable for the cost of the cleanup? We don't know that yet. The regulations that accompany this legislation are not even in draft form yet. In previous sessions, we have had discussion papers and accompanying potential regulations coming out with bills like this. Really, we don't know how this bill will be implemented or what kind of regulations we can expect.

So we can't really feel a lot of comfort with regard to the definition of due diligence and how that will be interpreted.

It's interesting that we see an immunity clause within this bill. The immunity clause is something that is for governments, municipalities and officers of government. It basically says that these bodies and

[ Page 6949 ]

people are exempt unless they've acted in bad faith. I think that's a real double standard. We know that government bodies are protected by this bill unless it can be proven that they've acted in bad faith. In a different

section of the bill, an individual has to prove that they weren't acting in bad faith. It's a complete double standard. We have government legislation protecting government and hitting individuals really hard. To me that seems completely unfair. We ought to have the same presumption for individuals and governments, either acting in bad faith, or the presumption used throughout the courts of innocence until proven guilty.

We have an ultra vires clause in this bill -- just as we did last year in the Waste Management Amendment Act. This bill says that the burden of proof is on individuals to show that they were not responsible. This minister has seen to it that municipalities, regional districts, other bodies of government and their employees are saved from the same responsibilities for contaminated sites that every other individual in the province is saddled with. It's pretty obvious to see why. We know that government wants to pay the minimum amount of money.

Municipalities and regional districts are saying that they don't want to be saddled with the costs of cleanup when they are acting in good faith. There would be downstream implications with regard to taxation. Private industry is going to want the same provisions. A forestry company, a farming company or any group that is outside of government is going to say that if they were acting in good faith then they don't think that they should automatically be saddled with the cleanup of the site.

I know that no matter what, when one is dealing with contaminated-site legislation and regulation, one is always walking a tightrope, because somebody has to pay for it.

But when prioritizing which contaminated sites within the contaminated-site registry will be cleaned up first, I hope that the imminence of the contamination's migration would play a larger role than what we'd call political expediency or a public relations game, so that sites within the registry where the cleanup would not have immediate impacts on any group or community would be left to the very end and there would be provisions for a long-term cleanup plan.

We find too often that in a rush of good intentions we end up passing on unnecessarily high capital costs to industry without a financing structure in place that would allow for a slightly more affordable way of dealing with contamination. Because we haven't seen the regulations that will accompany this, it's very difficult for us to know if there will be that prioritizing of contaminated sites, if there will be an allowance for long-term financing for sites that are not imminently hazardous and if there will be a great deal of cooperation and consultation with the various groups that will be affected by this.

We have to be very cautious when we look at retroactive legislation. For example, we could have somebody purchasing a site in the faith that all contaminated-site inventories have cleared the site and then find out afterward to the contrary -- that the site is contaminated and they will have to pay for cleanup. In the end, the previous owner has passed on the responsibility to that person, who bought it in good faith.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

I'm sure the minister can understand that there are a lot of companies outside the country who might say British Columbia is not a good avenue for investment if they don't feel confident that they can purchase a property without being held culpable for contamination that occurred before. So that's a major concern. Not being able to see the regulations that will accompany this, we're almost flying blind in terms of the ultimate intent of this bill.

Given that the corporate capital tax and other initiatives with regard to industry have proven this government hostile in the past, there's no guarantee and no comfort for the opposition benches that the same attitude won't be taken toward forestry or mining companies that have acted in good faith within the existing legislation and who now, with good intentions, are going to try to meet the new legislation but who are not going to have the opportunity to do so in a time frame where they can adjust and continue to be competitive and viable in the international marketplace.

[4:00]

We know that the precautionary principle has been one of the fundamental tenets of this Minister of Environment. We know that if the regulations that will accompany this bill are based on the precautionary principle, as we saw applied to the Capital Regional District and the AOX emissions, we won't be able to implement this bill without being very punitive.

Industry, having subscribed to the best available scientific knowledge at the time and acted within the existing legislation and regulations, may end up being hit with regulations that will retroactively penalize them for something that wasn't scientifically proven to be a problem. That's a real problem in terms of future investment for the province and where the province is going to develop.

