[ Page 2875 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Guno

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Clark

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

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2884

Mr. Miller

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Guno

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I note with some pleasure the presence in the House this morning of a longtime friend of mine and close observer of politics at all levels of government, Mr. Patrick Palmer. I'd ask the House to welcome a very dear friend.

MR. BRUCE: In the House today are 30 grade 6 students from Cowichan Station. I'd like to name all of the names, but.... They're with their teacher, Mr. Hoag. They're here today to see the affairs of this particular House in action. I'd like you all to join with me in bidding them a very warm welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I was looking for the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). However, I understand transportation difficulties have caused him not to be here at this time, so with that said, Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 51.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

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

On section 1.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Briefly to recap, this bill amends the Mineral Act. It should really be called the mineral tenure act. It amends it in such a way as to set up a new and specific regime for the granting of claims in recreation areas which are not parks but of which parts might in some future time become a provincial park. It sets up a certain regime so that owners of new claims know what notice they will be given to terminate their operations, or under what circumstances they would be expropriated, and under what conditions. It is really legislation that applies more directly to land management in the sense of recreation areas and parks, but at the same time it provides greater certainty insofar as the mining industry is concerned. Individuals or companies that have existing claims will similarly have to be bought out. Nevertheless, if the government of the day decides to change the status of a recreation area to a park, automatically the claim-owners are on ten years' notice; they have to either prove up their properties or cease their interest altogether. If their properties have some mineral potential, then they will be expropriated at the values determined at that time.

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

MR. GABELMANN: On section 1, I wrote down one phrase that the Minister of Energy used,"recreation areas which are not parks." The problem we have with that is that there are several varieties of recreation areas. There are recreation areas that are within parks but are no longer class A parks and no longer technically parks. You have recreation areas that are contiguous to existing class A parks. Thirdly, you have what I think the minister is referring to, which are recreation areas that are in newly defined areas being considered for potential park development. How, in this legislation or the Park Act, is a separation or a distinction made between these different kinds of recreation areas? Because if it's not made, then it seems to me that the rules apply equally to all of these different kinds of recreation areas and different classifications. I'd appreciate some clarification on this, either from the Minister of Energy or the Minister of Environment and Parks.

HON. MR. DAVIS: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this legislation applies to the new recreation areas, which are.... I'll read the definition under 80(1):

"'Recreation area' means a recreation area or a part of a recreation area. within the meaning of the Park Act, designated by regulation of the LieutenantGovemor-in-Council, on the joint recommendation of the minister" — that's the Minister of Mines — "and of the Minister of Environment and Parks, as a recreation area in respect of which this section applies."

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

[10:15]

MR. GABELMANN: I listened carefully to the minister in second reading debate, and I understood that he did; he named Brooks Peninsula, for example, and, I think, three other areas in British Columbia. But neither the definition in section 1 in the bill we're debating nor the definition in the Parks Act makes any distinction between new recreation areas designated by the Parks minister, some of which are in new areas and some of which are extracted from existing parks. There is no distinction made about the difference between those kinds of recreation areas. We have an assertion, or a declaration, from the minister that it only means one thing, but apparently there is no legislative assurance of that — no assurance in law. Nor, as I read it, is there any ability to write regulations based on the law that will assure that what the minister asserts, particularly in his second reading statement, will in fact be legally binding, or have legal standing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll advise the committee that the question as posed by the hon. member for North Island is legitimate, and as I advised him earlier privately, the staff from the parks branch are coming soon to the Legislative Assembly and will be providing for him that distinction and how the distinction is in place. But if they could perhaps continue with their debate and then their concerns, we'll note them down so that an appropriate and technical comment and reply can be made.

MS. EDWARDS: My question is in relation to this definition, and I think I'll put it in now. It has to do with recreation areas, and I ask the Minister of Mines, because it is related to your intention about where mining can continue. I would like to extend and ask a question, and I don't want to be out of order on this, but do the recreation areas include the wilderness recreation areas? They don't currently, I wouldn't say, by the definition there. But is it the intention, or would the minister consider an amendment, to include the forest recreation wilderness areas? I put the question forward because in those areas they no longer allow logging; which as the minister has said himself can be very destructive. He used

[ Page 2876 ]

the example of the Akamina-Kishinena area. And certainly mining exploration can be very destructive of wilderness. Would an amendment be considered to extend this to recreation areas that are also under the Forest Act?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I would defer to the Minister of .Environment and Parks as to the distinctions within the broad definition of "recreation area."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the question raised by the member with respect to that activity, that was done in a previous bill debated in the spring, if I'm not mistaken. But I'll have that verified for you shortly as well — in the Forest Amendment Act.

MS. EDWARDS: About the Forest Amendment Act, Mr. Minister, mining activity was allowed to continue in the wilderness areas. I'm suggesting that we reconsider this. Let's have the Mines minister consider putting this into the Mineral Act amendment bill, and then doing another amendment to the Forest Act under that situation. Because we're talking about wilderness areas, and it is very difficult to picture wilderness being wilderness when mineral exploration activity is going on. In fact, the activities can go on under the Forest Amendment Act, the Mineral Act, the Mining (Placer) Act, the Coal Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act or the Geothermal Resources Act. It seems to me that that is not consistent with what is going on here, and it would be consistent for the minister to extend the definition here of recreation area, both within the meaning of the Park Act and the Forest Act, and all it would take would be another minor amendment to the Forest Act. It seems to be an inconsistency.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member is advocating a. crossover between the Park Act and the forestry act. This legislation is related to lands which could become a park and are recreation areas within the meaning of the Park Act. So we are specifically dealing with parks and not areas which, like the forest wilderness areas, are within the Forest Act definition of wilderness area, and under other legislation.

MR. GUNO: My questions are going to focus on the consultation process. The section specifies the powers of the cabinet in consultation with the Minister of Environment and Parks and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to allow for miners and recorded holders to explore and develop mineral claims within these recreation areas. I want to focus for a moment on this consultative process between the two ministers. I am concerned that the process may be rather narrow and fragmented and would cater to very narrow mandates. I wonder if the Minister of Energy would explain how this process would relate to the present review process, which is stages 1, 2 and 3. Will it be a separate one? Will it parallel it? Will it have an opportunity for public input into the whole decision-making process?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The simple answer is yes; the entire stage 1, 2 and 3 process will be followed. We're talking about recreation areas which could at some time become part, or indeed all, of one of these areas — a park. We're talking about the process of allowing mineral claims to be established, allowing mining to take place in some instances where there are mineral values. But all of the steps required elsewhere in the province to protect the environment and otherwise protect the public interest will of course be followed in these instances.

The main thrust of this legislation, however, is to allow the government to terminate exploration activity, mining activity, on the occasion when one of these areas is decided by the government of the day to become a park. There is the matter of ten years' notice, of course, but we are putting the mining industry on notice in these areas that in addition to the processes established for protecting the environment, etc; there is this possibility and indeed probability in some areas of the recreation area becoming a park and the operation of the mining company being terminated.

MR. GUNO: In terms of evaluating the potential for mining in these designated areas, you stated yesterday that the government then has an opportunity to decide, having this information, I guess after the exploration activities have been followed through.... "In other words, we'll know whether there is mineral potential. We can, if the mineral potential is substantial and recreation or park value minimal, exclude these areas." I mean, that's fair enough; that's clear enough.

