[ Page 3433 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 72). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 3433

Ms. A. Hagen, Hon. B.R. Smith, Ms. Marzari,

Third reading

Family Maintenance Enforcement Act (Bill 71). Committee stage. (Hon. B.R. Smith) 3435

Mr. Rose, Ms. Marzari, Ms. A. Hagen

Third reading

Mineral Tenure Act (Bill 66). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 3438

Mr. Guno, Ms. Smallwood, Mr. Vant, Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 65). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 3444

Third reading

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 64). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 3444

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Election Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 3445

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 3446

Prorogation –– 3447

Appendix –– 3447

FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1988

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to introduce this morning two very hardworking members of the community of Parksville, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Lesage. Parksville, as you know, is where the meeting of the western Premiers will take place in May. Bill is the president of the chamber of commerce in Parksville. They had the good fortune of winning dinner with their MLA at an auction in Parksville, and we had a great dinner last night. So please join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have a caucus birthday today. If March 11 is your birthday you are intuitive, a natural teacher, success via unorthodox procedures. Your intuition is considered remarkable and you'll gain access to a secret before this month is finished. You're cutting your budget in half — that's the secret. Seriously, would you join me in offering many happy returns of the day to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen).

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think the member for Victoria is probably responsible for the darkness in this place. I would like to bring some light into the chamber by tabling, within a year of its creation, the report of the Gaming Commission into the status of gaming in British Columbia. It gives me great honour to do so.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to proceed to public bills.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 72, Mr. Speaker.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 72; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to make just a few comments on section 1. In this section we are dealing with the director of maintenance enforcement and the fact that that person is allowed to delegate his powers to a private agency. With this, we have privatization as a part of this bill. I want to put on the record some very real concerns with this that were addressed in second reading as well.

Particularly, women's shelters and transition houses are concerned that any information about the whereabouts of spouses be kept strictly confidential. It's an essential ingredient of their functioning. The private agency is clearly involved here, because they will be forwarding payments to women who may be in transition houses and women's shelters. We should be requesting and ensuring that. At the very minimum this requirement should be explicitly stated in the contract with the private agency: that there is no question about that confidentiality. The very fact that these proceedings are underway does increase problems with the relationship between the separated spouses. We've noted earlier the problems that come with this, since the program in this bill is not mandatory but voluntary to the spouse to initiate, unless she is in receipt of welfare payments.

I'd like the minister's assurances regarding that whole issue of confidentiality, and, again, for him to revisit briefly the issue of privatization and why he is moving in that direction with this bill, instead of having this person a public servant.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, in the companion bill.... I'm going to address the issue of confidentiality, because it really is an issue for both bills. In the companion bill which we'll be committeeing in a few minutes, I think you'll see that there are some pretty thorough safeguards on confidentiality. But I can also assure the member that confidentiality will be built into the contract that we enter into. It will be a term and condition of the contract. As a further assurance of confidentiality, the contractor who does the collecting is not going to be the permanent recipient of data bases at all. All those data bases are going to be controlled by public officials under the director of enforcement, who will be a public servant. I appreciate that point, and I think it's an important one.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 2 is made up of a number of parts, and we have amendments to these various parts, so I think in the interests of getting this done as expeditiously as possible, we'll deal with the individual parts and the amendments to them.

Proposed section 19.1 approved.

Amendments to proposed sections 19.2 to 19.7 inclusive, standing on the order paper in the name of the minister, approved. [See appendix.]

Proposed sections 19.2 to 19.7 inclusive approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, this section deals with the filing of orders, and it makes that process in Bill 71 voluntary and requires action by women to get their orders registered. Manitoba's system is a universal one, and action must be taken only if parties wish to opt out.

There are a couple of reasons for arguing for a universal system, and again, recognizing that the Attorney-General has looked at those bills, I know we will perhaps be commenting on both. There is the matter of fairness. Why shouldn't all spouses in need of this assistance automatically receive assistance? We believe that in B.C. the turnover between GAIN recipients will be covered by an automatically delivered program into the voluntary program administered by Bill 71

[ Page 3434 ]

and is going to happen. It would appear that possibly here the government is more concerned with those orders that it wants to enforce, because it will save money under the GAIN program.

If the program is not universal, how will women find out about it? Will the government have a public program to let them know? Will a private agency have an interest in getting more people enrolled in the program, and will the contract pay for running the service on a case-by-case basis? Is this something which is in the interest of the private operator rather than the program itself?

The other point besides fairness is the issue of neutrality. Automatic enforcement takes away the idea that women are taking action against their spouses, and we've spoken about the tensions that occur very often in these relationships. Perhaps the Attorney-General could comment on why the government is not moving to make this an automatic program, rather than a voluntary one in this act.

[10:15]

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think it should be clarified that this is a universal model, but it's not an automatic model. That's the difference between this and Manitoba. It's universal in the sense that any spouse can avail themselves of the program, and enforcement is taken without the creditor having to request enforcement or associate with their ex-spouse on the matter.

The difference is the way the creditor enters the program. Instead of coralling persons automatically into this program, this requires a decision to opt in. The result of that, I think, is that we're going to have a better result. If we had an automatic, everybody-in system, we think, from studying the other provinces, that the results would be higher volumes, passive clientele, inflated success and a lazy program.

We think that the opt-in model demands a positive but simple action from the creditor to request the service. Therefore we should have vigorous recruitment, an interested clientele and realistic measures of success. It is not going to be difficult to opt in. It's going to be very easy to opt in, because in every government agent's office and in every courthouse around this province, we're going to have forms, and to opt in is going to be to fill out a form — not to go as a suppliant to an office, not to go and appear in court, not to take some direct action against your spouse, but to fill out a form.,

We think it's a better system. If there are problems with that system when it's up and running, hon. member, we'll look at what you say. But we did carefully study Manitoba, and we think this is a better system. Experience will prove us right or wrong.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in the name of the Minister of Social Services and Housing on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in the name of the Minister of Social Services and Housing on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, this is where we're having some difficulties. You know that 71 and 72 generally meet with the approval of this side of the House. We have some concerns, and we're going to be monitoring those concerns, as you have said you are too, Mr. Attorney-General.

On this amendment to section 6, we ask: why put this in a legislation; why not put this in regulations? This amendment basically suggests that this program is going to be implemented differentially throughout the province, that in different locations in different regions you'll be bringing in this program.

It's obvious that when women are on GAIN, they're going to be automatically registered anyway. Their maintenance orders are already in the record; it's not a question of them applying. Their maintenance orders are on the record, and you are dishing out welfare dollars. If you bring in this program differentially in different regions of the province, it means that your ability to collect from the spouses here is going to be that much more jeopardized. Why would you want to do this in the legislation, rather than in the regulations? That's our question to you. We have very serious reservations about bringing in a program such as this and then applying it differently in the lower mainland than in Prince George.

I must say that women on GAIN, who are single parents, very often fluctuate between living off maintenance payments and small earnings and living on welfare. Very often there's a go-between: the women will shift from welfare one month perhaps to living on maintenance payments the next few months. I think we've got to make it very easy for those women to be guaranteed of receiving an income. This amendment jeopardizes that. Could you speak for just a few moments as to why you are leaving it in the legislation rather than putting it into regulation?

