1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 22
[ Page 14169 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery this morning is a grade 5 class from Monterey Elementary School -- another class coming in, the second that we've had this week. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Schurman. I would like to ask all the members in the House to make them most welcome.
V. Anderson: I can't resist joining the hon. Finance minister in welcoming the Monterey class, since that's the school where my grandchildren are, and I believe my grandson Ross is here with the group today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee stage of Bill 15, the Real Estate Amendment Act, 1995. And I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purpose of debating the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.
REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 15; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
D. Mitchell: Section 1 shouldn't pass just yet. I'd like to ask the minister a question about the definitions and the amendments made to the Real Estate Act. The first definition of "agent" is changed by this amendment. I'd like to ask the minister why this particular change is being made. The question begged by this specific change to the definition of an agent involved in a real estate transaction is: is there some other way that someone who defines himself as an agent could be instructed by a party other than a strata corporation, for instance, to collect moneys? Could someone like a real estate agent as defined under this amendment to the act be instructed by some means other than that specified in the Condominium Act, for instance, in such a way that this committee should be concerned about outlawing or legislating against the instructions that are offered to an agent? I would just like to understand this redefinition a little more clearly.
Hon. E. Cull: Under the current legislation, property managers -- not those who work for strata corporations, but other property managers -- are already covered under these consumer protection provisions. This is to ensure that those who are collecting fees for a strata corporation...that the strata owners have the same protection and the same guarantees that a tenant would have for a property manager collecting their rents. It is simply to be able to extend the requirements that relate to licensing, bonding, insurance and audit provisions that cover the vast majority of property management situations, but not yet -- until this act passed -- those that are covered by a strata corporation.
D. Mitchell: Could I ask the minister, then: why are the words in this amendment, "payable under a licence to occupy real estate," required? What is meant by the term "licence to occupy real estate" in this context? Why is it important to include that kind of terminology in the definition of an agent? We're talking here about the definition of a real estate agent. Why is it necessary to put in the terminology "licence to occupy real estate" under that definition?
Hon. E. Cull: The licence to occupy real estate refers to the short-term rental situations -- for example, at Whistler, where someone would take a condominium for the night, get the keys, etc., but not be in a long-term rental or tenancy situation.
D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for that. One other question, then, under this definition change. There's a definition added of "cooperative corporation." I'd like to ask the minister about this. It's a matter I raised during second reading debate on this bill.
I wonder how this new definition that allows partnerships or limited partnerships to qualify for cooperative corporation status helps us deal with the problem with shared interest marketing, which is a key feature of what this bill is attempting to get at. Why are we making this change in the definition of a cooperative association to "cooperative corporation"? Why is it crucial to this bill?
Hon. E. Cull: I read the second reading debate of the member, but unfortunately was not present in the House when he was speaking on it. I think what he is talking about is the problem that has recently come to light with the proposal to dissolve some cooperatives to effect private gain. Is that the issue that you're speaking of here?
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: It doesn't. Hon. Chair, I know you don't like these across-the-floor debates, so before you call us back to order.... Through you, hon. Chair, the member has raised the question about some attempts by some cooperatives to dissolve themselves and to sell off their assets to the members. We have indicated that that is not acceptable because of the investment of public money to establish those cooperatives in the first place and also because of our desire to maintain the stock of cooperative housing and affordable housing for British Columbians. That is not dealt with in this act, but we do intend to make that amendment.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's response to that. So clearly this amendment to the definition of a cooperative association doesn't meet that other objective which we talked about in a different context. To get back to my question then: what is it that we're doing here by expanding the definition of cooperative association to include cooperatives with corporation status? If it doesn't deal with the shared-interest marketing objectives of the bill and the other issue of affordable housing -- which the minister says it doesn't do -- then why are we making this change from cooperative association to cooperative corporation? Is there a simple answer for the redefinition?