Then you say: "Alternatively, if we are assured that there is no ongoing or at least substantial potential, those lands can forever be proclaimed parklands." Now my question is in terms of another scenario: if there was a relatively equal value, if you had a very first-class potential for class A but yet had some fairly substantial mineral potential, what factors would come into play? Would you not agree that the ecological damage, or conservation, should be given equal weight with economic and industrial dimensions? In other words, how is that kind of conflict going to be decided upon and what opportunities will the public have in terms of challenging or having some input in that decision-making process?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think, realistically, if the commercial values — mineral values on the one hand and, say, tourism and similar measurable commercial values on the other — were roughly equal, the subjective elements which weigh heavily on the side of environment, ecology, preservation and wilderness and so on would first have a voice through public consultation. But I would say that if those other values were equal, that would weigh very heavily in the minds of those who were making the decisions. It would in all of that area, that particular few square miles, if that's the definition of the mineral claim, become part of a park and not be mined for its mineral values.

MR. GUNO: I would want to hear what the Minister of Parks would have to say about that kind of conflict and what his role would be in that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As the member well knows, and if we look at the Tener claim of some years ago, in weighing those values one simply has to look at what type of geology the company can produce. If it's very solid geology and if the cost to the taxpayer of British Columbia is going to be extremely high, then we would have to let the mining activity occur. I guess we make a judgment at that point, but it's very difficult.

In the case of logging, you can cruise an area and you know what the value is going to be. That can be determined quite easily to everyone's satisfaction. In the case of my ministry, we say: "Yes, the cruised value of the timber is

[ Page 2877 ]

such, but we think the park area value is higher." So the government is prepared to go out and pay for that standing timber to preserve it for recreation purposes and for the enjoyment of people.

We make a determination that a vertical tree is worth more than a horizontal tree, and establishing the cost of that determination is quite easy to do. When you're dealing with something underneath the ground, that becomes very difficult, and the courts have found it difficult as well. But if the geology is such that we're looking at millions of dollars, say, in trying to buy out an area, then we have to make the decision to let the mining company proceed, because that huge expense to the taxpayer of British Columbia would not be justified to preserve an area for recreation purposes, if we can allow the mining activity to occur, have proper reclamation and then convert back to park.

MR. GUNO: To respond to that and pose a further question, I think he's aware that our potential, or at least the potential for wilderness parks, is fast diminishing. In fact. they are at a premium now. Would that not be a big factor in deciding if there were equal potentials for mining and for designating the area as class A? Would that not be one of the big factors in determining class A park designation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I didn't hear that question. But I do have a comment I'd like to make to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) with respect to the legislative concern he expressed earlier.

When we're dealing with a recreation area within a park, there will be no new mining claims. There will be no mining, unless it's a claim already in existence. When we're dealing with a newly formed contiguous area or with newly defined recreation areas not contiguous to a park but just standing alone, then we will make the decision based on the geological evidence we have, as I explained earlier.

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

[10:30]

MR. GUNO: I think the Minister of Mines talked about a subjective kind of assessment that would be made in deciding whether or not you would continue the mining activity or would designate it as a class A park. You mentioned some of the factors that you would consider. I'm asking: are you aware that the wilderness potential we have is fast disappearing in British Columbia, and that this kind of legislation would invite more mining exploration? As you said, if it's valid or viable, then you've got it.

HON. MR. DAVIS: On the contrary, were we not to legislate along these lines, we would find claims developing on the periphery, let's say, of some of our present parks and certainly in areas that could in future be designated as parks. Those claims would, if they showed promise...no financial limit on the demands that could be placed on the government of the day, on the treasury and so on. First, we're alerting the industry: "You're in a recreation area." Second, at any time, if the government so wishes, it can give you ten years' notice to complete your exploration and establish whatever commercial values are there. Then the likelihood is that you'll be expropriated, because we the government of the day have decided that this will become a full-scale park. So we're putting industry on notice — not only in these new recreation areas but in future recreation areas — that this process will occur and that a date will be set in the future if, as and when the government of the day decides that that area should become a park.

So there's an element of certainty introduced as far as the mining industry is concerned, and I think it largely meets the industry sector's requirement that it know the ground rules. But it's a process: it's a sequence. It's a way of dealing with what otherwise could be a claim lasting indefinitely into the future.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm seeking further clarification from the Ministry of Environment. I'm comforted by your words, but I'd like to see it in writing. How can the Legislature be assured that there is a difference between recreational areas that are within parks or contiguous with park boundaries? What specific regulation can you point to that would show that these areas would be treated differently from recreational areas that are standing on their own?

Can you give us information as to how many recreational areas there are directly related to parks in some way, either in parks or contiguous with the boundaries of existing parks as compared to recreational areas that stand on their own?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With respect to the number within, there are five or six; contiguous, there are four. In just a moment I'll provide you with the legislative comfort.

Let me also say in response to my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines, Petroleum Resources in the instance of his ministry that this is legislation that is tightening up the activity that can be taken by his ministry or his constituency — the mining community.

In the case of my constituency — the park and wilderness constituency — this is legislation that clearly expands our ability to set in place recreation areas and does state to the extraction industry how we are going to do that and how they will govern themselves when operating within a designated resignation — a Freudian slip — recreation area.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can I assume then, because the minister was not forthcoming with information regarding recreational areas that stand separate from parks, that there are none?

The minister says that the purpose of this legislation is to give notice to the mining industry with regard to the rules for prospecting and laying claims within recreational areas. The minister has previously talked about the Tener case and referred to the government's liability in connection with those claims.

What this legislation does, in essence, is tell the mining companies that they can go out and prospect and they have a ten-year time-limit. From what I can see here, the mining companies just have to rotate in ten years. They just have to start a new claim. This isn't a ten-year time-limit from today but a ten-year time-limit from the time of initiating the claim. In other words, nine and a half years from now a mining company could come along and stake a claim and they'd have ten years from that time to prove that claim. It's an ongoing sort of situation. If I'm wrong on that, I'd appreciate either one of the ministers clarifying that.

Again, I'm looking for clarification as to the difference in the treatment of recreational areas that are contiguous with parks or are in parks and ones that are separate, if there are

[ Page 2878 ]

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

HON. MR. DAVIS: As to the timing, we are talking about areas, some of which have already been proclaimed recreation areas, some of which are contiguous to existing parks and some of which are not. Today a mining company or individual can go in and establish a claim. That's the situation today. They can continue to do so in these recreation areas until the government of the day decides that that area shall become a park. Then the whistle is blown, the clock starts running and ten years can elapse during which the company can work on its claim, establish whatever mineral values are there, establish if they are of any consequence. Also the government can, if it wishes, do some surveys of its own, geological and otherwise, to determine whether this has any value. But clearly that area is going to be a park.

As the Minister of Environment has said, there are no recreation areas within parks that will see any new claims or any mines. We're not talking about areas within present parks; we're talking about new recreation areas recently established or to be established in the future, and we're setting up a certain regime that the mining industry can fully understand and where the industry will be treated equitably. If it puts any money into claims between now and the time it's decided to convert the area into a park, they can recover that investment by perhaps proving up what they had hoped would be a mine, or simply give up.