HON. B.R. SMITH: That was on the basis of legislative counsel advice. I wouldn't have any problem with it either way. That was the reason we did that.

You want me to speak on the merits of your issue. Our concern on implementation simply was that we can't deliver the service immediately right across this province, and rather than give an aspiration that we could do that, we want to be able to do it as we're ready. But I will tell you that there is a total commitment to serve women and spouses all over this province and to get the thing up and going as quickly as we can, and not to have a program in place for six months or a year in the lower mainland and not somewhere else.

MS. MARZARI: I would suggest that it isn't necessary to elevate this to the statute itself. It would be much easier to leave this in regulation and then implement your program. This makes a statement, and I don't think I like the statement, and neither does this side of the House. I would feel much more comfortable voting for this bill if that was reduced to regulation, Mr. Attorney-General.

[ Page 3435 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm making the statement that whether it's in the act or in regulation — and the decision to put it in the act was on the advice of legislative counsel, not to make a philosophical statement to this House which we're not making, that there is going to be one system of maintenance enforcement for the lower mainland and another system for the north.... There isn't going to be. But the fact remains, hon. member, and you know, that we've had a pilot project system in force in the lower mainland. Therefore it will be easier to be running there. But I make the statement that this is legislation to benefit spouses all over this province.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 72, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. B.R. SMITH: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 72, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 71; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. B.R. SMITH: We have incorporated a number of amendments into the bill. I gave them to my critic some time ago. Those amendments do include some of the constructive changes that were suggested in this chamber by members, including the change of time-limits, the security provisions and other suggestions made here during the course of debate. I very much appreciate the constructive comments that I've had on this bill from both sides. I want to make a very short statement, and then I'm going to sit down because I know everybody is anxious to move quickly today.

The sort of person whose name is on this bill is a woman in this province who I will call Mary. That isn't her real name, but I just want to give you an example of the kind of need there is in this province for this legislation. Mary is a 33 year-old single mother of two children. Those children are both under the age of 14. Mary has been on her own for 11 years supporting her children by herself and by her own labour. Mary is a proud woman. She works in the public service in this province, not in the private sector, and she does not have a large income. Her take-home income is about $950 a month. She has been supporting herself on her own income and has not been on social assistance. She has had some maintenance payments from her ex-spouse; they haven't been great but she has had some. The maintenance she has received has been somewhere in the neighbourhood of $125, $150 a month for the two children and then eventually an order increased maintenance for these children to the not-very-large sum of $250 a month.

From 1978 to the present her ex-spouse has been in arrears many times, and she has gone into court time after time to try to enforce arrears: 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and again today. Always it has been a battle in the courts for her to try to get the very small amount of maintenance that she has asked for and was to receive for these children, and every attempt has been made by her spouse to avoid paving for it. She still has not been able to collect adequate maintenance, even though her spouse is employed — he is usually employed, and well employed — and has an income of over $1,800 a month, twice what she has; and she supports her children.

So I make a statement on behalf of the government and on behalf of all members of this House that it is people like Mary who are finally going to get their just result in this province. And Mary's children. because they're the ones this bill is passed for.

On section 1.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

MR. ROSE: I have a very general question for the Attorney-General about Mary and her husband. What would be the status of the maintenance order should Mary's husband suddenly decide to give up his $18,000-a-year job and go back to university and plead that he has no money because he's attending school?

HON. B.R. SMITH: The enforcement problems would be lifted from Mary’s back and placed on the operation of this act. The collection of assets and the realization and sale of assets to pay these arrears is something she would not be bearing the burden of. Also, if he had any income we would be able to attach it, but you cannot get income where there isn't income. That is, I guess, a weakness of all collections. If somebody elects to do as you say, you're left with seizing their assets and monitoring their financial situation. And if they don't have income, it's hard to get a part of it.

[10:30]

MR. ROSE: But Mary's husband has elected to spend his money on education rather than on maintenance payments. You can't go to school for nothing.

HON. B.R. SMITH: If he has income or assets in the bank that are paying for his living and for those fees, yes, we

[ Page 3436 ]

can attach them; but we don't have a paycheque to garnishee — that's the only thing we don't have — because he doesn't have a paycheque. If he has the money to go to university, we can find where that money is — what bank account it's in or who is paying it to him — and yes, we can attach it.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. MARZARI: I think it's useful at this point to bring up the concerns of this side of the House. This side is very pleased that government has listened to our recommendations and our suggestions about this legislation in bringing in security amendments and the rest of it, but we must put on the record — and section 3 is probably the best place to do it, because section 3 deals with the filing of orders — that we would still prefer to see a universal program. We would prefer to see a program in which every woman is guaranteed that monthly cheque and doesn't have to file. No matter how easy that process is, whether you're signing a card or going down to a local office, they're still filing a statement against a husband who's not making payments — and incurring his wrath, no doubt. We would rather see a universal program, not just for GAIN recipients. We just discussed that in Bill 72. But we would prefer to see that for a completely fair system in which everybody is guaranteed they're going to be receiving their monthly living allowance.

The other thing that we're very concerned about is the privatization of the maintenance enforcement. If this goes ahead, we'll be the only province in Canada that does that, and it concerns us greatly. It also concerned us about the previous bill — the business of putting out contracts for private entrepreneurs to be going out and acting basically as collection agencies. This is not something that should be taken out of public hands. The confidentiality comes into this; how those people are bonded; how they are expected to be confidential; what action can be taken against a private company if that confidentiality is breached.

My colleague for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) has referred to confidentiality on the basis of transition houses — addresses that shouldn't be handed out. I think it's basic to this program that it be kept in public hands, because the type of information that's being pushed about is not the kind of information that should be contracted. So those are our main concerns. I bring them up under section 3 because it seems that section 3 deals with fairness and equity.

HON. B.R. SMITH: A very short response on this because we've all made our statements on it. I'll just remind the hon. member that the director of enforcement and her staff will be public servants, and they will oversee the delivery of the program to see that it meets all standards, not only of performance but also of bonding and of confidentiality. They will control the database and ensure that the program operates in a highly professional manner.

All those considerations will be taken into account when the contracts are entered into. Based on the experience that we have had in corrections and other branches of government, where we have had societies and organizations outside of government run these programs, it can be done this way, provided you're careful with the contract and who you contract with. I already made remarks before to try to show that the program, while not automatic, is universal. It's just simply not automatic.

Section 3 approved.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

On section 10.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

On section 13.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

On section 14.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the two amendments standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

On section 20 as amended.

[ Page 3437 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to comment briefly on this particular section, which provides for an automatic imprisonment without further hearing for up to 30 days for the failure to make payments that are ordered in a default hearing. I want to query the Attorney-General about his knowledge of a similar provision in the Manitoba legislation, which was struck down in the Queens Bench judgment very recently on February 23 of this year in the case of Schnell v. Schnell. He found that section 30(4) of the Manitoba maintenance act offends both sections 7 and 9 of the Charter and amounts to arbitrary imprisonment. Mr. Chairman, I have that judgment, and I just want to quote briefly from page 21:

"In effect, the judge or master is given authority to impose an indefinite sentence of incarceration. Assuming that there was a continuing default for a specified amount for which a term of imprisonment could be given, the judge or master would have the right, without a hearing for each successive default and without affording the debtor an opportunity to make arrangements....