Hon. E. Cull: The change that the member wants will be made under the cooperative association act, so it's not under the Real Estate Act. This deals with the other current issue of interest, which is the shared-interest provision. What this will
[ Page 14170 ]
do is close the loophole which presently allows ownership arrangements based on partnership to escape from the current part 2 requirements applicable to the marketing of interests in housing cooperatives, companies and societies. So this deals with the issue that we've had about shared interests, and makes sure that they come under the consumer protection provisions of the Real Estate Act, as opposed to the other issue that will be dealt with under the cooperative association act.
D. Mitchell: I have only one further question under section 1, and it deals with the change of definition of subdivision or subdivided land under section 1(c) of the act. The explanatory note says that apartment buildings are included within that definition, but it looks like we are deleting apartment buildings. I wonder if the minister could clarify just what this definitional change does, because I think this could be crucial for the main purpose of this legislation. I'm not sure why we're adding or deleting apartment buildings within that definition. Could the minister just clarify that?
[10:15]
Hon. E. Cull: It's a complicated set of amendments that make sure that apartment buildings are, in fact, included in the definition of subdivision or subdivided land. If the member refers to the existing legislation and looks at the definition for "subdivision," he will see that there are five subsections: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Just before section (d) it says "but does not include" and then you go to section (e) and the words "apartment building" appear there. By deleting that, it now means that it does include.
L. Hanson: Just one question on the definition of agent: "...collects, attempts to collect or offers to collect money...." As I understand that, unless they charge a fee for doing that, the member of the strata corporation would not be classified as an agent.
Hon. E. Cull: It has to be on behalf of another person and for a fee.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
D. Mitchell: Just some clarification on what section 2 does and why it's required. Section 2 changes an existing section of the act to require that trust accounts by agents be maintained in British Columbia and in British Columbia savings institutions, I believe. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on why we need to make this change. Have there been abuses? Have there been problems with the previous wording? Where have there been abuses in the province where trust accounts have been misused or misappropriated? What's wrong with holding these trust accounts in Canadian institutions other than in British Columbia savings institutions?
Hon. E. Cull: If the trust accounts are not in British Columbia or in a British Columbia savings institution, then we have no regulatory authority over those accounts. We have had situations where the trust account has been in the United States -- in Point Roberts, for example. When there have been abuses, it has required the involvement of another jurisdiction, which gets very complicated, very time-consuming and does not afford the consumer the protection that we believe is essential. By doing this, we ensure that we can maintain some control through the regulatory agencies that we have here in British Columbia.
D. Mitchell: I guess I'd be interested to know.... I can understand restricting the trust accounts to Canadian institutions as opposed to foreign or offshore or American financial or savings institutions. But why would a Canadian bank, for instance, be inappropriate? Is that beyond the regulatory power of the province?
Hon. E. Cull: No, the member is misunderstanding what a British Columbia savings institution means. A Canadian bank is a British Columbia savings institution.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that. I was unclear as to what the definition was, and there is no definition in the act.
I would like to ask the minister: is this amendment specifically in response to problems that have occurred in the real estate industry? Does the minister or her staff or the ministry or the government of British Columbia have a record or catalogue of abuses of real estate trusts? Is that why we're responding to it? Could the minister give us some indication of what kind of record there is of abuse, misuse or misappropriation of trust funds that have occurred?
Hon. E. Cull: Just on the earlier question of the savings institution, the Interpretation Act would cover that. That's why, still being part of Canada, a Canadian bank would apply.
There are abuses. I don't have a list here with me. We could certainly have you talk to people in the Financial Institutions Commission -- FICOM -- and have them go over some of the details with you. In preparing to bring this amendment forward, I was made aware of problems that have arisen, and they have recommended this change as a way of dealing with those problems. If the member is interested in following up with some of the specifics, I'd be happy to arrange for him to be briefed.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
D. Mitchell: Again, just a brief clarification on why section 3 is required. It changes the existing section 15 subsequent to the changes in section 14(2) and in section 3(b) of this act. We're adding a section regarding a requirement for written agreements or pay-outs to third parties. The kind of real estate transaction that I'm contemplating might be affected by this kind of change to the act is where a transaction is about to close and a lawyer or a licensee, perhaps, finds that certain bills haven't been paid. There's a requirement for certain bills, outstanding debts or obligations to be paid, especially if there's a judgment; and if they can't be paid out the transaction may be held up, and the paperwork on the agreement might be held up or need to be changed, involving further fees, maybe, for further legal opinions or lawyers.