I think that all of us agree we must have responsible environmental legislation. We must have legislation that will take into account the critical need to recognize where our contaminated sites are and try to define where the responsibility belongs. When we look through this bill and see some of the issues about who pays, there's a great deal of concern. In trying to deal with some of the various agencies, municipalities and regional districts, and with the role of the aboriginal people.... I don't see the word "aboriginal" in here at all.

I don't see any reference to aboriginal lands, which I think is kind of interesting. Certainly aboriginal lands are part of the map of British Columbia. Although we've seen immunities extended to local governments, I think it's unfortunate that we don't know what the final role will be for what this government has chosen to call the third order of government.

When we talk about who pays in public consultations, are we going to define who pays based on whom the public perceives to be the culprit? For example, in a small town that has relied on one industry

[ Page 6950 ]

or one plant... We can look at Celgar in the Kootenays. None of us would advocate pollution. With hindsight we can see that pollution was a natural spinoff for some of those industries, because they weren't properly regulated. That was a major problem. We can see that those cities and towns are dependent on those industries, yet if we overly regulate the industries and lose them, the town will shut down. So we would end up with a net loss. We might even end up losing the ability to clean up the contaminated site. If the industry that's responsible shuts down and leaves, who is going to end up paying for it?

Ultimately the government would end up paying for it. But the local people would end up being out of jobs.

We've seen small-town shutdowns because of prior legislation. We've seen the government bring in legislation with good intentions and the right objectives, but the manner in which it was brought in was not sensitive to the very fragile economies of the outlying regions. We know that environmental regulation is an area where we can be progressive and set a lot of trends, and we can prioritize which areas have to be dealt with first.

But if we don't do it in a manner that takes into account the fragile economy of the outlying regions and that recognizes good faith but instead do it in a manner in which the political will to have those objectives achieved and prioritized and to have a long-term strategy in place supersedes the public response through consultation, there's a real danger of ending up with an almost hysterical approach to contaminated-sites legislation, which in the long run would be very detrimental to the public.

I have concerns with a few things. How is it going to impact resource industries when due diligence is not properly defined? How are we going to deal with investor confidence when they see this bill added to others? I'm not advocating for a second that we should negate our environmental responsibilities for the sake of capital investment -- quite the contrary. We must recognize that we have to be environmentally responsible in a manner that allows for capital investment to come in with some comfort.

Open-ended liability is something we have to be concerned about. Basically signing a blank cheque that doesn't adequately tie into due diligence or jurisdiction is a problem for the opposition. We are extremely concerned that this bill may end up not being worth a lot if the jurisdiction is limited to areas that are only non-aboriginal. When we look at the way the government is dealing with the final jurisdiction on aboriginal land claims, which may have nothing at all to do with the provincial government.... That is something the opposition is very much opposed to.

As I say, there are some problems with this in principle. The double standard with regard to local governments versus individuals is a major one. The problem with open-ended liability is major. I can certainly see that this bill will be extremely good for the lawyers. This bill could not possibly have been written to be less friendly to lawyers. Maybe this is a tax-generating initiative for the Ministry of Environment, with the new 7 percent legal tax, so that we can bring in some extra revenue.

Having said that, I look forward to committee stage of this bill. An enabling bill that is this far-reaching and takes so many different aspects of contaminated sites into account in a very open-ended way can lead to a lot of anxiety and, unfortunately, not be as conducive to a very conciliatory approach to contaminated site cleanup as the minister may wish.

D. Mitchell: I ask leave to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: We have in our public galleries and in the precincts today a group of grade 7 students from Hillside Middle School in West Vancouver. It's a large group of about 90 students; they are accompanied by some teachers and several adults. I wonder if the members of the House would welcome these students.

I'd like to add some comments to second reading stage of Bill 26, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1993. This is a big bill; it's an important bill. When I say it's big, it's about 40 pages long. It's quite technical. The minister has made his comments on the second reading stage, but many of his comments are going to have to be addressed in far greater detail when we get to the committee stage of this bill because of the broad-ranging nature of this legislation. As the minister has stated, the general purpose of the bill is to improve regulation and cleanup of contaminated sites in British Columbia.

Of course, we can support that in general. In principle, we all believe that improved regulation for the cleanup of contaminated sites is something that can be supported.

The major change in this legislation is that it eliminates one

section of the existing Waste Management Act, which was a small half-page

section of the original statute. It replaces it with a new, 15-page section, 3.1. It makes a very significant change to one small portion of the existing statute that it seeks to amend here.