"In considering the full implications of this authority, one is readily reminded of the Dickensian horror to which this could lead. Clearly in any democratic society this is an intolerable and despotic authority which cannot be countenanced or justified as a 'reasonable limit prescribed by law."'

Accordingly, he declared that the case "offends and is in contravention of sections 7 and 9 of the Charter as depriving the debtor of his life, liberty or security in breach of the principles of fundamental justice."

This is a very heavy-handed piece of legislation, and it has now been challenged in the courts. I think we've had some expectation that that might happen here. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General to comment on the Manitoba judgment in respect to this particular clause of his bill.

HON. B.R. SMITH: What we have here is really the reenactment of the old Family Relations Act, section 67(2.4) so this is not some new Dickensian enactment. This is indeed an enactment that we've had for some time in this province. Imprisoning someone for the non-payment of a debt is one thing. Imprisoning someone who is in disobedience or contempt of court orders in respect to payment is a second thing. Where you have procedures set out in an enactment like this which provide for personal service and proof of service, provide for a warrant of committal, and provide for an opportunity for someone to be heard on the issue, it would seem to me that you are taking reasonable safeguards that would meet the test of the Charter.

The Manitoba legislation, I think, is a little different than ours. But I'd be quite happy to say that before proclaiming the section, I'll certainly get a constitutional opinion on it. I thank the member for raising that point, and maybe she'd give me a copy of the reasons for judgment.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Section 46 approved.

On section 47.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

Section 47 as amended approved.

Sections 48 to 57 inclusive approved.

On section 58.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 58 as amended approved.

Section 59 approved.

On section 60.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 60 as amended approved.

Sections 61 to 72 inclusive approved.

On section 73.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[ Page 3438 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 73 as amended approved.

Section 74 approved.

On section 75.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 75 as amended approved.

Sections 76 to 81 inclusive approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. It's a new section. [See appendix.]

Section 81.1 approved.

Sections 82 and 83 approved.

On section 84.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 84 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 71, Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. B.R. SMITH: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 71, Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 66.

MINERAL TENURE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 66; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order. Just before we start, hon. members, the second member for Victoria has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Would the House this morning welcome Don and Jan Wallace of Georgeville, Quebec. They're visiting their son-in-law and daughter, Steve New and Jean Wallace, here in Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome this morning.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Briefly, there were a number of amendments standing in my name. They are largely editorial and technical in nature. They resulted, essentially, from comments received from other members in the House and from concerned individuals in the industry. I'll be moving these technical amendments as we proceed clause by clause.

On section 1.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[10:45]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

[ Page 3439 ]

MR. GUNO: This section outlines the land on which a free miner may enter. A free miner may not enter land occupied by buildings, a fenced yard, house, an orchard, cultivated land, lands occupied by mines unless specifically permitted, or lands in parks. I'm just wondering if the minister can clarify what expansion of entry is incorporated in this section.

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is no expansion of right of entry from the previous act — the existing legislation. There are no additional rights of entry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: A question to the minister. Is this not the section that deals with the ability of free miners to use Crown land in addition to placer land as previously under the act?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There are no new powers or rights granted to free miners in this legislation. If anything, there's been concern in the industry that their rights were being restricted. When it comes to Crown lands, the Minister of Forests and Lands, who is responsible for Crown lands also, has to decide whether or not the applicant for a claim can obtain the surface rights. So it then reaches into another ministry which is concerned with multiple use or other uses of the surface rights.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

MR. VANT: This section regarding use of right-of-way is of some concern, especially to the miners in the Cariboo. I must say that initial development of many access routes was done by miners, and we have to recognize the surface rights of others, but when it comes to open Crown land, a free miner feels very uncomfortable having to give notice to someone before using such a route, so they find this section completely unacceptable. Often the miners are the first into the country, and after them the loggers came along, and indeed in some cases they've ruined the original road built by the miners. So they feel very strongly that no miner should have to give notice to a logging or forestry company in order to get access to leases or claims, and they often like to very discreetly do their exploration and development work.

I would like the minister to comment on this section 12.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Section 12 has been the subject of considerable discussion with the industry since the bill was tabled. The free miner does have a right of access, but the free miner must first do his or her utmost to determine who owns or maintains the route of access which he uses. If another person is put to any expense in further maintaining or repair in a the route he or she uses, there is an obligation to share in or offset that cost.

Further, if no settlement is reached, there is an arbitration provision provided elsewhere in the Mineral Tenure Act. The hon. member from the Cariboo is right in that the free miners certainly were among the first people in the province, after the fur traders, and they have had substantial rights of access to properties other than really private, private property, and they will continue to have that right of access. But where someone else has either built a road or is maintaining a road for whatever reason, they have to reach some understanding as to how they will compensate that individual — who must have some rights for any losses that that individual incurs.

MR. VANT: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I'd just like to emphasize, too, that we as a government seem to be promoting multi-use of our Crown land and that also we have to be concerned about freedom of access not only for free miners but for everyone.

MS. EDWARDS: I would just like to follow up a bit, because I would like the minister to clarify who you mean by "the person having responsibility for maintaining it." Is that all? I ask on behalf of the range-users, because frequently there could be some problems with free miners entering property where a road is not maintained by the range-user but where the range-users are there. For example, leaving a gate down or something would create a major problem for other range-users. I also recognize that there is a great conflict of interest with recreationists as well, but would you clarify this for the range-users in particular? Does the free miner have to notify someone who has the right to use the range?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think the simple answer is yes.

MR. GUNO: Given this kind of notification, and other responsibilities given to it under this act, is the Mediation and Arbitration Board going to change its size, structure and methods of holding hearings as a result of its additional responsibilities under this act?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes. As the hon. member undoubtedly knows, the arbitration process.... The people who have been doing this work have been primarily concerned with oil and gas situations in the Peace River area, and we're now extending the appeal process and the resolution of disputes process to mining generally. So there will be additional requirements and they'll be met.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. GUNO: This section says that when reserve Crown land not being used for something other than mining is, in the opinion of the minister, needed for mining, the Minister of Lands can sell the surface rights to the owner of the mineral rights at a value he considers adequate. My question is: is the Minister of Lands required to make any sort of evaluation of whether the land in question could be put to better use than mining, or does the Minister of Lands make the decision to sell surface rights based solely on his own judgment? What sort of process is there for evaluation?

[ Page 3440 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: I assume that the Minister of Lands, who is responsible to the Crown for the disposition of Crown assets, must — certainly should — have a good, sound idea of the value of those surface rights for any and all purposes, must be concerned with multi-use, for example, and should essentially require a market value price in order to conclude any disposition of those surface rights surrounding a claim.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. GUNO: According to this section, when a person applies for and receives surveyed Crown land, the surface rights have priority over subsequently claimed mineral rights. If a person stakes the unsurveyed Crown land and is granted surface rights, then the surface lands have precedence over subsequent mineral claims. Is that the correct interpretation of this section? If so, can we have clarification on that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm told that is a correct assumption.