I'm wondering if that's why this section might be necessary, and whether or not the minister can tell us if there have been some particular abuses in the industry, in the recent
[ Page 14171 ]
record of real estate transactions, that would require this kind of amendment to be implemented. Why was the existing act not sufficient to deal with transactions where a pay-out to a third party might be required in order for a deal to close?
Hon. E. Cull: There have been abuses which have been brought to our attention and have resulted in these amendments coming forward. But under the existing act, you can't pay out to third parties. What this does is allow for the flexibility that you're looking for, but it still provides the protection.
D. Mitchell: I would just ask the minister, on this amendment and on the previous amendment that we've referred to: are these changes being driven by the industry -- by the British Columbia Real Estate Association -- or by consultation with the industry? Or are these changes that the government, as regulator, wants to see in place? What is driving these kinds of amendments?
Hon. E. Cull: The Real Estate Council of B.C. in this case has a role as a regulator and has requested these changes.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
R. Chisholm: Section 4 clarifies the makeup of the body known as the Real Estate Foundation. Just what has been the problem with the existing wording? Maybe the minister can clarify that.
Hon. E. Cull: This is essentially a housekeeping amendment. There's some confusion in the existing wording. The act currently establishes the Real Estate Foundation as a corporation, but it doesn't specifically provide that the members of the foundation constitute the members of that corporation. So it's simply a housekeeping amendment to establish that the members do consist of the board of governors.
The Chair: Shall the section pass?
The member for Delta South.
F. Gingell: No, the member for Delta South was rising to leave the chamber.
The Chair: Perhaps we should note that the member for Delta South was rising to leave the chamber, for the record.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
R. Chisholm: This is another clarification. Again, what is the problem with the wording of the Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation? Is this another housekeeping...? What is the reason?
Hon. E. Cull: It's exactly the same situation as in the last section.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
D. Mitchell: Just a brief question on section 6 for the minister, and I apologize if this question might be more appropriate in estimates. I'm just wondering about the reference to the Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation under this amendment. It looks like a housekeeping section, but it changes the calendar year to the fiscal year for the reporting period for this corporation. As one member of the committee, I am not extremely familiar with this. Is the Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation required to file a report publicly with the Legislature? Is this body, for which we're changing the reporting of the year from the calender year to the fiscal year, a public body that is required to report to the Legislature? Are the reports previously filed with the former superintendent of insurance available for public viewing as well? Are these public documents that are available to us?
Hon. E. Cull: If the member refers to sub-subsection 18.73(1)(b) of the act, he'll see that the report has to be delivered to the superintendent of insurance, so it is a public document. It's not tabled in the Legislature, but it goes to the superintendent and it is available.
All this is doing in terms of amending this section is making sure that we avoid the inconvenience of reporting over two fiscal periods. As it sets up right now, the calender year and the fiscal reporting year are not the same. This brings a match together, so that the corporation's reporting year is the same as its fiscal year. That then gives it three months post the end of fiscal year to be able to prepare its report and file with the superintendent.
D. Mitchell: Out of curiosity, then, I wonder if the minister could explain the purpose of this Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation, because it's rather intriguing. I'm trying to imagine a real estate transaction that might be reported as an error or omission. I'm wondering about a project where there might be investors investing in a development project in the city of Vancouver, where perhaps there were errors or omissions made. Maybe there were exorbitant management fees charged to a group of investors who got burned and lost money. This happens from time to time in the city of Vancouver, as some hon. members in this chamber will know.