MR. GABELMANN: We still don't have any clear definition in statute of the difference between a recreation area that is newly designated in a new area, for example Brooks Peninsula, and the recreation area that sits in the middle of Strathcona Park, for example. There is no difference between those two recreation areas as far as statute is concerned. There is an assertion from both ministers that in the Strathcona Park recreation area, existing claims can be worked on and resolved one way or another, mined or quitted — if that's the right word — but no new exploration can take place. In Brooks Peninsula, exploration can take place and you may decide at some point to start the ten-year clock ticking. But there is no statutory difference between those two recreation areas.

I don't understand what would prevent, under the law, a mining company from going in and exploring in a recreation area that happens to be a former park; it's no longer a park, it's a recreation area. The only thing that stops them right now is that they can't get permission from the parks branch. But if we pass this legislation, what's to stop them from doing it, and if they're challenged, going to court over the case and saying: "This is a recreation area. We have the right. There's no difference between these recreation areas. So what authority does the government have to stop us from exploring in this recreation area when we're allowed to explore in the other recreation area?"

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can appreciate the member's concern, and he is correct: it's not spelled out by legislation. But what we have done in terms of our own process and in terms of stopping what you expressed as a concern — and I appreciate your concern — is an order-in-council reserve over all areas. Before any activity can take place, part of that OIC would have to be dropped to allow that. I can assure you that under our current policies, and particularly with Strathcona or any recreation area within a defined park, the Ministry of Environment and Parks would not allow that. You know why: because the public pressure would be horrendous, and you and I both know what it is.

Although I can't give you legislative comfort at this point, I can assure you that it is the expressed opinion and policy of this government that there will be no new exploration within parks. Where there are recorded claimholders, then we have to look at Tener and know that if the geology is such that we're looking at a very expensive expropriation, we cannot subject the taxpayers to that type of cost. Where it's less money involved — in the case of a recorded claimholder at present we're only looking at his initial exploration costs — we will approach him, and we have a budget for that within the ministry, to say: "We're prepared to grant you the costs that you've expended so far in expropriation. Will you make a deal with us?" To that extent we've been reasonably successful, and I think that we'd like to be more successful in stopping that activity in recreation areas within parks.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to separate the Tener thing from this current discussion. There's all kinds of legal opinion that says Tener applies in the situation at Wells Gray and that alone, and doesn't apply in Strathcona, but that's another issue. We've had that debate before, and it's not appropriate under this section.

What is appropriate under this section is a debate about what the minister just said. The minister said that in recreation areas within existing parks there is no legislative protection from future mining exploration; not development of existing claims, but future mineral exploration. The only protection against that is a declaration of the minister and a current policy of the government expressed through an orderin-council. That's not good enough.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

It's no wonder that people who are concerned about our parks express a view which goes along these lines: we don't believe the government; we don't trust the government; we don't believe it really means what it's saying in respect of recreation areas within parks. If it really meant it, it would bring in a law.

[10:45]

I don't understand, given all the time we've had, given an awareness on the part of the Minister of Environment and Parks that this was an issue for some time, given all the confusion that came out following the first Friday, I think, in October when there was a briefing session in Richmond for the whole question of the recreation areas, and given the widespread belief in the community of people who are concemed about our parks that in fact it was going to be wide open for exploration in all recreation areas.... That was a widespread concern then. The government has said it doesn't want that to happen; it only wants this exploration — and the minister's been clear. I'm not quarrelling about how clear both ministers have been in this debate. But there's clearly widespread confusion and uncertainty and fear out there that this is the policy today, but what's the policy tomorrow?

If, for example, a company, while working up a particular claim in a recreation area in a park which it has a legitimate right under the current rules to proceed with, discovers that there is an even richer body right next door to its area, which

[ Page 2879 ]

it hasn't claimed and no one else has claimed, it is going to come to the cabinet and say: "Look at this. This is going to provide X number of jobs; this is going to provide untold wealth. Allow us to extend our existing claim or allow us to do a new claim." At the present time government policy, through cabinet order-in-council, is to not allow that. But what public scrutiny will there be of that request? What protection is there to prevent that kind of request? None. Simply an order-in-council which can be changed every Wednesday, or more often if you have a special meeting.

So I don't understand. I'm not questioning the sincerity of either minister on this point; I want to make that clear. I'm not questioning your sincerity when you state that you do not want further exploration in the recreation areas in the parks. If in fact you want to make sure that your policy is guaranteed, why don't you make the necessary amendments, either through this particular bill or through some other mechanism? I think it can be done through this particular legislation, and I would urge the ministers to think about standing this down and going back and looking at guaranteeing the protections that they argue are in place and we know are not in place legislatively — the minister has just agreed.

So let's go back, rework this legislation, put in the necessary wording. It might mean that you have to define the recreation areas differently; you're treating them differently. Let's set up a statutory requirement that absolutely prevents mineral exploration forever in our parks. It's bad enough that we're going to have development in those parks now. But that's another debate. Let's make sure it doesn't happen again. Let's make sure there are no future situations where the pressure will be such that: "Well, we'll have to extend this particular claim." We can do that legislatively. It might take a couple of days; we've got that time in terms of working up the language.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The member is right in drawing a distinction between law as passed through this Legislature word for word.... Orders-in-council, most lawyers contend, are also legislation. There are orders- in-council which establish mineral reserves. The word "reserve" really means reserving the land, the territory, from mining; mining cannot occur, and exploration cannot occur. In the recreation areas within parks — and there are very few of them, but the notable one or two are in Strathcona Park — there is by orderin-council a reserve or reserves which prevent any exploratory activity whatsoever taking place outside historically and presently established claims.

Now the hon. member's concern is that at the whim of the cabinet this reserve or a portion of the reserve could be lifted, and that's true, but as far as I understand it, this government is committed to maintaining that reserve indefinitely and hopefully over time to extinguishing the existing claims. But there will be no opportunity — and certainly that's policy — for mining companies or individuals to establish new claims anywhere in the recreation areas within parks. The reserve system ensures that that will be so.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd just like to respond to the member. My cabinet colleague has agreed that we recognize your concern. But let's, however, look again at the principle of this section. This is not legislation that allows holus-bolus mining. As a matter of fact, had we wanted to continue with that policy, we wouldn't have this act at all. This act is in place to protect recreation areas, as they're defined either in a current park or in a new recreation area that we want to have. As my colleague said, it's got a time factor in it that blows the whistle. The whistle is blown, if you notice, in section 1(4)(b): "the first publication of a notice, addressed by the Minister of Environment and Parks to all free miners...." That's when the whistle blows.

So in fact we are not trying to court debate and opposition to our policy in this legislation, but to assure the people of British Columbia that we do have a policy for expanding recreation areas, because that is clearly what we are doing. The minister spoke in his second reading notes to all the new recreation areas we've established — and they're extensive. By this Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources legislation, we are further stating what the regulations are going to be with respect to recreation areas. I see this as a very positive move on behalf of the government of British Columbia, and particularly my ministry.