MR. GUNO: On the same section: if at the time the surface rights to the Crown land are awarded the land has a mineral claim already established, then the granting of surface rights should not lessen the rights of the mineral-holder except as decided by the mediation and arbitration board. Again, I want confirmation as to whether that interpretation is correct.

HON. MR. DAVIS: That is a correct interpretation.

MR. GUNO: In light of those confirmations, if the surface rights to the Crown land are granted where a mineral claim already exists, is the selling price of the Crown land affected?

HON. MR. DAVIS: It may or may not be. I would assume that the Minister of Lands or whoever else is responsible for the disposition of the surface rights would have to consider whether there was an enhanced surface value as the result of, say, workable or economic mineral occurrence in the mineral title property under the surface lands.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MR. GUNO: If the minister considers it necessary, he may restrict the surface rights of a mining claim, notwithstanding this or any other act, with no compensation payable. Indeed, in effect, a person has 30 days to appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. My question on section 15 is: in the previous Mineral Act, the minister could restrict the use of surface rights in a claim, a lease or a certified lease. In this bill, the power is restricted to claims. Why has the minister's ability to restrict the activity through this clause been reduced?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I gather that by the changes as between the old legislation and the legislation presently before the House we are strengthening the validity of the lease in law.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I didn't quite understand the minister's comments, if you wouldn't mind restating that.

[11:00]

HON. MR. DAVIS: My impression from the advice I'm getting is that the minister's powers over the surface rights are reduced, and in compensation the mineral rights are strengthened.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GUNO: According to this section, before using a mechanical means to disturb the surface of the earth, a mineral rights holder must notify the surface rights holders. The free miner is then liable to compensate the surface rights holders for the use of their land. The Mediation and Arbitration Board formed under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act has the authority to settle disputes in this regard after gold commissioners have tried to settle it.

The question arising out of this is: can a free miner enter land whose surface rights are privately held and stake a claim without notifying the surface-holder?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is yes.

MR. GUNO: Does the miner have to get permission to use the land, or does he merely have to notify the owner? In other words, is it consent or just notification?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Notification is required in this case. If the two parties don't agree, then they go to arbitration.

MR. GUNO: Does the arbitration process then deal with whether or not the miner has the right to be on the land or only with the compensation payable? What would be the issues before the arbitration process?

HON. MR. DAVIS: A right to be on the land only after the compensation question has been settled.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

MR. VANT: I am amazed that this section is in this bill, given that on December 17 last year, Bill 51, the Mineral Amendment Act, 1987 — which appears to be word for word section 19 — was given royal assent. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

With all due respect, I think the title of this particular section should be changed to "Recreation and resource use areas." I know that section 17 of Bill 66 covers parks, and I'm aware that under the Park Act "recreation area" is a legal

[ Page 3441 ]

term. But I'm very nervous that in this province we're going to end up with one-third parks and two-thirds recreation areas. There are provisions under section 19, given certain time-frames, that resource use is possible. I certainly concur that in a park a resource use permit must be issued by the Minister of Environment and Parks. I'd be much more comfortable if this section 19 were entitled "Recreation and resource use areas."

HON. MR. DAVIS: As the hon. second member for Cariboo has mentioned, section 19 is lifted verbatim from the earlier bill passed in this House, Bill 51. There are no changes from that legislation in this section.

Yes, there was a debate at that time as to the nature of recreation areas. Concern was expressed on both sides of the question as to whether there should be the usual mining rights in recreation areas. Concern was expressed also by the mining industry that at some time a recreation area could become a park, and the moment that decision was made, they were under a ten-year countdown as to whether mining might eventually be permitted. It's a debatable topic, but certainly it's in a bill that has been passed by this House in this session.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GUNO: Under section 20 there is a requirement that the mineral title be cleared before a new claim is staked, that even if one part of a claim is declared invalid, the whole claim is not made invalid, and that priority of location of claims is based on the time the claim is located, provided the claim is made in a proper way. The question arising out of that is.... It's actually a clarification that we would want from the minister, in that this would be a good time to get a clear idea of the extent of the confusion that reigns in various parts of the province, with people unsure about when claims are free, when their claim overlaps another, what time claims are invalid, and how much time and energy goes into unravelling these problems within the ministry. Given the fact that this particular act now opens up the activity of placer mining in British Columbia, I wonder if these problems are going to be expedited in any way by passage of this bill.

HON. MR. DAVIS: As the hon. member knows, several pieces of legislation — including the placer act — have been consolidated in a single bill, this bill dealing with mineral tenure. From now on the terminology used, for instance, in respect to placer mining and hardrock mining, will be identical. So, as the terminology will be common and the approach generally the same, I would expect that the conflicts or disputes between the different segments of the industry would be reduced.

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GUNO: Previously a free miner had 30 days to record a claim after locating it; now it is 20. If the gold commissioner corrects what he perceives to be an error on an application or record, does that record then become the legal facts of the record, whether or not the applicant approves of the changes?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the amendment eliminates the term "20 days" and substitutes "a prescribed period," which may be longer than 20 days. I assume that the prescribed period would appear in regulations.

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

On section 25 as amended.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In the case of placer claims specifically and mining claims in general, will one of the requirements of maintaining a claim in good standing be an effective environmental reconstruction program?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that there is no requirement under this legislation, but there is a requirement under the Mines Act which would protect the environment — other uses of that resource.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister could be more specific. How does the Mines Act deal with this problem?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The free miner in this case first has to file a notice of work and a description of the reclamation works he will undertake. They have to be approved before he undertakes any work, and that work will be policed essentially under the Mines Act.

MS. SMALLWOOD: With the existing work orders that have been filed in the province in the last couple of years.... In our introductory comments on second reading, we outlined our concern that there were 800 filed, and only 250 were able to be investigated or policed.

What this bill does is invite much more activity in the province, and I'd like to hear from the minister what steps have been taken to ensure that we can look after the work orders on the books right now. In addition to that, what moves

[ Page 3442 ]

has the minister made to bring in more staff and support their ability to police the additions?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's generally agreed that we need some more staff. But of the 800 claims filed last year, 750 were inspected. So there is a shortfall of 50, but not of 400 or 500, in the inspection process.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Okay. Recognizing that there is inevitable damage to not only the surface but also water rights as a result of placer mining, can the minister indicate where the requirements will be, to deal not only with surface reclamation but also any erosion downstream?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is an in-house or within-the-industry discipline enforced by the Mines minister, also by the provincial Minister of Environment and Parks and the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am told that the plan which the prospective miner must file is quite detailed, and the policing is careful.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Very clearly the minister is referring to his own ministry and the ministry's responsibilities. The figures we used in the introduction were figures that reflected the Ministry of Environment's ability to deal with their authority under waste management. When we suggested that only 250 out of the 800 had been investigated.... I understand that those figures are correct and that they deal specifically with the Environment ministry and their ability to do their job.