Is that the kind of error or omission we're talking about? Is it the kind of investment in hotels in the city of Vancouver where investors are asked to invest in a project, and high-rollers are subscribing to a project, and exorbitant management fees are charged, and perhaps the hotel or development project goes bankrupt? We've heard of some of these projects in the city of Vancouver. Is that the kind of error or omission this corporation would be required to report upon?
It would be interesting to know where one would have access to the report. The minister says that it's included with the report filed with the superintendent of insurance. I'm assuming that the report is also then tabled in the Legislature. Is that correct?
Hon. E. Cull: The Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation is a self-insurance for the agents. It doesn't cover the kind of blatant abuse that you've just described. It would be something simpler, like failing to dis-
[ Page 14172 ]
close something in the sale of a property -- for example, failing to disclose that a house was on a floodplain, and then the purchaser discovering that additional costs were required. They might not be able to build or might have to build with more expensive building construction techniques to deal with the floodplain situation. The purchaser might feel they have recourse for damages or for some kind of compensation because the agent had failed to do something. So this is a self-insurance fund, funded by the real estate agents, to cover those kinds of situations.
D. Mitchell: Maybe the more blatant kinds of abuses that I referred to should be included -- who knows? Maybe they should be reported somewhere.
The minister says that it's self-financed through the industry. Is the minister aware, or could she inform the committee this morning, of exactly how that takes place? Is there a portion of the agents' commissions that goes into a fund for this specific purpose?
[10:30]
Hon. E. Cull: Again, that's covered in the act. It's sub-subsection 18.71(2)(a). It's done "by the levy of assessments on licensees or on classes of licensed agents, nominees and salesmen," it says here in the old act.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
R. Chisholm: This section specifies the power of the superintendent. I'm wondering by what means or why he is allowed to examine books, records and accounts of licensees and former licensees without a search warrant. I'm just wondering about the reasoning behind that.
Hon. E. Cull: This change is being done to make sure that it is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to bring it into line with the current practice. Because licensees and former licensees are licensed or regulated under the act, it is in this case appropriate that a warrantless inspection can be done on these individuals.
R. Chisholm: If that be the case, there's nothing in this section which specifies that they have to keep the information confidential. I wonder why that wasn't put in there.
A second part to this question would be: has the real estate organization, the industry, gone along with this? Are they in agreement with section 8?
Hon. E. Cull: This amendment actually narrows the powers of the superintendent. As I just said, it is consistent with what the superintendent does in any event. Under the existing legislation, as I understand it right now, the superintendent can conduct an inspection of any person believed to have been engaged in a real estate transaction. This is now being restricted to conducting such a search only in the case of licensees or former licensees. So it is more appropriately restricting the power of the superintendent to his current practice.
The whole issue of confidentiality.... I can't point to the section in the act, but there are provisions of confidentiality with all of these types of documents and inspections that apply in this case.
R. Chisholm: The last portion of that question was: is the industry in agreement with this section of that?
Hon. E. Cull: I believe they are, because it's current practice.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
D. Mitchell: Section 9 is really one of the very important sections in this bill, dealing with the whole concept of disclosure of the status of the real estate agent that a purchaser or a vendor is dealing with in British Columbia. There's been a lot of debate on this. In second reading there was some reference to this as well, and the minister has talked about this as being one of the important features of this bill. There is a requirement for disclosure; there's no question about that, and the industry has said so. The industry has called for that as well.
What section 9 does is add to the existing act section 25.1, which requires a licensee -- a real estate agent -- before assisting in a real estate transaction, to disclose the matters which are set out in this section to the person who will be receiving the real estate agent's assistance. Now the government has been persuaded, it seems, by the industry that they want this, and that it's the only way to deal with the problem -- which, in part at least, was created last year in Ontario. I believe there was a case that went to the Ontario Supreme Court dealing with the whole issue of agency disclosure. However, a number of real estate agents active in the province of British Columbia know that this kind of disclosure can be simply window dressing and is not necessarily going to help the buyer or seller when it comes to making a real estate transaction.