Suffice it to say that it would be nice to just turn our backs on the whole problem. I'm sure the minister would be delighted not to have legislation like this, because it restricts the activity of his constituency quite dramatically. I think it's great. Maybe you think it's only half a loaf and you'd like the whole loaf; nevertheless, this legislation does protect the integrity of recreation areas. It does set out for the public what we want to do and for the extraction community how they're going to behave and handle themselves in our recreation areas. So it's very positive from an Environment and Parks point of view.

Just one more comment with respect to amendments. As I said earlier, I'm not prepared to entertain any right now, but I can give the member advance notice that there may even be a tabling of first reading of a larger act — I'm advising you that as House Leader — during this session by the minister. We may let it sit until spring and look at amendments, because a lot of this will be in the new act that the minister will be presenting. There could be a legislative remedy there. I'm not promising anything, but maybe it's something we can look at, because I do recognize your concern with respect to spelling it out in the statutes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: You've just said that what this legislation does is expand recreational areas in this province. You've referred to this legislation as governing recreational areas both inside and outside of parks, to quote you just a minute ago. What you've done with this legislation is to compound a situation that is perceived by this government to have been brought into play by the Tener case. What you have done is, instead of cutting the government's losses — and I want to make it verv clear that I do not agree with the government that the iener case binds you in all claims — compounded the problem with this legislation. It increases the liability the government has to pay out existing claims because it invites prospecting and the establishment of claims in recreational areas. What you have done by not bringing in legislation that restricts prospecting in recreational areas in connection with parks is to invite prospecting.

Clearly, this side of the House has voted against this legislation. We will continue to do that section by section, because you have chosen not to bring in legislation that will allay the concerns of people in this province who have been very disturbed by the government's actions over the past year in regard to diminishing the value of our park system and increasing recreational areas. You've done nothing to allay

[ Page 2880 ]

those concerns, except to suggest that there may be legislation coming down the pike and that that legislation may address our concerns.

Both of the ministers have said that orders-in-council are the only devices you have to restrict activity in recreational areas in conjunction with parks. Now I'm not a lawver, but I'm under the impression that legislation has far more clout in the courts than an order-in-council; that policy isn't something the citizens in this province can take in their hands to a court case that would protect the integrity of parks and connected recreational areas. If the government is truly trying to cut its losses, as far as its liability in these claims goes, then why not deal with this legislation before us? Why not address the concerns that are expressed to us by the people who have been so disillusioned by the government's actions in the spring? Why not deal with legislative changes that make a difference between recreational areas that are separate from parks and recreational areas that are within or next to parks?

In addition to that, the Minister of Environment and Parks indicates that he is trying to preserve the integrity of the park system by bringing in legislation that will encourage protection. I see nothing in this bill that would make any difference in the way of increased environmental protection in the handling of mining or other such industrial activity in parks. The Minister of Mines has clearly said that the existing legislation will be in play. The existing legislation is not good enough — I'm sure the Minister of Environment would agree to that, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas, in areas that are recognized as having some value. I say "recognized" because both ministers have said that it is the intention to upgrade these recreational areas to park status. That says to me that there is some recognition of environmental sensitivity and value in those areas. Why not increased environmental protection?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let's begin with the necessity for this legislation. The necessity for this legislation is that we have added three-quarters of a million hectares to the recreation area base in British Columbia this year. Prior to that initiative by the Ministry of Environment and Parks, that land was simply Crown land. We have added 750,000 hectares of recreation area. That would be....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll get the facts on that. The majority is standing outside. It's an addition, hon. member, because this is in fact an expropriation, if you will — an alienation to some degree by the Ministry of Enrixonment and Parks of Crown land where any activity can take place. We have to set up guidelines for the extraction industry under which they are going to function, because the Ministry of Environment and Parks has alienated or expropriated land for purposes other than what was originally intended for lands on which people thought they could undertake any activity. So we have added.

You talk about cutting the losses. I'll remind you again, hon. members opposite — and this seems to be a basic failing in your philosophy; but I don't want to get political, because this is a pretty good debate so far — that governments don't have any money. Taxpayers have money. You refer to cutting losses. I'd rather refer to it as cutting expenses that you and I as taxpayers, and your constituents, have to pay. If you want me to go in and buy out $5 million or $10 million claims to stop a mining activity that may disrupt the surface and the area for five, seven or ten years, you make that point. But I don't think you can consciously make that point on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia or your constituents, because when it gets very, very expensive and the rubber hits the road, you're going to find out that that type of notion is quite unpopular. Remember, governments don't have losses; the taxpayers do.

Thirdly, with respect to the handling of recreation areas and parks, you're going to have to accept our regulations. I think they're quite tight. As a matter of fact — and I can't discuss details now — the ministry will be in court soon, unless we have a resolution on an activity that's taken place that we're not too happy with. Sub judice prevents me from saying more, but some of you might know the activity I'm talking about in the area I'm talking about. I won't say any more about that. But our regulations are extremely rigorous. They're tough, they're demanding, and we think they satisfy the public interest with respect to proper exploration in a recreation area.

[11:00]

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

I again want to stress and have on the record that in this legislation, rather than limit the activity in recreational areas, rather than recognize existing claims and put restrictions on the development of those claims or a time limit on the development of those claims, what this government has chosen to do is invite more claims, therefore increasing the liability, increasing the potential cost to the taxpayers of this province.

If the government feels that it has responsibility to the existing claims, then what the government has done is compound the problem, increase the potential for tripling or quadrupling the liability that the taxpayers of this province have in protecting their park system.

For that reason, this side is voting against this bill on behalf of not only the heritage of the park system and the preservation of that park system for the taxpayers, but also because we believe that we should be limiting any potential liability to the people of this province. What the government is doing is increasing the cost to the taxpayers of this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I could eliminate that liability immediately with a stroke of a pen by taking back — and, by the way, the figure is 600,000 hectares free-standing — by rescinding all those ministerial orders of those recreation areas. Then the public would have no liability.

Now, Madam Member, can you honestly sit there and say you would agree with my rescinding and taking away the designation of all the newly established recreation areas? Would you rather have them returned to Crown land? Can you nod your head or would you care to comment on that? Because I'll do it. If you're so concerned about the public liability, we can rescind all the designated recreation areas — 600,000 hectares this year. Do you want to see them just put back into Crown land and not be recreation areas?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The process: as the hon. Minister of Environment and Parks has said, this government and he as minister have designated to the province as recreation area

[ Page 2881 ]

some 600,000 hectares of Crown land which were not parks, were not recreation areas, were open to exploitation in various ways, including mining.

First, those vast areas have been designated as recreation areas. Still, that initiative alone would not have contained mining activity. There are some existing claims in those areas, there are existing claims in Strathcona Park, but this legislation puts the mining industry on notice that at any time in the future — no dates mentioned — the government of the day can state that ten years from now there can be no mining activity.

If you want to establish values, you perhaps put some money into your claim. If you want to establish values, you've got ten years in which to establish those values. The wilderness committee in its report advocated 20 years, not ten; so the government has reduced the timespan in which the company or individual which has put some effort into a claim can fully establish the value of that claim.

So here a new regime is being established, really setting up guidelines for the mining industry — mining activity, exploration activity, which might have occurred anyway. Now they know that they're on notice. At some date in the future, which might be tomorrow or might be 20 years from now, that area can be designated as a park.