I would hope that the Minister of Mines, because it is directly involving and affecting the Ministry of Environment, would have had those discussions and could indicate to us — perhaps the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) could at this time — what plans they have to deal with this problem. It is a very serious problem.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think perhaps all figures that we've heard this morning are right: 800 claims, 750 carefully inspected by the Mines ministry, perhaps several hundred inspected or checked up on by the Environment ministry. In an ideal world the industry would police itself at its own expense, and the policing by the Ministry of Environment and others would only be needed as a casual follow-up. So there have been substantial inspections — 750 by Mines and 250 by Environment.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

On section 30.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 30 as amended approved.

On section 31.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

On section 31 as amended.

[11:15]

MR. GUNO: Previously, if a claim forfeited, the free miner in question could not hold a claim on the same land for period of one year following the forfeiture. This is not the case in this act. Doesn't this open the door to a lot of abuse by people who would simply relocate their old claims after forfeiture? How would you police that kind of abuse?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I gather, Mr. Chairman, that this matter is dealt with effectively in section 35.

MR. VANT: On section 31(1), it used to be 12:01 a.m. It says here that location of a new claim shall not commence until 7 a.m. the next day. This could create a problem. I know the reason for this is safety; it's very hard to stake a claim in the dark. But I would prefer, instead of 7 a.m., that it be at official dawn, because at certain times of the year — even in the Cariboo, believe it or not — it can be daylight at 5 a.m. That's prior to this official 7 a.m., so there could still be the opportunity for someone to sneak in and actually start staking before 7 a.m. So I would just ask the minister to at some time consider substituting "official dawn" — sunrise is at a certain time very day, and that could replace 7 a.m.

HON. MR. DAVIS: That's seems like a reasonable amendment. I told hon. members that where they have been making good points.... We'll be bringing in miscellaneous bills in the next session for a few changes, and that sounds like one we should bring back promptly in the next session.

Section 31 as amended approved.

On section 32.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 32 as amended approved.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

On section 35.

MS. SMALLWOOD: A couple of questions to the minister. First of all, why is there no deadline for the gold commissioner to make his decision on complaints when previously there was a 60-day one?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm told, Mr. Chairman, that the 60 day time-limit was often inadequate because the complainant had further submissions to make, and the adjudication simply couldn't be carried out in that time-period.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister assure us that this does not have to do with the limited resources the gold commissioner would have in his ability to deal with his job?

[ Page 3443 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm told by the chief gold commissioner that it's simply a matter of allowing adequate time for feedback; it's not a matter of shortage of staff.

MS. SMALLWOOD: An old adage comes to mind: justice delayed is no justice at all.

My second question is: is it possible for the chief gold inspector to adjudicate a complaint himself, without a public report being made? That seems to be implied in subsection (5)(b).

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm told that due process has to be followed in this, as in other cases; and the complainant needs time in order to respond, back and forth, in order to feel that he or she has received proper treatment.

MR. VANT: Subsection (4)(b) is somewhat objectionable. I agree that a free miner should make a deposit, not pay a fee, concerning a complaint as to title or the performance of exploration and development. The deposit, I agree, is very necessary to prevent frivolous and vexatious complaints. A free miner should be willing to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, and after subsequent investigation by ministry staff, if the complaint is justified, the free miner would get is money back. This suggestion, I respectfully suggest, would enhance the self-policing nature of the mining industry.

Section 35 approved.

On section 36.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GUNO: These amendments redefine the amount of mineral or placer mineral which may be produced on a claim. Previously, 200 tonnes of ore could be produced from each mineral claim. Now it's 1,000 tonnes from each unit in the claim. If a claim is one or two units, this is a good amendment; but for larger claims, this increases their ability to produce. More importantly, for placer claims, it was previously possible to produce up to 20 cubic metres per day or 2,000 cubic metres a year from a claim. Now it is simply restricted to a level up to 2,000 cubic metres a year, which leaves the door open for people to process 2,000 cubic metres as fast as possible in order to cut their operating costs and move on to another claim.

My question to the minister is: how can the ministry possibly govern the environmental aspects of placer claims if there is no restriction on the speed at which they can process their pay dirt? People who hold claims could be in and out before the ministry has any chance to check their operation. Some clarification from the minister, please.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Again, the control of the mining operation, if I can call it that, is under the Mines Act, and the operator in that case must submit a plan as to amounts, timing and so on. The Minister of Mines can first scrutinize that plan as to the ministry's ability to police the operation and, second, withhold or approve the plan.

MR. GUNO: When you're talking about the control under the Minister of Mines, would that be the stage 1, 2 and 3 process, or is that a different process altogether?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No. that would be at the local, most regional level within the ministry. That doesn't in any way intercept the approval process, which is separate from that.

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

On section 37.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just a quick question. I want to know why the term of the minimum lease has been extended — an extension of over 40 percent.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The industry applied for an extension, saying that in the case of a number of properties — certainly the more attractive properties, the ones that may become mines — they needed more years in order to finance the project. It was essentially a matter of finance, rather than other aspects of the development.

Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

MR. VANT: I will defer to later the discussion with the minister and his competent staff.

Section 40 approved.

On section 41.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is: has the minister at this point designated any lands with placer mining that would not be in the public interest — for example, parkland — or is the minister planning to judge each application as it is put to him?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There have been no designations in respect to parkland, and I assume there would be no new designations under that heading whatsoever. There was a second aspect to the question, which I have forgotten.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The question was: are you going to deal with each claim or each worksite specifically? And back to the parkland issue: will there be a weighing of priorities when you make that decision?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is yes. The approvals will be carried out on a case-by-case basis and essentially in the field by a placer coordinating committee in the region in question.

Section 41 approved.

Sections 42 to 47 inclusive approved,

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[ Page 3444 ]

Section 47.1 approved.

Sections 48 to 64 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Section 64.1 approved.

Sections 65 to 68 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66, Mineral Tenure Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 66, Mineral Tenure Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've got a fast little housekeeping item, Mr. Speaker. This is caused by a typo. By leave I move that the proceedings on third reading of Bill 65, Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987, be declared null and void and that the bill be recommitted with respect to section 19.1. So I call Mr. Chairman for this bill.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the matter of Bill 65 I move that in section 19.1 all references to sections 17(g) or (h) be deleted and sections 17(1)(g) or (h) be substituted therefore.

Amendment approved.

Section 19.1 as amended approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 65, Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 65, Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 64, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 64; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. ROSE: I would just like to ask the minister if the opposition critic is aware of these amendments and knew they were here.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, they've been on the order paper for four or five days. These amendments, and particularly 13.1, are simply errors in wording and are not substantial.

Section 13.1 approved.

Sections 14 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 64, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. DAVIS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 3445 ]

Bill 64, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 28.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Government House Leader on Bill 28 — or opposition House Leader, I should say.

MR. ROSE: I think it was a Freudian slip, but you were probably right the first time. Maybe in the future.