A number of questions and issues arise as a result of Bill 26. I'd like to refer to just a few of the more important ones, as I see them, during the second reading stage. There are a number of issues relating to the liability of British Columbians; there are a number of issues relating to increased bureaucracy, which I think we should all be concerned about in this Legislature. One of the questions arises with respect to site profiles.

The bill itself doesn't really tell us what's involved in a site profile report, but by reading the part of the bill that deals with site profiles, we're led to believe that when a private homeowner wants to make a change to their home and seeks a building permit to build an addition onto their home or for zoning approval for a private residence, apparently ordinary homeowners will be required to provide site profiles and pay for municipal assessment of the site profile. One wonders about that change and the paperwork burden that's going to be added to ordinary citizens under this legislation.

Certainly we'd like to get more detail from the minister as to what is involved in a site profile report when we get to committee stage. It seems like it's going to be more red tape. We should be

[ Page 6951 ]

concerned about that, because the ordinary citizens of British Columbia want less, not more, red tape.

There is another issue here relating to the site registry that the bill refers to. A new site registry is to be established. One wonders if we really need a new site registry. Almost every piece of legislation that the NDP government brings in refers to some new administrative unit, registry or part of a department that is going to employ more bureaucrats and be costly to the taxpayers -- more government, more red tape. Here we have it again:

section 20.21 refers to a new site registry. Why couldn't the new site registry under this act be incorporated into the existing land registries so that when an ordinary purchaser is unaware of a contaminated status of a property they are purchasing, the information would be contained within the land registry during the normal conveyancing process? One wonders why we need a separate land registry under the minister's department or whether this is just a burgeoning empire for the Minister of Environment. That's an issue we need to understand more clearly before we can approve this bill.

There are a number of other issues, including liability for remediation. In particular, this legislation provides for retroactive liability for contamination, even if the substance was legal at the time of introduction to the site. So a person who purchased property many years after the original site was used for some purpose is now going to be liable because of the retroactivity, in terms of liability for remediation. Even if the permits, plans or certificates of waste were authorized under the law of the day, the state can go backward in time. There are concerns about that in terms of fairness.

Although clearly there has to be some liability, and this amendment to the act is trying to decide who is liable, there has to be a concern about what is or is not excessive under the bill.

An allocation panel can be established under

section 20.51 of the bill. That allocation panel can perform work, and that work is to "be paid for by the person who requests the opinion." Yet under that

section of the bill, the manager of the ministry is not bound by the opinion of any allocation panel. One wonders about the powers or authority of this panel that can be established -- and whether or not it's useful, because the bureaucrat within the ministry is not bound by the work of the panel in any event. What is the real benefit of that?

One other area that I'd like to refer to very briefly is the

section of the bill dealing with voluntary remediation agreements --

section 20.61, which we'll deal with in much more detail in committee. I find this interesting. I wonder if the government has any recognition for how business is conducted in the province, because this bill certainly seems to be an attempt to change how we do business in British Columbia -- or how parties transact business with one another. Under this

section of the bill, a party entering into a voluntary agreement is not protected from further actions under either this legislation or under common law. A party entering into voluntary agreement requires written consent of the manager in order to dispose of any assets that reduce the capacity to comply with the terms of the voluntary agreement. In short, I wonder if there is a potential to interfere too much in the ordinary course of business transactions as a result of this bill.

A number of other areas in the bill that we'll deal with in committee include contaminated soil relocation, delegation to municipalities and cost recovery. There are actually some good points in this bill -- points that we can and should support.

One final

section I'd like to refer to with respect to the ongoing liability provisions is

section 20.95, the "right to take further action." This could be considered excessive in terms of the powers given to the state in this area. Again, the manager within the Ministry of Environment has broad powers to reinstitute proceedings against an owner who was cleared in the past based upon any new information that arises -- any new standards, any new site usages, etc. One wonders whether or not this ongoing liability under the act isn't excessive.

[4:15]

Mr. Speaker, we can support the general principle that is put forward by the minister in his comments with respect to this bill. But these are some of the concerns that I think we're going to have to address before we can approve it in committee stage. I think the broad issue is increased bureaucracy, with a new registry and new red tape. We don't support that. That's something that British Columbians want to see less of. This bill seems to provide more red tape, more bureaucracy and more cost to the taxpayers. Couldn't we get the job done with less, not more? Through using our hard heads and our best business minds, couldn't we achieve the goals of this bill with less bureaucracy, not more?