All of this is positive from the bon. member's point of view. I can't see why she would vote against the legislation. The legislation is obviously in the direction she would like us to go. Perhaps she would rather we legislate as of today that those wilderness areas are parks — I mean, that's really what she is saying — and that from now on there can be no claims and so on.

What seems to be missing in this debate is the recognition that claims that exist still exist until the owner of the claim is bought out. Just like your home exists; it's still your home until it's bought and paid for by someone else, including the government. The expropriation of past claims is something else. We're dealing with future claims.

Recreation areas within parks: substantially there is only one group of recreation areas within parks, and they're within Strathcona Park. They are tightly drawn around the present mining activity. The mines there are a fact; they're there. But there is very little area around them which is recreation area in which they could conceivably establish further claims. By order-in-council we have precluded those mining companies in Strathcona Park from establishing any more claims close by their existing mining operation.

So the order-in-council concern of the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is related to Strathcona Park only, a very small area around existing mining activity, and we are telling him that it is government policy not to revoke the mineral reserves in that very small and limited area.

So let's not be misled by the reference to orders-incouncil. This is law; it's up front; it's in front of you now; it's positive. It's in the direction you want to go, and you should vote for it, not against it.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) has requested leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's with a great deal of pride that I stand in the House today, as the MLA from Comox and Qualicum, to introduce to you some friends from the Kwalikum Secondary School. We have with us today Mr. Art Skipsey and Kay Howard, teachers, and about 60 grades 9 to 12 students from Kwalikum Secondary School. Would the House please help me in bidding them welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry that the Minister of Mines doesn't understand why we're voting against it. I believe we have made our concern very clear. Both ministers have recognized that concern is valid. Now the Minister of Environment says that they have created 600,000 acres of recreational areas....

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

MS. SMALLWOOD:...hectares of recreational areas in the province. According to the numbers I have, almost half that again is within the parks area or connected to park boundaries. That is specifically our concern. The area that I have for recreational areas in this province is 1,100,000 hectares. So almost half again that value of land is in or connected to our parks system.

Our primary concern with this legislation is protection of the recreational areas that are in conjunction with parks right at this time. In addition, we are concerned that you have not brought in any legislation that increases the protection of that area and that you have instead invited more activity and indicated to the mining companies by your prospect legislation that thev are welcome in those recreational areas and that the only threat to them is that when you plan to upgrade those areas to parks — having downgraded them just a few months ago — they then have ten years to prove their claim or face expropriation.

That seems to me to be very clear. That is a fundamental flaw in this legislation. You have done nothing to protect the parks system. You have done nothing to protect the environment, in the way of additional legislation, recognizing the environmental sensitivity. And you have done nothing to cut the cost to the people of this province should they ever get to the point of having to expropriate those claims. But what you have done again — and I'm reiterating what has already been stated on this side — is increase the cost to the people of this province. You have brought before us a piece of legislation that I would call a prospect act and not a mineral act at all.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think you'd call this a prospect act if you were a prospector, because it is stated here that it is pretty rigorous. They have time limits. The whistle blows, as my cabinet colleague said, and it's a very good notice to the extraction community.

I don't know how many times I have to say this: we have added extensively to the recreation area in the last year. I am quite proud of it. It was land that could have been mined at any time. You're saying shame because we've added? That's interesting. The environment critic says shame because we've added 600,000 hectares in recreation area. That is interesting. However, the record is there; the land was added to recreation areas. It has its protection. There's a time limit on the extraction activity that can occur, and I don't know what else we can say.

[ Page 2882 ]

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

But I want to focus on the clarification of the expropriation provisions in this legislation. According to subsection 4, "the powers of expropriation conferred by section 11 of the Park Act are not exercisable in relation to that recreation area until 10 years after the occurrence of the later of the following events: (a) the evaluation of the mineral potential...." and the first publication of the notice addressed to all free miners having resource use permits.

The minister stated yesterday that it was the wilderness committee's recommendation last year that mineral exploration be allowed for a limited period on lands which could be designated class A parks. Ten years has a nice, elegant ring to it, but I wonder if the minister can provide a more detailed rationale for that period. Connected to that, would the minister not agree that in excluding the appropriation for ten years, the government's ultimate weapon for controlling bad corporate citizens — the right to cancel or take away those permits for exploration — would be effectively taken away?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Today in these areas, 600,000 hectares, any individual or company can establish a claim. They work on the claim to the extent that they put their own money, time and effort into it. They establish an interest. In effect, it's property. This government recognizes those efforts. It's employment. It may lead to a useful mining activity; it may not. Nevertheless, it becomes an item owned by a free miner, a company or a prospector. The hon. member is really talking as if those efforts could be expropriated overnight for a dollar. The fact of life, at least following the policy of this government, is that if we wish to stop mining or extinguish the claim, we buy out that operation. We may have to have an independent evaluation made, but the individual or company that has put that effort into that claim in that area will be bought out.

[11:15]

The point of this legislation is to put future claimants on notice that they will be bought out and under what terms and conditions. If I were a prospector looking at a possible ore body in one of these recreation areas, I would be a bit concerned. This recreation area is under this new legislation. The government, at any time, can suddenly say: "You've got ten years to prove it up to any value, and we're going to expropriate you anyway, so you do what you think best. We can expropriate you within that time limit." It's not like old claims, which cannot be expropriated out of hand. These will be expropriated, and they will be expropriated under different guidelines because notice is given right now, the day this legislation is proclaimed law, that a government at any time can declare that there's only ten years left in which to prove up the ore body or, if it isn't attractive, simply forget it right now.

It does, on the one hand, limit the exposure of the people of British Columbia to having to buy out these operations. It does cause anyone who goes into these recreation areas with the idea of mining to think twice about whether they should go in or not. It doesn't, as the hon. member previously said, entice them in. It simply tells them: "Look, there is some degree of risk here which is in addition to the usual risks of whether or not you find useful ore."

It certainly recognizes property values, and it will treat prospectors and miners fairly in the future. But the area is a candidate park area. It may never become a park, but nevertheless they are under the risk that the government at any time may give them ten more years to prove up whatever they have there and then get out.

MR. GUNO: I just want to go a little further on that and explore exactly what you mean by saying that once the notice has been given, then the mining company has ten years to prove up. Is it not that once the ten years is given, you have in effect designated this particular area as a class A park at the expiration of ten years; or does it mean that if he can prove that there is mineral potential, then it's not?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There are various scenarios. But let's assume that there has been very little work put into this rock face, if that's what we're looking at. The prospector or the company has ten years. They may, under some circumstances — the most hopeful of circumstances, as far as they are concerned — find a valuable mine, a Sullivan mine for example. Yes, the clock has started to run; in ten years that's going to be a provincial park. But I can well imagine the government of the day, ten years after the whistle blew, looking very hard, or reviewing the boundary of the park, and saying,"Well, you know, that's an incredible resource for the people of the province; there's a lot of employment," and so on. So the park boundary might be changed. But for the vast number of claims, as the hon. member well knows, they're high on hopes and very low on realization.