I raise this because British Columbia's not the only jurisdiction to look at this question of disclosure, so we have a lot of research to draw on from other jurisdictions. One of the questions I would like to ask the minister deals with the concept of dual agency, which is not addressed in this section. I would like to ask the minister why the bill that is brought before this committee today does not deal with the concept of dual agency, which is a common practice now in British Columbia, since January 1, 1995. I wonder if the minister would just comment. I have a few questions about this concept of dual agency and how that might relate to the disclosure that's being provided here, because this legislation provides a foundation concept for agency disclosure, but it doesn't deal with what I think is a more controversial concept of dual agency, where a real estate agent can represent both the purchaser and the vendor in a real estate transaction. The kind of disclosure provided in this bill doesn't deal with this concept. Why not?
Hon. E. Cull: This is an area of common law which I have to confess I'm not fully conversant with; but the whole issue of dual agency, or agency specifically, is a matter of common law. We have not regulated that in the past, and we
[ Page 14173 ]
are not changing that with this legislation. We're not presuming to regulate it. What we are doing is requiring disclosure so that the purchaser, or the person working with the realtor, has a clear understanding of whose interests the agent is working on behalf of. So it's not trying to address the issue you have raised, primarily because it is a matter of common law.
D. Mitchell: I think the minister has hit the nail on the head here by referring to this as a matter of common law. But hopefully we would want to be passing legislation in this House that would not force those in British Columbia purchasing real estate to resort to the courts and the common law remedies available to them. Hopefully, we would be preventing that process by not forcing consumers in British Columbia or participants in the industry to resort to the courts. The reason I say that is that we want to avoid real estate transactions ending up in court. There are a number of ways we can do that, and the disclosure being provided here -- the foundation for disclosure being provided -- may be a good step; but if we look at the experience of other jurisdictions, we note that there are problems with simply providing disclosure that doesn't address all of the issues on the table.
I refer to dual agency status because that's an important concept. Let me tell the minister that if you purchase a piece of real estate -- residential, commercial, what have you -- in, say, the city of Victoria, where we are today, the multiple listing contract that one is asked to sign states -- and this is just since January 1, 1995.... This is new; it's been brought in by the industry this year. It states that there's a section on limited dual agency; it says that if the listing agent is also the agent of a buyer who becomes interested in the property, the listing agent will seek the written consent of the seller and the buyer to continue to act as their limited dual agent to facilitate a sale of the property. It also says that where the seller and buyer have consented to the listing agent acting as their limited dual agent, the listing agent's duties will be modified by the limitations described in the brochure published by the British Columbia Real Estate Association entitled "Working With a Real Estate Agent."
This is the concept of dual agency. There's obviously a potential conflict when you have one real estate agent acting for both the purchaser and the seller in a transaction. If you take a look at the actual brochure put out by the British Columbia Real Estate Association, called "Working With a Real Estate Agent," it refers to this. It says, when it comes to "Limited Dual Agency": "Dual agency creates a conflict...." It's actually interesting; it has a little chart showing seller, buyer and agent. It says: "Dual agency creates a conflict, because the agent's duties of confidentiality, full disclosure and total loyalty to one party conflict with the same duties to the other party." In other words, if you're trying to get the very best price for your seller but, at the same time, the purchaser is trying to get the property for the lowest possible price, there might be a conflict if there's only one agent representing both parties. There's a conflict there, and that's what dual agency is all about.
Of course, the brochure goes on to talk about the fact that you don't have to do this, and maybe there are remedies to doing it. Disclosure alone, though, may not satisfy all of the concerns. The minister says that this is an issue of common law, but hopefully we want to have real estate transactions conducted in the province that don't have to resort to common law and to the courts to deal with these issues. Since we're taking the time to pass legislation amending the Real Estate Act and dealing with disclosure, why has the minister not seen fit to address this issue of dual agency at the same time, especially since it's a recent practice that's just been initiated this year?