Of course, the other broad issue is the retroactivity, both for cost recovery and the ability to take further actions based upon any standards or information that didn't exist -- even if the party met all of the government's requirements at the time. That retroactivity surely is the heavy hand of the state reaching back in time. That's unfair, or at least there's the potential for unfairness against ordinary citizens in British Columbia, whether it be for industrial use, or whether they be private property owners or homeowners seeking building permits for their homes.

Those are some concerns I'd like to raise in second reading. I look forward to the committee stage, where we'll be able to get into much more detail, and I think that's where the major debate will likely take place on Bill 26.

C. Serwa: Bill 26 is a detailed and technical bill. It's the type of bill that is difficult to speak to on its philosophy and principles, but there are a number of unsettling areas. Certainly the objective of identifying and cleaning up contaminated sites is necessary, but is the bill being responsible? The bill develops some of the parameters, but without the regulations it does not give us a clear determination of where the minister and the government are going. The bill has implications that I think are potentially threatening and at the very least time-consuming and expensive to the people of B.C. and that may or may not achieve the results the minister

[ Page 6952 ]

is hoping for. The bill is vague; the language is ambiguous and not clearly defined. While it creates a general framework for waste management, the real meat of the bill will be, as I said earlier, in the regulations that have to accompany it.

I see a number of problems with the bill. Certainly there is a dual standard. That's clearly evident where it applies to non-native British Columbians and not to native British Columbians with respect to federal private lands. That causes me concern on the basis of fairness and balance. If we're concerned about pollution, we are well aware that whether it's radioactivity or contaminants such as PCBs, between air currents and water currents they're carried over widespread locations, and contaminants can be spread through groundwater.

There is concern about the application of standards and whether it's the intent of the ministry to apply them to only some British Columbians, or even, if this current government has a choice in water, how they do it.

One of the strengths or weaknesses of the bill will be the ability to impress all British Columbians with its necessity. There is also a difference in the way individuals are treated. The creation of additional bureaucracies is something that I think the people of B.C. will find hard to tolerate. In the past two years over 2,000 new jobs have been created in the province's civil service. It seems to be a dedicated effort for re-election. The current government is creating all sorts of bureaucracies to employ more people who will join the BCGEU and vote for them in the next election.

They have an opportunity to employ unemployed socialists across Canada who can contest the next federal election. That may be part and parcel of this bill.

The challenges of the bill are in such things as the definition of a contaminated site: "an area of land in which the soil or any groundwater lying beneath it, or the water or the underlying sediment, contains (

a) a special waste, or (

b) another prescribed substance in quantities or concentrations exceeding prescribed criteria, standards or conditions...." Let's take a look at the Fraser River delta. Several years ago there were reports of lesions and cancerous tissues on a lot of the bottom fish. Several weeks ago the minister came out with a state-of-the-environment report that indicated -- with the tougher pulp mill regulations and the other concerns that had been addressed -- that the river was being cleaned up and that we were making good progress and moving in the right direction.

The reality underlying that is contaminated strata on an annual basis. Who is responsible for the cleaning up of that contaminated strata? How does one identify who is guilty in that particular situation? We are starting to run into areas where this legislation indicates that the government determines who should be responsible for the cleanup. The magnitude of that job would be unaffordable by anyone.

There are contaminated sites around pulp mills, which for years have had emissions that contaminated certain site areas, and we're well aware of that. Nevertheless, these contaminated areas now underlie strata that is cleaner, because of more stringent pulp mill regulations, and are not causing the types of problems they formerly were. Is the pulp mill responsible for the removal of that strata? It can clearly be identified.

As has been mentioned in the Legislature, to have an assessment done on the property creates a number of questions for people in British Columbia who apply for a building permit or subdivision approval. On what basis? Is there a suspicion that this is a contaminated site? Will this be a standard rule of thumb that everyone who applies for a building permit to add on a porch, for example, will now have to have their property assessed?

Then you get into the realm of concentrations. A former homeowner in downtown Vancouver may have been a handyman and when he changed his oil he dumped it on the soil. The new owner has applied for a building permit, and over a period of time there had been a gallon or two of oil dumped on the lot. To what degree does that determine a contaminated site? There are no parameters and no discussion in this bill with respect to concentrations, and there are a great deal of concerns on the part of the property owners.