We're dealing, I think, with the great majority of cases here. But there could be the rare exception, where a Sullivan mine was found to exist. And I think the hon. member would agree that perhaps that would be good news for everybody.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to explore the question a little further. It seems to me that it could be, let's say, a declaration of faith if the government said, when the legislation were proclaimed: "This is your ten years' notice." Recreation areas, as far as I've been able to determine.... I've made an attempt to be fairly clear on what recreation areas are, what they mean. I've been told consistently — and I really haven't heard anything that changes my mind over this, I don't think, so I would like clarification — that recreation areas are destined to be parks. If they are destined to be parks, why not declare, when the legislation is declared, that this is your ten years' notice? I'll leave it at that for the moment until I get an answer.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think the member is right. The legislation says, though, that these are recreation areas. The hon. Minister of Environment and Parks may want these recreation areas to inevitably become parks, but this legislation does not say that these recreation areas are inevitably to become parks. The chances are that large parts of them, or perhaps all of them, in the fullness of time will become parks, but for the moment it's possible to stake claims in these areas. We are merely establishing a mechanism for dealing with those claims, on the assumption that at some point in time, in some of these areas, the government of the day will decide: "This will be a park."

It isn't right to say that inevitably every last hectare of these recreation areas will become a park; certainly not in the next ten or 20 years. The hon. member suggests that instead of this legislation, we should simply legislate that ten years from now these recreation areas are a park. Well, that's like

[ Page 2883 ]

establishing an extension of the park right now. It would also be saying that no one can go in and establish a claim. You would then deal only with existing claims. That decision has not been made by this government.

This government has decided that for the moment Crown lands which in these last 12 months have been declared recreation areas are still open to exploration by prospectors and mining companies, and so on; but that there is a mechanism now in place, in law, for all to read, whereby we can deal with these people, treat them fairly, and make sure that their activities cease when the government of the day decides the recreation area becomes a park.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Also to the member, there is a process in place where the Ministry of Environment and Parks will be funding the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to do mineral surveys, to find out what the value is. To set the clock running right now I don't think would be appropriate to the taxpayer of British Columbia, for my purposes or for the purposes of the mining industry.

We want to do some surveys and studies, and we are doing that now. That process is in place to establish what the real mineral value is, if there is any. If there is none, then we have no problem in going ahead and setting the clock running and, as we state in the section, publishing a notice to all free miners. That blows the whistle and begins the clock running. But I don't think we can leap into this thing right now on this day, or on proclamation day, and say that these 600,0000 acres are within ten years totally alienated from the extraction industry.

MS. EDWARDS: I certainly would like to clarify to the Minister of Energy that I didn't expect that I was going to get the answer that in ten years all recreation areas would be parks. What I was suggesting was a ten-year limit on anyone who did file a claim. That would, in a sense, give a better time-limit than the limit that you say you're putting on now, where in fact in some areas somebody could stake a claim now and have an unlimited length of time almost. As you say, inevitable can be a very long way down the line.

It seems to me that at least there is the indication that you intend to use this ten-year period fairly extensively — and more extensively than you have said so far. Right now it's a very weak weapon, I think, in the sense that when we decide to declare, we will tell you ten years. That's a long time to do park planning. I certainly am not against long-term planning, but I do think that if you want to be able to do planning within a reasonable length of time — as far as parks are concerned — and perhaps extend, that would be a possibility. However, I am more concerned with probing again to the Minister of Mines on the definition of recreation areas.

As the member on this side particularly interested in recreation, I would like to not accept your answer that the definition for recreation area has simply so far been the parks branch. When you indicate the attitude you have toward recreation areas that are under the Park Act, why would you not consider including recreation areas — particularly recreation wilderness areas — in the definition, particularly when logging has not been allowed in there, which is another extractive industry that creates some havoc and is not allowed? Why would the recreation areas, which are defined under a different act, not be included here?

HON. MR. DAVIS: This legislation deals with minerals; it deals with mining, so this will add clauses to the mining legislation which gives notice to miners. This isn't the Forest Act; this isn't giving notice to foresters. So the bill is cast in these terms. It doesn't deal with the whole matter of extractive industries in a prospective park area; it only deals with the mining aspect and it deals with it within the confines of the Mines Act. That's why it doesn't address forestry wilderness areas, for example.

I think to go over the regime again, these areas are new areas. They aren't existing parks. They are possibly parks or prospective parks. The mining companies and prospectors can still go in and establish claims if they meet all our other requirements. Their main uncertainty is when the whistle will blow, and they then have ten years to prove up what they have or forget it.

At the same time the government has an opportunity to go in and do its own independent evaluation on mineral resources and then reach a conclusion and make a settlement. It's simply a regime which the mining industry can live with in areas where there may already be some claims. Essentially we're dealing with future claims. We're really limiting, I think, the number of future claims which will be made in those areas.

We're facing up to the fact that there may well be claims and there may well be some mineral values, and we don't know all we might eventually know about those areas. The hon. member says: "Why not ten years now?" Over the next ten years there may not be developments in technology in the market for minerals which could occur in later decades, and the view of things may well change as to what is of economic value and what is not.

Again we've tried to roll with technology, roll with time, but to be firm and definite to the mining industry; to tell the mining industry exactly what the rules are in these new recreational areas and that when the whistle blows, they're under a ten-year limit — the wilderness committee recommended 20 — in which to prove it up or forget it, and the government likewise to prove whether or not they have values and settle with those companies that are going to be extinguished.

MS. EDWARDS: To the Minister of Mines again. As you say, this bill deals with minerals and with mining, and that's why I am concerned. Considering what the minister has said about his regard for the environment and his recognition that recreation areas have a certain status — that's my question. It does deal with mining, and it's the mining exploration in the recreation areas that I'm suggesting be expanded. Why do you deal only with recreation areas because they're under a certain act? Why not deal with recreation areas that are defined under the acts in the province, where this provincial government has said that we want to set aside this kind of land for recreational use? It seems to me that that would be consistent.

[11:30]

HON. MR. DAVIS: In developing this legislation, there's been considerable consultation, not just with the mining industry, as one might expect, but with environmental groups and certainly with officials in Environment and Parks. We've had a number of interministerial discussions. I would have thought the hon. member would have agreed that we have leaned over backwards in the direction of readying lands

[ Page 2884 ]

for possible park designation. While I think the mining industry now will say it was consulted, if the mining industry were frank it would say,"Here's another large section of the province which is really denied to mining activity for the long term; the government has simply set up a process which gives us notice," and grudgingly they're going along with it. They are consulted, but I would like to assure the hon. member that environmental, park and recreational concerns have been given full weight in all the considerable discussions that have gone on preparatory to this legislation.

MS. EDWARDS: To the Minister of Mines again. Are you saying that you did not consult with the mining industry about wilderness recreation areas; that the recreation areas that you talked about are only these, and that's perhaps the reason why it's not here?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, I didn't say that. We have consulted with the mining industry. I can't say we have the mining industry's endorsement, but certainly we wouldn't be asking the mining industry about whether a given area should or should not be designated a recreation area. That's a much broader concern, of course, and that certainly was a given when we talked to the mining companies: just what would be their reaction to this kind of legislation. It really is: "Well, at least you've given us some notice." But also we are extinguishing their longer-term claims; we won't have claims that go on in perpetuity any more in these areas — not newly created ones.

Sections 1 through 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on division.

Bill 61, Mineral Amendment Act, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987
(continued)

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

On section 5.