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct. We have not, through legislation, dealt with the question of dual agents. We've done that consciously; this is not an oversight or a decision taken very lightly. We'll be the only jurisdiction, when this legislation passes, to actually legislate the disclosure. That will be a significant step forward for our government. We don't have sufficient evidence to suggest that the whole question of agency needs to be similarly regulated. Other jurisdictions have not regulated this either. What we will do, if the disclosure is not sufficient to deal with the concerns, is monitor this, and we may, in the future, consider entering into this area. We'd be breaking new ground here, but that wouldn't deter us if we felt that there was sufficient reason.
What this will do -- and I appreciate you having read out the material you've just read out.... There is an incredible amount of onus on the agents themselves to explain what that language means to the person signing the contract. That's something we'll work with the real estate industry to do. It allows an individual to be aware of the fact of the potential for the dual agent status. At that point, the individual could decide not to use an agent in that case -- to use a separate agent who's only working for them and for no one else. It's very similar to the way that conflict-of-interest disclosure is handled under the Securities Act or other similar legislation where there is the potential for conflict. The law does not rule against it, but it rules that the individual involved -- the buyer of the services in this case -- is made aware of the relationships. Then that individual is responsible for making decisions based on that information.
Our evidence to date doesn't suggest enough that we should take action on it, but if we discover that there are problems, we'll be willing to take another look at it.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments, but I would just say that we're taking time to deal with disclosure and a major amendment to the Real Estate Act in British Columbia, and we shouldn't be afraid of breaking new ground. There is a potential conflict with this dual agency concept, but we're dealing with the issue of disclosure here, and laying a foundation for disclosure that is going to benefit purchasers of real estate and sellers of real estate -- and, indeed, those agents and agencies that sell real estate in British Columbia -- and take away any appearance of conflict as well, which is so important to having clean business transactions.
When we start talking about this legislation, if we take a look at the section we're dealing with, section 9, section 25.1(1) says, "Before assisting or representing any person in a real estate transaction, a licensee must disclose to that person..." and there's a list of what must be disclosed. Sub-subsection (e) says: "...any other particulars that may be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council" -- which is the cabinet. I'd like to look at that a bit.
I'd like to ask the minister what's contemplated here. Do we require in this legislation a section that says that agents must divulge, in addition, all material information? We don't
[ Page 14174 ]
have that, but I've looked at other legislation in other jurisdictions dealing with the requirement to divulge all material information, and there's a definition of what that might include. There is literature and material that I could send to the minister's staff. I don't want to read it all into the record this morning; it would take too much time in this committee.
Section 9, section 25.1 says that the cabinet may determine "any other particulars" that need to be disclosed. I'm wondering if we're not rushing this legislation just a little. This bill came into the House just last week; we had second reading debate. It hasn't really seen the light of day. The minister has said, correctly, that there has been consultation with the industry -- and that's good. But we haven't really defined this disclosure element and allowed consumers and other British Columbians to really understand what this foundation for disclosure is that we're providing with this legislation. Do we really have protection in this legislation, and guarantees that these particulars which cabinet may prescribe later on will be identified? What particulars does the minister have in mind that the cabinet might stipulate as being required in disclosure? Could the minister comment on that at all before I go any further into this debate on disclosure?
[10:45]
Hon. E. Cull: I think if the member had access to some of the phone calls and correspondence I've had at my office, he would be aware that people are very anxious to see these amendments made. I don't agree with delaying it; there is some urgency to get on with it. In fact, some are disappointed that we've only made amendments to the act this year, as opposed to doing some major work on revisiting the entire act.
The member also, though, I believe, knows that sub-subsection (e), about the other particulars required by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, is there to allow us through order-in-council to address matters as they arise, without having to go back and amend the legislation. So sub-subsections (a) through (d) deal with the main things we think need to be there, but because we don't believe we have perfect vision into the future, there has been a very traditional, I guess, clause put into the legislation, which then allows us to deal with other matters as they arise.