Mr. Chairman, we're not going to speak on this bill, not because we don't want to but because we have spoken volumes on the bill. We find the bill unacceptable, especially the removal of the section 80s from voting day. We've made that point over and over again. I don't know that it would do any good to reiterate that here. Although we're disappointed we haven't a little more time, we haven't.

We've made an arrangement to have royal assent on some of these other matters, so therefore I call division on Bill 28.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you, opposition House Leader. We will have to call the sections, I'm sorry. It will only take a minute or two.

Section 8 as amended approved on division.

On section 9.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 to 13 approved.

On section 14.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

On section 17.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 16

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Election Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. VEITCH: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 28, Election Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed on division.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that His Honour is in the precincts and will be attending us soon. This is a significant day in that we will soon be ending the thirty-fourth parliament. I would be

[ Page 3446 ]

remiss if I didn't thank the members opposite, in particular my good friend opposite, the opposition House Leader, and acknowledge his perseverance with us and with the arrangements we've made. We have, as we wanted to characterize this parliament, been able to disagree without being disagreeable.

I would also be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the good works of the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) who has served as the opposition Whip for some years, and as well acknowledge their new opposition Whip, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). As well I'll acknowledge the good works done by our Whip, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree); the Deputy Whip, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long); and now the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson), who has taken over those duties.

My thanks to all of you, and to all members who have made this an interesting session when we consider Bill 19 and 20 and some other notable pieces of legislation. I shouldn't have mentioned that, I know, but it has been good, and I thank you ever so much.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I am provoked by the kind words of the government House Leader and minister. To reciprocate, there have been some difficult times; some heavy breathing from time to time; some profound policy differences. It hasn't been lovey-dovey, but I would just like to say on behalf of our side and to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the government that this session and this Legislature has been a much more pleasant place in which to work than its previous incarnation.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Election Amendment Act, 1987

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1987

Mineral Tenure Act

Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987

Family Maintenance Enforcement Act

Guaranteed Available Income For Need Amendment Act, 1987

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

HON. R.G. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly, on this closing day of the first session of the thirty-fourth Parliament of British Columbia, I congratulate all members of the House on the accomplishments of the past year. Most particularly, I wish to express my appreciation for the new spirit of civility and cooperation that has characterized this session. That spirit is clearly evident in your creation of a Board of Internal Economy to regulate matters closely affecting this House.

During the life of this parliament, British Columbia has been honoured by a visit of Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip; a visit marked by the granting of a new provincial coat-of-arms and elevation of the provincial museum to its new status as the Royal British Columbia Museum.

At the same time, British Columbia held the world stage as Commonwealth heads of government representing 47 nations met in Vancouver. Since the start of this session in March 1987, my government has introduced important initiatives designed to create a stronger economy and new employment opportunities and has enjoyed some considerable success. This is evidenced by a steady improvement in the employment picture, with 95,000 more British Columbians working in January this year than a year earlier. That represents an annual growth rate in the number of people actually employed of 7.3 percent, compared to a national rate of 4.3 percent, or an Ontario rate of 4.5 percent.

Other welcome signs of our burgeoning economy are a healthy forest industry, strong gains in manufacturing, improved mineral prices, increased natural gas sales, record high farm income and continued strength in tourism. As the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada stated last month, British Columbia's economy has confounded the skeptics and shows a solid pattern of sustained growth.

A far-reaching policy undertaken this session has been the fundamental restructuring of government through two major initiatives: privatization and regionalization. My government intends to use privatization as a tool to create new economic opportunity. The impetus for this initiative flows from the work of two task forces, one private sector and one public sector, and the positive experiences here and in other jurisdictions, where privatization has reduced costs, lowered the public debt burden and encouraged employee ownership.

Regionalization will make government more accessible to British Columbians, involving the people of all regions in the decision-making process and matching solutions to regional priorities. My government has begun putting this principle into action with the appointment of eight ministers of state to facilitate regional development. Consistent with this commitment to a new openness, my government has acted to provide radio coverage of the Legislature.

In the session now ending you have adopted some 70 pieces of legislation, many of them with broad significance for the province, including two key pieces of labour legislation. These two acts have ushered in a new era of fairness and stability in labour-management relations in British Columbia.

A new forest policy enunciated by my government, along with legislation approved by this House, will provide a fair return from the public resource and ensure a high level of reforestation. This new policy was directly responsible for ending the 15 percent countervailing duty imposed by the United States on British Columbia softwood exports.

In the realm of law enforcement, my government has launched support programs for victims of crime so that they are not lost in the shuffle of the justice system.

This House has also passed into law new and fairer expropriation legislation. You are to be congratulated for the Sechelt Indian band legislation, a model of self-government for native people.

New procedures have been put in place to keep adopted native children within the native community wherever possible. This and other measures demonstrate my government's firm commitment to strengthening the family in British Columbia. Funding for adoption has been increased, and a new adoption registry now permits adopted children and their natural parents to be reunited if both parties consent. During this session an increase in welfare rates has focused on the needs of families and single parents.

[ Page 3447 ]

In the schools my government has introduced a family life program to assist our young people on the road to becoming responsible adults. Other education initiatives recognize this province's unique relationship with the Pacific Rim nations and offer student exchanges, scholarships, language training and other curriculum enhancements.

My government has also introduced the Passport to Education program, giving high school students the opportunity to earn credits towards a post-secondary education. It has provided increased funding for schools, including independent schools, as well as increased funding for universities and other post-secondary institutions. In addition, it has substantially increased financial assistance to students in our universities and colleges.

You have approved an Open Learning Agency Act, providing opportunities for those who want to continue their education but cannot be present in the classroom and lecture hall. This province's continuing commitment to such "distance education" was recognized when British Columbia was chosen as the coordinating centre for the Commonwealth distance education network.

British Columbians continue to enjoy one of the finest health care systems in the world. Its effectiveness was improved during this session with the addition of a program to assist in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse by young people. A major education program was undertaken to inform the public about the dangers of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS.

Over the past year my government has increased the area of wilderness protected under legislation by 810,000 hectares — not including the South Moresby area, a 145,000-hectare wilderness that is designated to become a national park. My government has also created nine new provincial parks. The total area of wilderness now protected under provincial legislation is 5.47 million hectares, or approximately 5.8 percent of the province. To put it another way, there are about 2 hectares of protected wilderness for every resident of British Columbia, three times that of Ontario and the highest such ratio for any province in Canada.

Finally, this session has been noteworthy for the way government has actively sought public input. There have been a number of task forces, inquiries and councils established to examine various issues. Some have completed their work. Others, such as the Justice Reform Committee, the Royal Commission on Education, the Aquaculture Industry Advisory Council and the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries, continue their investigations. Still others, such as the Premier's Economic Advisory Council and the science and technology council, are permanently in place to provide continuing advice to government.

As this first session of the thirty-fourth parliament of British Columbia comes to a close, I commend you for the careful consideration you have given to the many important measures that have come before you. I thank you for your efforts on behalf of all British Columbians and now relieve you of your legislative duties.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I am duty-bound to inform you that it is his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's will and pleasure that this Legislative Assembly be prorogued until 3 p.m. Tuesday, March 15, 1988, and this provincial assembly is hereby prorogued accordingly.