MR. MILLER: I do have some difficulty because the minister responsible for the First Citizens' Fund, and the one who presumably could answer questions that I have on the amendment, is not in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have within our standing orders a vehicle whereby this can be set forward until later, if it's agreeable to both sides of the House.

MR. MILLER: I'm capable of talking for a bit if the minister is on his way, Mr. Chairman. But there are some serious questions that need to be asked about the operation of the First Citizens' Fund and the changes that are being proposed, and the shortcomings that I see in the amendment.

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

MR. GABELMANN: I think there might be some confusion in the ranks of the government members as to the order of business this morning. We will be debating sections 5 and 6; hopefully we'll be able to finish those by noon. This afternoon we'll be onto section 7. So the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) may want to take advantage of that. I see that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) is here, so that's appropriate for section 5.

MR. MILLER: I had started to outline some of my concerns with respect to the amendment. I should say at the outset that I'm not opposed to devising a scheme whereby loans could be made available. Clearly there's a problem now in terms of individuals on reserves being able to obtain loans. One of the principal reasons, of course, is that they can't put up their property as collateral; the property is common property of the band, and no individual on band land can say, "I'm going to mortgage my property in order to get money," for whatever purpose.

From my understanding, the First Citizens' Fund is inundated with requests for grants. I would say that it is probably not large enough at this point to meet the requests that are coming in. I have some concern that by using some of the money in the form of loans there will be even more pressure on the fund, and it will be even more ineffectual in terms of its original purpose, which was to provide funding for a variety of purposes for our first citizens. Perhaps the minister could just comment on that question, and I have some others.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I suppose we could have quite a long argument or discussion about how much money is in the fund and what the purposes of that money are. Those moneys that are lent under this new amendment to the fund will be returned and will be a revolving loan from the fund. Certainly there are lots of applications to the fund. Some of them, quite frankly, are a little frivolous, but they're not dispensed with by me. They are dispensed by first citizens who sit on the board of the fund. Remember, it is native people who make the recommendations to me for those particular grants that go forward. It's from them that this original idea and recommendation came that we be able to make loans to those people who would like to have them.

If we develop a loan portfolio over two or three years, the thing can probably be self-sustaining on that basis. If you assume that most of the loans are paid back, and I have no reason to think that they won't be paid back — the people who are borrowing the money certainly intend to pay it back — then we'll actually have accomplished two aims. That's not to say that at the same time I might not be requesting additional assistance or topping up of this particular fund, but that's a subject for another discussion.

One of the other points you made is that when a native person goes to borrow money, their property can't be enjoined by someone lending them money. Neither can their property be seized. Therefore, if they are making a loan, even

[ Page 2885 ]

a conventional loan for a piece of machinery or something of that nature, which is clearly commercial and outside of the scope of the kind of funds that would normally be made available under the First Citizens' Fund.... What we're trying to do is to be able to assist native people who want to get into some kind of production of whatever kind of goods they want to do. They might have great difficulty making that argument to their colleagues who say: "No, we'd like this to be used for more specific purposes." I think I've canvassed the area as well as I can, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: I could understand why there would be a request for access to money that could be loaned to native Indians. But in a sense there's a real danger here that the original intent of the fund could be subverted and in fact turned into, instead of an original.... I think it was originally $25 million that was put in trust, and the moneys from that were used for grants. We could be turning the First Citizens' program into some kind of quasi-bank in terms of lending money to native Indians. I'm not certain that that jibes with the original intent of the establishment of the First Citizens' Fund by, I believe, W.A.C. Bennett.

In that context I have some concern because of remarks made by the Premier during the privatization debate. I want to clear up any misunderstanding that may be out there with respect to those remarks, because as I interpreted the Premier's remarks, he was somewhat critical of moneys that had been spent to establish economic development initiatives. Principally the two instances that the Premier cited were the Port Simpson cannery and the Bums Lake Native Development Corporation sawmill.

Perhaps the minister could advise me if I'm incorrect, but I clearly got the inference from the Premier's remarks that he was saying it would have been preferable to put money into welfare or social programs rather than into these projects that are now proving very useful in terms of jobs for people, paycheques and the kind of boost in morale and general improvement in community life that comes from having access to that kind of economic development.

When I bring that back to the amendments you are making to the fund, I have a very great fear that it dovetails in with the Premier's remarks. I hope I'm not straying too much beyond the amendment by asking: is this it? Is it the govemment's policy now not to fund any more of those kinds of activities like Burns Lake and Port Simpson, but simply to change somewhat the original intent of the First Citizens' Fund and to make loans out of that fund to individuals? That, in the overall context, is not going to achieve the kind of thing that I think needs to be achieved in these economically depressed areas which really require major funding of economic development initiatives. Clearly the government has a role to play in that regard.

The government has said publicly that it doesn't subscribe to the concept of aboriginal title, that it's none of the government's business and it is not going to get involved, unlike the federal government that has provided core funding. An example — and this is a concept that I think would be much better for the minister to bring to this House than a simple amendment saying we can loan money from the First Citizens' Fund — is the Tillicum business development fund that's controlled by the North Coast Tribal Council, where core funding is made available to a tribal council, who in turn can loan that out to businesses and individuals for the development of a realistic business enterprise.

Is it intended. Mr. Minister — is this the government policy — that this amendment will really do all the job that's required in terms of providing that kind of support to native Indians and to some of the economically depressed communities? Is what the Premier says a fact. that that's the extent, that you don' t believe in greater funding for larger economic development initiatives?

[11:45]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to offend the rules, and I'm afraid that my colleague opposite is tempting me to offend the rules, because he'd like to get into a debate on subjects which are not currently before this committee for discussion. We are only discussing this particular minor amendment in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act to the First Citizens' Fund act. As I said yesterday and will repeat again today, this is merely broadening the scope for this one particular aspect of the way the provincial government has assisted the native community and will continue to assist it.

Now your questions on policy and your questions on matters you wish to discuss with the Premier and on his statements I think should be canvassed in this assembly at a different time and not during this particular debate. I'm not interested in getting involved in a policy debate right now, because I don't think it's appropriate — perhaps during my estimates or at some other time it may be more appropriate.

But this is not to be considered the only assistance we will be making available to native people; it's merely to allow us, under the First Citizens' Fund, to have a little more flexibility in the way the funds are made available to native people.

MR. MILLER: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I do think that my question relates to the bill, because it's a very valid question to ask the government when they bring in an amendment to a program or to the First Citizens' Rind, which has been up till now a fund that is given out in the form of grants for various requests made by native Indians. The government is proposing to change that so that the First Citizens' Fund becomes a lending institution, and it's quite valid for me to ask: is that all?

Now the minister could clear it up by saying that he disagrees with what the Premier said and that this is very minor; that this isn't the extent of the kind of funding that should be made available. The Premier made some very serious statements in this House, and when the Premier speaks, I assume he speaks for the government. He chose the opportunity of the privatization debate to make the remarks; therefore he must have considered them quite seriously. I got the suggestion from the Premier that that's it as far as native Indians go; all they're going to get is a minor change to the First Citizens' Fund, and there will be no other programs.