There is a clear bias against property owners, and that's not surprising from a government that doesn't believe anyone has the right to own property, so I can understand that particular bias.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Someone says it's not true, but they have been consistent in opposing property ownership as part of the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Even property owners who are innocent are deemed guilty. They will have to pay the cost of the whole process. They will be forced to pay court costs to try to obtain compensation from previous owners. This is not an obligation of the government but something imposed on an innocent property owner. Again, Orwellian is the word that always comes into context when the government delivers a bill. A number of potentials within this bill are truly frightening. They can only be taken away with more realistic regulations and a responsible application of the legislation. Nevertheless, there is a concern in this particular bill that the ministry has awesome powers of enforcement.

The concern is that assessment costs have to be billed to property owners whether or not they were involved in the contamination of the site. The cleanup of the property has to be borne by the current owners whether or not they were involvedt in it simply because they are the property owners. I can assure you, for example, that once the water supply of an area is contaminated, the cost of cleanup would exceed the budget of the provincial government.

The Expo lands are perhaps a good case in point of a historical type of pollution where the ultimate obligation rests on the Crown for the cleanup. It was part and parcel of the acquisition costs of the land, and it's still an ongoing responsibility of the provincial government. But that really goes back beyond the turn of the century. It would be exceedingly difficult to get any property owner to assume that type of an

[ Page 6953 ]

obligation, especially when there was no knowledge of the types of industries that occurred on a particular site in the previous 90 to 100 years. Clearly there has to be a responsible nature on the part of government to recognize some sort of a time factor variability. They cannot evade the reality, the logistics and the costs and impose all of those on a current property owner. It may happen to residential, industrial, commercial or agricultural property. Nitrate poisoning is, I presume, a form of contamination.

It would be a concern if we found, for example, that nitrates in the soil through fertilizers qualify as a contaminated site because of the concentration. How can this in fact be cleaned up? How can it be cost effective? It's one thing to draw up regulations; it's another thing to draw up legislation; it's a third thing to make them practical and enforceable. I am confident that the minister would like to make them practical and enforceable, but this particular package of legislation doesn't lend validity to my belief.

Generally, I think that the bill tends to hold a fairness and balance throughout with respect to rights. Although, as I said earlier, it is very heavy on the rights of property owners. It's entirely correct to collect from polluters but far and away, before we get to that area, our concern at the present time has to be with eliminating the forms of pollution that we're now acutely aware of: contaminated ground, air and groundwater. That has to be first and foremost, because prevention is certainly the least expensive and most cost effective route to go on.

[4:30]

The great debate on this bill will be during Committee of the Whole. The debate will continue when the regulations are actually put into place. That's where the majority of the public debate will start to ensue because for the first time the public impact of this Waste Management Amendment Act will be seen. At that time it will perhaps be a little bit late to do very much. All I can say is that during committee stage of this bill we will try to go through it extensively,

section by section, asking questions of the minister and, I am confident, getting good responses. Hopefully we will make the public aware of the magnitude of the implications of the bill, and perhaps we will get the minister to answer specific questions that each

section brings forward.

In general, I think the bill is a good idea. My concern is that it's written in a fashion that is particularly heavy and onerous on property owners. It's particularly favourable to government and perhaps to the ministry, but on the whole I don't think it has the total balance and responsibility, recognizing the length of time and recognizing that concentrations are not taken into consideration.

We will be looking forward to debating this bill further in Committee of the Whole.

R. Chisholm: I rise today with some concerns over this bill. One concern is retroactive legislation -- I'm not exactly in favour of that. How far does retroactive legislation go? When a chemical such as DDT was an authorized chemical to use on farmlands, we started talking about the determination of contaminated sites. Those chemicals are still there. What are we going to do about cleaning these up? Will a farmer, who is barely making a living at best nowadays because they are being taxed to death, have to remove the topsoil?

The farmer, who is barely making ends meet, can ill afford to take the loam off the top of the earth and move it to some other site because of past agriculture practices which were the norm of the day. We are punishing farmers who may have been there for the last 30 or 40 years, and what he did then was the technology of the day and was perfectly appropriate. With this bill it won't be appropriate, and somebody will order him to remove the topsoil and have the area cleaned up. My problem is: where does the farmer then go?