The House prorogued at 12:02 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

28        The Hon. E. N. Veitch to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 28) intituled Election Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 9, in the proposed section 87 (3) by adding "80.1," before "115".

SECTION 14, by deleting the proposed paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

(b) in subsection (6) by striking out "80," and substituting "80.1,".

SECTION 15, by deleting the proposed section 15 and substituting the following:

15. Section 120 (3) is amended by striking out "80" and substituting "80.1".

SECTION 16, by deleting the proposed section 16 and substituting the following:

16. Section 122 (1) (e) is amended by striking out "80" in both places and substituting "80.1".

SECTION 17, by deleting the proposed section 17 and substituting the following:

17. Section 128 (1) is amended by striking out "80," and substituting "80.1,".

[ Page 3448 ]

64        The Hon. J. Davis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 64) intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 11, in the proposed section 74 (3) by adding ", on application by the lessee made not later than 60 days after the expiry of the lease," after "the commissioner shall".

SECTION 13.1, by adding the following section:

13.1 Section 78 (4) is amended by striking out paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

(b) surrender all of the location of the lease except eligible spacing areas as defined in section 74 (2).

66        The Hon. J. Davis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 66) intituled Mineral Tenure Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1,

(a) in the proposed definition of "legal corner post" by deleting "post" and substituting "post or cairn", and

(b) in the proposed definition of "mineral lands" by adding at the end ", and includes Crown granted 2 post claims".

SECTION 3, in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "claims inspectors" and substituting "mineral title inspectors".

SECTION 6,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by adding "or" at the end of paragraph (c) and by deleting paragraph (d), and

(b) by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) A person employed by a free miner may explore for minerals or placer minerals on behalf of that free miner without holding a free miner certificate.

(3) A person employed by a recorded holder may develop and produce minerals or placer minerals on behalf of that recorded holder without holding a free miner certificate.

SECTION 7,

(a) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "or" at the end of paragraph (a), by adding "or" at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following paragraph:

(c) a partnership consisting of partners who are persons that qualify under paragraph (a) or (b). ,

(b) in the proposed subsection (3) (f) by deleting "day on which it is issued" and substituting "day on which it is stated to be issued", and

(c) in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "own" and substituting "hold".

SECTION 10,

(a) by deleting the proposed subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following:

(2) A mineral claim and a placer claim or placer lease may exist independently on the same mineral lands.

(3) Where a dispute arises between recorded holders on the same mineral lands

(a) as to whether a substance is a mineral or a placer mineral, or

(b) respecting the exercise of surface rights conferred by this Act, the question shall be decided by the chief gold commissioner on application to him by a party to the dispute, and, for the purposes of making a determination under this section, the chief gold commissioner has the powers of a commissioner under sections 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act. ,

[ Page 3449 ]

(b) in the proposed subsection (4) by adding "under subsection (3) (a)" after "determination", and

(c) in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "subsection (4)" and substituting "subsection (3)".

SECTION 16, by deleting the proposed subsection (6).

SECTION 20,

(a) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "mineral claim or previous placer claim, as the case may be." and substituting "mineral title.", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (3) by adding at the beginning "Notwithstanding subsection (2),".

SECTION 23,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "20 days after it is located." and substituting "the prescribed period after location.", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "the 20 days" and substituting "the prescribed period".

SECTION 25, by deleting "it was recorded" and substituting "of record", by adding "from year to year" after "thereafter" and by deleting "he may hold the claim for a further year".

SECTION 30,

(a) by deleting "co-owner", "co-owner's" and "co-owners" wherever they appear and substituting "co-recorded holder", "co-recorded holder's" and "co-recorded holders" respectively, and

(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "before the 3 month period," and substituting "during the 3 month period,".

SECTION 31, in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "overlying claim" and substituting "overlying mineral title".

SECTION 32,

(a) in the proposed subsection (2) by adding at the end "from the end of the day specified in the application as the cancellation date", and

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

(3) After the claim has been cancelled, a free miner may, subject to the exclusive right referred to in section 33 (3), locate a mineral claim on the land covered by the claim that has been abandoned, but the location shall not commence until 7 a.m. on the day after cancellation.

SECTION 36, by deleting the proposed section 36 and substituting the following:

Production on claim

36. (1) A recorded holder of a mineral claim shall not produce or cause to have produced in a year more than 1000 tonnes of ore from each unit in that claim.

(2) A recorded holder of a placer claim shall not produce or cause to have produced placer minerals from more than 2000 m³ of pay-dirt each year from that claim.

SECTION 47.1, by adding the following section at the beginning of Part 4:

Industrial minerals––rights

47.1 (1) In this section "mineral substance" means a substance that is a mineral or placer mineral under this Act, but was not a mineral or placer mineral under the former Acts.

[ Page 3450 ]

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as invalidating or affecting any right to a mineral substance acquired before this Act came into force.

(3) A person having a right to a mineral substance in mineral lands in respect of which no right to minerals or placer minerals is vested in a person under the former Acts, has the exclusive right for a period of 90 days after this section comes into force to locate a mineral claim or placer claim over those lands, and, on such location, the right referred to in subsection (2) is extinguished.

(4) A free miner, who locates a mineral claim on land that is affected by the right referred to in subsection (2), does not acquire any title to the mineral substance which is the subject of that right.

(5) Where one or more titles to a mineral substance expire or are surrendered, the minister may issue a mineral lease or placer lease over that mineral substance on terms and conditions set by him, without any requirement for re-survey.

SECTION 64.1, by adding the following section under the heading "Land Act":

64.1 Section 24 is amended by striking out everything after "foregoing" and substituting the following:

(a) earth, soil, peat, marl, sand and gravel, and

(b) rock, riprap and stone products that are used in the construction or maintenance of a road, building or structure not located on land within a mineral title or group of titles from which the rock, riprap or stone product is mined,

may provide for payment of a royalty for material removed from the land at rates to be determined by the minister.

71 The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 71) intituled Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, in paragraph (b) of the proposed definition of "maintenance order" by striking out "section 21" and substituting "section 20".

SECTION 9, in the proposed section 9 (1) by adding "any record in" after "any information that is in".

SECTION 10, by striking out the proposed section 10 (1) and substituting the following:

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of the maintenance order but subject to subsections (2) and (3), all payments required to be made by the debtor under a maintenance order that is filed with the director shall

(a) be made by cheque or money order payable to the creditor and delivered to the director, or

(b) with the approval of the director, be made directly to the creditor in a prescribed manner.

SECTION 12, in the proposed section 12 (2) by adding ", shall be accompanied by the prescribed documents" after "prescribed form" and by striking out "15 days" and substituting "10 days".

SECTION 13, in the proposed section 13 (2) by adding ", shall be accompanied by the prescribed documents" after "prescribed form" and by striking out "15 days" and substituting "10 days".

SECTION 14, in the proposed section 14 (1) by adding "or prescribed document or both" after "statement of finances" in both places.