D. Mitchell: That's fair enough. I accept what the minister is saying, but it would be interesting to know if there is going to be a discussion draft available of any regulations made pursuant to the act that would deal with those additional particulars that the ministry might feel are important.
I'd like to ask the minister another question, as well, on this whole matter of disclosure, because it's an important one. As I said earlier, a number of other jurisdictions have dealt with this, not only in Canada but also in the United States. I'd like to draw to the minister's attention a letter that has been forwarded to me by the office of the Federal Trade Commission in Los Angeles, the California regional office, on the subject at hand; it deals with disclosure in the state of California. It's interesting. This letter was written last year, and states that agency disclosure, contrary to some beliefs, is not mandated throughout the United States. This is dealing with agency disclosure in the American real estate industry. It says that it's a matter left to the state governments; it's not mandated by the national government. "At last count, 44 states had some form of agency disclosure." This is a quote from the letter of the Federal Trade Commission office in the state of California. It says that most of the disclosure legislation is not worth much. I think that's the point I'm trying to make today: is what we are doing here today in this legislation, in Bill 15, really worthwhile in terms of disclosure? Does it go far enough? Are we missing an opportunity to really go further to deal with a concept, for instance, like dual agency, which the minister says would be groundbreaking? What are we doing here in this Legislature if not breaking new ground when we introduce new legislation and pass new laws that are going to affect all British Columbians?
I wonder if we would be better off, at least, than some states on the question of the timing of the disclosure, as some states do when they stipulate when the disclosure should be made. I think this is a key point, and I would like to ask the minister for her comments on this. There is now a trend to stipulate that at the time of the first substantial meeting, there should be a disclosure that includes the options available to the parties to the transaction. The new section 25.1 of this act states that the disclosure must be made before assisting or representing any person, and I think that's good.
This trade commission official from the state of California who sits on the department of real estate's joint industry-government task force on agency disclosure in the United States -- and that's why I think his opinion has some worth -- says that the large real estate agencies in the United States desire to handle both sides of the transaction. Why? There are obvious reasons, I guess: they can earn larger commissions and perhaps they can even manipulate deals. That's no reflection on real estate agents operating in British Columbia. I think that in the United States there have been some serious problems, and they've tried to deal with them. They've brought in disclosure requirements, and this trade commissioner's office says they're not worth very much, because disclosure alone doesn't deal with it. He says large firms still manipulate the deals and they try to pursue the goal by handling both ends of the transaction.
I'd be happy to pass this letter on to the minister, but the lack of providing material information is the point I'd like to ask the minister about. Why are we not providing in our disclosure requirements a requirement to provide all material information relating to the deal? This trade commissioner says --and I quote from this letter:
"The lack of [such] information among consumers is a serious deficiency. Where a large firm acts as a disclosed dual agent" -- even a disclosed dual agent -- "thus arguably rendering only partial services to both seller and buyer, I argue that the lack of discounts to the consumers for this lower level of services is evidence that the consumers do not understand what is going on."
Why aren't we dealing with disclosure of material information in this Legislature?
Hon. E. Cull: With respect to any regulations, if we have to use sub-subsection (e) and introduce regulations, we would circulate them in advance for discussion so that there was public information and discussion about them.
I'm not clear, and neither is my staff, what the member means by material information. It's our understanding that the section as it's drafted covers that. Maybe if the member wants to give some examples, we could work with the examples. But as we see it, it does require the disclosure of material information. In fact, subsection 25.1(2) goes on to state that if there's any change, that has to be disclosed as well.
[ Page 14175 ]
D. Mitchell: Material information could include a number of things. It could involve details of the real estate agent's relationships with others who may be direct or indirect parties to any transaction. It could be a number of things, including any financial interest that the agent or the agency that the agent works for might have, directly or indirectly, in the property that is affected by a real estate transaction. There could be a number of things, and I'd be glad to provide directly to the minister some further information on this.