If the minister doesn't want to answer that, I could ask him what the maximum loans are that would be available under the amendment to individuals or businesses.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's yet to be determined. Obviously it would be based on the recommendations of the committee. Successful kinds of programs that have existed in the small business and small loan areas often involve very minor amounts of money — in the $10,000 to $15,000 range that some of these people need for startup. I will look forward to recommendations coming forward from the committee, and perhaps if the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) wants to add

[ Page 2886 ]

a few things.... At this point, it's obviously not a multimillion-dollar loan portfolio, because it doesn't have that kind of flexibility. But some of the people are saying to us: "We'd really rather have a loan than a grant; can't you make it flexible and allow us to have a loan that we could pay back so that other people could use the money?" That's really all we're trying to do in this particular amendment.

MR. GUNO: I'm glad to make a few points on this. I'm interested to hear the minister refer to a number of individuals who have called for this kind of lending institution. I think that that kind of program is much needed.

I am concerned, however, about the effect of this amendment. I note this minister's comment that's it's minor, but I think for the native people it's very serious because it changes the whole complexion of the program. I'm concerned because it is taking away a very valuable resource for Indian communities and reserves to fund cultural, recreational and social events. Very often these are communities or individuals who are so poverty-stricken, who have so very little resources to fund these sorts of events and programs, that the First Citizens' Fund does provide a very valuable resource for them. So to dilute that by also opening it up as a lending institution without any significant increase in the funding level is, I think, to render it almost impotent in terms of meeting these kinds of programs. The demand is reflected in the incredible amount of applications every year, as you are probably aware.

You refer to the fact that First Citizens' is administered by a board comprised of a number of Indian individuals. That's another question. The northern communities feel that they're not part of that process, that the makeup of that board is heavily weighted towards the south. Like our white brethren, northern natives also feel somewhat alienated from some of the things that go on in the south.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I'm going to try to get some Tahltans on the board, and then perhaps they'll look at people as far south as Prince Rupert as southerners — as they do; you're right. We are constantly rotating people through that board. We don't want to have a static board. I've been trying to get a balance of people from different parts of the interior.

One of the good examples of this thing is.... If I look back at what we've done in the past in terms of outright grants, in some cases we've made grants to small businesses that have become successful. They could have repaid the loan. The money could have been recycled. There are quite a few examples of that. Port Alberni has a very good example of a small business being started off by a First Citizens' Fund grant. How much better that would have been had it been a loan. Then we could have had the money replaced to the fund and gone out to start another one. Sometimes they're not always going to be successful, but many of them have been.

You're right, there are an awful lot of applications. Some of them are for different things. Some of them are cultural or educational, but some of them are commercial. Quite frankly, I think there are a lot of times when these people could.... If that commercial grant had the opportunity to be a loan and they became commercially successful, then that loan should be repaid to the very fund it came from, not to general revenue or to anything else. If it came back to the fund, then it would end up helping one more community.

MR. GUNO: I just want to follow up on that. I don't have any argument about setting up a kind of commercial lending institution for native people. I think — and I've said this before — that it is a very much needed kind of program. For a province that has the second-largest native population, we're quite stingy as far as providing these kinds of resources for native people is concerned. There are native entrepreneurs who would want to have this kind of resource, because, as you say, their capacity to borrow from banks is somewhat limited because of the fact that they're somewhat immune from the usual collection process.

I think if we're going to create those kinds of lending institutions for native entrepreneurs, then it should be significant — not just dipping into an already limited resource which is providing very valuable funds for communities that cannot otherwise afford.... Like Good Hope Lake, for instance — it's not even a reserve; it's a community that's somewhat in limbo. It's in the northern part of my riding. They've been working for the last two years, trying desperately to raise funds just to have an ice rink for the young people, to have some kind of alternative to the drinking patterns going on in those communities. So the First Citizens' Fund does provide a valuable resource for those kinds of communities.

I think if we're serious about providing a resource for native businessmen, then let's make it more significant.

MS. EDWARDS: I just have a concern that I wanted to put forward from the area council from my constituency. They point out to me that the First Citizens' Fund can give allocations of anywhere from $3,000 to $25,000, and their experience indicates that there may have been a limitation put on — that it's only $3,000 grants that come out.

They ask me to ask you to assure that because in fact we now have a different way of allocating.... They're not against having loans made as well as grants. But can you, assure the House that there will be no limitations or policy directions put on it, and also that when the money begins to come out as loans there will not be pressure to continue that limitation to keep the allocations at the very low end of the scale?

HON. MR. ROGERS: There is always pressure on this particular fund, but in some of the applications that have come forward before the committee, committee members have said: "You could go and borrow this money. You don't need to have it as a grant." In fact, they can't go and borrow it, because it can't be enjoined.

Quite simply, we just said: "Let's try and adjust this thing so we can allow them to borrow some money when, in the committee's opinion, the business opportunity is viable and flexible." Some of the loans will undoubtedly be turned into grants, but wouldn't it be nice if they had the opportunity to repay those loans and have the money recycled? That's all we're trying to do. The rest of the program is not to be changed.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, there are a number of questions flowing out of the change, particularly the lack of guidelines. We're taking a fund that has been a grant fund, one that has a board of directors comprised of native Indians who review requests that come in and make decisions about which ones to grant. That's a difficult enough process. We're

[ Page 2887 ]

now proposing to change it into the smallest lending institution in British Columbia. There's a little less than $2 million in capital.

Why didn't the minister establish guidelines? What consideration has been given in terms of lending money? Are there to be other primary sources of loans before loan applications are accepted by the First Citizens' Fund? Is there a certain percentage of the less than $2 million that will be allocated to be used as loans?

Most of the applications that I'm aware of come in for a variety of reasons. For example, a tournament that's famous in British Columbia, the All-Native Basketball Tournament in Prince Rupert, is held every year and bands come from all over the north coast to participate in that tournament. A lot of those are funded through the First Citizens' Fund. They are clearly not repayable. Are people now applying for grants going to be told that they should borrow part of the money?

Lastly, you are taking a board that has been used to dealing with giving out grants, and dealing with some sensitivity because they are native Indians and they have some familiarity with their community, and you're saying to them: "You're now going to be a lending institution." Is there going to be backup staff? How are these applications going to be screened? Are there good ones or bad ones? Is it a good loan or a bad loan? Are you going to make more backup staff available to the board so that they can make those determinations?

It seems to me that a whole host of questions flow from the amendment. I don't know if it's really good enough to say: "We'll make the decision first and figure that out later." There seems to be some problem in British Columbia now with that kind of approach to government. Could the minister answer those questions? I'll have to read Hansard, if I can apologize in advance to the minister, but I do have a call in my office.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Before you go, I hope you have an opportunity to also know that the International Aboriginal Indoor Soccer Tournament is being held over the last three or four days, and the final is tonight. We are assisting, not under the First Citizens' Fund. But not only is the basketball tournament very well done; they now have visitors from Australia. It's a very active program that's taking place. This is totally out of order, but I thought I'd mention it since you're interested.

I'm looking to the board to make the guidelines. I'm going to look to the board of directors to make the guidelines. I'm going to look to the board of directors to make the tough decisions on whether it should be a grant or a loan. I'm not going to tell them that I have all the answers to all the subjects. We haven't determined what percentage of the fund would be going to loans as opposed to grants, but I would imagine it would be probably less than 10 percent.

Based on that, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise — unless you want to let it go through?

Section 5 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.