[ Page 3451 ]

SECTION 14, in the proposed section 14 by adding the following subsection:

(5) The imprisonment of a debtor under subsection (3) does not discharge the debtor's duty to file a statement for finances and the prescribed documents.

SECTION 20, in the proposed section 20 (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(e) that, as security for the payments in arrears and subsequent payments, the debtor provide security in any form that the court directs.

SECTION 20, by striking out the proposed section 20 (7) and substituting the following:

(7) Where there is a material change in the circumstances of the debtor, the court may, without reducing or cancelling the aggregate of the arrears required to be paid under an order it made under subsection (1) or (2), vary the order.

SECTION 20, in the proposed section 20 by adding the following subsections:

(8) In an order for security under subsection (1) (e) or a subsequent order, the court may provide for the realization of the security by seizure, sale or other means that the court directs or for the release of all or part of the security.

(9) Where an order under subsection (1) or (2) is in force, a payment made by the debtor shall be credited

(a) first to the amount due and owing under the maintenance order after the date of the order under subsection (1) or (2),

(b) next to any arrears required to be paid under the order under subsection (1) or (2), and

(c) last to any other amount due and owing.

SECTION 29, by striking out the proposed section 29 and substituting the following:

Crediting of payments

29. Unless the court orders otherwise, a payment made under section 10, 15 or 21 shall be credited

(a) first to the periodic payment most recently due under the maintenance order,

(b) next to the arrears due and owing, and

(c) last to any other amount due and owing in respect of the maintenance order.

SECTION 33, in the proposed section 33 (2) by adding "or prescribed document" after "a statement of finances".

SECTION 45, by renumbering the proposed section 45 as section 45 (1) and by adding the following subsection:

(2) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, refuses or neglects to comply with an order made under section 9 (1) or 20 (1) (e) commits an offence.

SECTION 47, in the proposed section 47 (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(o.1) requiring verification, by affidavit or otherwise, of any statement, information or document required to be filed or provided under this Act, .

SECTION 47, in the proposed section 47 by adding the following subsection:

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) (c) or (d) shall be made in the manner provided for in the Court Rules Act.

SECTION 58, by striking out section 58 (b) and substituting the following:

(b) in subsection (2) by striking out "sections 64, 65.1, 66, 67, 68, 68.1, 68.2 and 69 and".

[ Page 3452 ]

SECTION 60, in the proposed section 63.3 (1) by adding "any record in" after "any information that is in" and by renumbering the paragraphs immediately after "that concerns" as paragraphs (c) and (d).

SECTION 73, by striking out that section and substituting the following:

73. Section 81 is amended

(a) by repealing subsection (1.1) and substituting the following:

(1.1) Any person who

(a) contravenes section 37.1 (3) or 63.2 (6), or

(b) without reasonable excuse, refuses or neglects to comply with an order made under section 37.2 (1) or 63.3 (1)

commits an offence. , and

(b) in subsection (2.1) (b) by striking out "section 63.2 (5)" and substituting "section 37.3 and 63.3 (4)".

SECTION 75, by striking out section 75 (b) and substituting the following:

(b) in subsection (4) by striking out "garnishing" and by adding "or attachee" after "garnishee".

SECTION 81.1, by adding under the heading "Supreme Court Act" the following section:

81.1 Section 44 is repealed.

SECTION 84, by deleting the proposed section 84 (2) and substituting the following:

(2) Any provision of section 3 may be brought into force on different dates in different areas of the Province with respect to different classes of creditors.

72        The Hon. C. H. Richmond to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 72) intituled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 2, in the proposed section 19.2

(a) in subsection (1) by adding "or on behalf of" after "Where income assistance is paid to",

(b) in subsection (1) (d) by adding "even though the arrears accrued before this section comes into force," after "dependent child,",

(c) in subsection (1) (e) by adding "even though the arrears accrued before this section comes into force," after "order or agreement,",

(d) in subsection (1) (f) (i) by adding "even though the arrears accrued before this section comes into force," after "under a maintenance order,",

(e) in subsection (3) (b) by adding "and" after "discretion,",

(f) in subsection (3) by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting the following:

(c) revert, subject to section 19.7 (3), to the individual when income assistance ceases to be paid to or on behalf of the individual.

(g) in subsection (3) by deleting paragraph (d),

(h) in subsection (4) by adding "or on behalf of whom" after "the individual to whom", and

(i) in subsection (6) by adding "alteration," after "making,".

SECTION 2, in the proposed section 19.3

(a) in subsection (1) by adding "or on behalf of whom" after "an individual to whom",

[ Page 3453 ]

(b) in subsection (3) by deleting "(a) to (c)" and substituting "(a) and (b)", and

(c) by deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:

(4) Subject to section 19.7 (3), an assignment made under subsection (1) ceases to have effect when income assistance ceases to be paid to or on behalf of the individual.

SECTION 2, in the proposed section 19.4 (2) by adding "or to reduce or cancel arrears of payments under a maintenance order" after "maintenance order".

SECTION 2, in the proposed section 19.5 (a) and (b) by adding "or on behalf of whom" after "to whom".

SECTION 2, in the proposed section 19.6

(a) in subsection (1) by deleting "the director appointed under section 23 may," and substituting "the director of maintenance enforcement, at the request of or in accordance with a general directive of the director appointed under section 23, shall,"

(b) in subsection (3) by deleting "to whom assistance is paid, the director appointed under section 23 of this Act may" and substituting "to whom or on whose behalf income assistance is paid, the director of maintenance enforcement shall, at the request of or in accordance with a general directive of the director appointed under section 23 of this Act,",

(c) in subsection (4) by deleting "subsection (1), (2) or (3)" and substituting "subsection (1) or (3)", and

(d) in subsection (6) by adding "or on behalf of whom" after "to whom" and by adding "or in accordance with a general directive of" after "at the request of".

SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed section 19.7 and substituting the following:

Reimbursement

19.7 (1) Where, after this section comes into force, income assistance is paid to or on behalf of a creditor for a period during which maintenance is payable to the creditor,

(a) the amount determined under subsection (2) becomes, on the date the maintenance is paid, a debt due to the Crown by the creditor in reimbursement of the income assistance paid, and

(b) all or part of the debt referred to in paragraph (a) may be set off against any amount payable by the minister to the creditor under section 19.6 (9).

(2) The amount referred to in subsection (1) (a) shall equal the lesser of

(a) the amount of maintenance paid to the creditor minus the amount exempted under the regulations, or

(b) the amount of income assistance paid to the creditor.

(3) Until the Crown is reimbursed under this section, it retains all the rights that are necessary to enforce payment of arrears of maintenance that were payable during the period for which income assistance was paid to or on behalf of the creditor and section 19.6 applies in respect of the payment of those arrears.

SECTION 4, in the proposed section 25.1 by deleting "exercise and intended exercise" and substituting "exercise or intended exercise".

SECTION 6, by renumbering the proposed section 6 as section 6 (1) and by adding the following subsection:

(2) Any provision of this Act may be brought into force on different dates in different areas of the Province with respect to different classes of individuals or creditors.