Does he just go out of business, or is there some sort of government agency where he can go to discuss his problem?

An Hon. Member: Or she.

R. Chisholm: Or she; pardon me.

What facility is available for this farmer to address this problem? They can ill afford to remove the topsoil, they are being taxed to death by this government's taxation policies and they are barely making ends meet. We already have our problems with GATT and all the rest of it. Now we are going to tell them that if they have too high a level of nitrates -- which may come from manure if they are a cattle operation and they were going by past practices -- that they have now contaminated the water supply. How does the farmer afford to clean this up? What happens?

Does he just put up a going-out-of-business sign, go bankrupt and give up the farm or turn it over to the state? What happens here? As I said, these practices were the norm at the time. Now what does the farmer do?

Let's talk about fishing and aquaculture. This government has decided where they will put fish farms. There is contamination from such farms. What is going to happen when the farms that are starting up now have contaminated sites? Who is going to clean up the mess? A government agent will order that this mess be cleaned up by the individual, but the individual was following all the guidelines that the same government implemented two or three years ago. When the Social Credit government was in power they tried to fast-track the aquaculture industry and made a mess of it.

Now these organizations are going to have to clean it up, but those were the rules of the day. Who's going to clean up the ones that have gone bankrupt? There are bankrupt contaminated fish farms that are a mess. Who's going to clean those up? Are they going to try to find the previous owners? These people are already bankrupt and don't have the money to clean it up. Who is going to clean up these areas?

This is a result of the disaster of the previous government and of what this government is doing now. How can they bring in regulations like this when they promised a moratorium on aquaculture? And they still haven't enacted the moratorium. They don't even know what they're talking about. These are some very basic principles. We have to start crawling before we walk, and then walk before we run. We seem to jump into the game halfway through and expect to run, but we're not

[ Page 6954 ]

capable, because we haven't done the background work. We haven't done the moratoriums, we haven't done the studies and we don't even know who is responsible anymore. If we do find out, they don't have the capability to clean up the mess that was created through their regulation.

Think about farmers and the taxation policies of this government. A cattle ranch of 300 head is down by 19 percent on income, barely making ends meet. Farmers are going off the farm to keep it viable, and they're being taxed by the Finance minister for doing it, as a matter of fact. We are going to tell this individual that he's been using the wrong kind of fertilizer and will now have to remove 100 acres of topsoil. How can he afford that? Are we trying to tell these industries to put up the going-out-of-business sign and that we'll buy from out of the country?

If we go along with this type of policy and regulation, we may as well go out of agriculture. The farmers of this province cannot afford to do what this bill will require them to do, whether it's nitrates from manure or fertilizers, or pesticides and herbicides. They were all authorized by the regulations of previous governments, and now they're going to be penalized.

As I say, they may as well put up a going-out-of-business sign. I'll address these problems more in the committee stage.

G. Wilson: In rising to debate Bill 26, let me say that in principle any bill that seeks to put in place a waste management process to protect our environment and the areas surrounding our communities is a welcome one. But we have to recognize that when we do this, there are some realities that need to be addressed and some issues that need to be discussed. I think the minister wants to think about some of the issues raised by my colleagues in the Liberal opposition.

Interestingly enough, one of the first parts of Bill 26 is

Part 3.1, contaminated site remediation. When you want to decide whether a bill is a good bill or a bad bill, you look to

definitions. If you go back to

section 20.1 of the Waste Management Act, 1982, the contaminated site remediation process that is being replaced by this act, and look at this in terms of the overall principles involved, it's interesting to see that the government is attempting to address the philosophical question of who should be responsible for the contamination, cleanup and damage of sites. We've gone through a very lengthy bill here to try to bring that down.

Let's take a look at the concept of a contaminated site. A contaminated site "means an area of land in which the soil or any groundwater lying beneath it, or the water or the underlying sediment, contains (

a) a special waste, or (

b) another prescribed substance in quantities or concentrations exceeding prescribed criteria, standards or conditions...." That's a pretty wide definition. There's one major contaminated site in B.C., and that's the harbour of Vancouver. Vancouver harbour is about as contaminated a site as any you would want to find. The industrial development that has taken place over the years around Vancouver has put leachate, heavy metals and toxins of every description into the water and the sediments below the water in Vancouver harbour. Given that the municipality is now responsible, I would assume that every time there's a dev