The point I'm trying to make is that section 9 of this bill which adds the new section 25.1 to the act, talks about disclosure of agency status. It sounds good, but I'm wondering if it's really worth all that much. I'm wondering if it really provides the kind of disclosure that's required, that the industry has talked about, that consumers in British Columbia need; and by not addressing key issues like dual-agency status -- which is a common practice as of January 1 of this year in the province, if you look at any multiple listing contract -- by not disclosing material information and by simply adding in that any other particulars may be prescribed by cabinet later on without defining what those particulars are, I wonder if we're really going far enough.
What I'd like to ask the minister to do.... I agree with her that there is some timeliness to other aspects of this bill. The other sections of this bill that we haven't got to yet in this committee stage are important. They do need to be dealt with in communities around the province, particularly talking about the divided interest in rental properties that are being converted to quasi-strata councils that.... There are problems there that have to be dealt with. But when it comes to this disclosure section, by adding this into the bill as well at this time without really thinking it through carefully, without allowing proper consultation in the province and without taking a look at references to other jurisdictions and the problems and challenges they've had with similar legislation...whether or not we should be standing down this section. I say this in a constructive way: I would like to ask the minister whether or not she would be prepared to withdraw section 9 at this time -- not because we don't want to see disclosure but because we don't want disclosure that is simply window dressing. We want to see effective disclosure that's going to help British Columbians.
Would she be prepared to withdraw this section and either send it to a special all-party committee of this house to seek further input so we can have meaningful disclosure for clean real estate transactions in British Columbia, or allow for some other form of public process so we can bring in something that is groundbreaking? We shouldn't be shy or embarrassed or a little bit hesitant to bring in something that truly is groundbreaking and that might serve as a model piece of legislation not only here in British Columbia but for other jurisdictions to look to as well.
Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows, I've never been shy or embarrassed about breaking new ground in a number of areas. The examples he has given are either covered in the amendment or in the existing legislation. I encourage him to read the amendment in conjunction with section 28, because there is a fair amount of disclosure already required. This adds to the disclosure requirements that are in the act. The examples he has given are covered in one place or the other.
D. Mitchell: Section 9 of this bill doesn't deal with meaningful disclosure. I don't want to belabour this point; I could go on and on; I could share further research with the minister. The point I'm trying to make is that by not dealing with a key concept like dual-agency status, which is extremely controversial in the industry....
The minister seems to want to shy away from controversy -- she doesn't want to deal with that -- yet that's a key element of disclosure, and we're not dealing with it here. By simply stating that any other particulars will be dealt with by cabinet at a later date.... That's not the kind of legislation that we like to see brought to this House. When the hon. minister was in opposition prior to the last election, she would not have been pleased with a government bringing in legislation that was this ambiguous. It's dealing with such an important concept in a business transaction, yet it's failing to address a key, current controversy.
I would ask her whether or not she feels that this amendment should receive further consultation, further input and maybe some kind of public process. There could be input to allow this disclosure requirement to be truly meaningful -- not window dressing -- and to deal with dual-agency status and outline the other particulars.
I believe that this is an example of bringing in disclosure requirements by tacking them onto a piece of legislation that's meant for an entirely different purpose. The other elements of this bill have principles that can be supported and have been spoken eloquently to at second reading stage of this debate. But simply rushing in at this time with this disclosure requirement that's not well thought out.... I don't think we're serving the real estate industry well, and we're certainly not serving British Columbians who are concerned about real estate transactions well, especially if we're going to have disclosure that's meaningful. Why not stand this section down and proceed with the others?
Hon. E. Cull: This is another new one for me: being told that I'm not interested in or am somehow afraid of controversy. That certainly hasn't been my history and would be news to a lot of people, I think.
We have looked at this section carefully. As I said to the member, there is a desire on the part of both the industry and many members of the public to complete the overhaul of the Real Estate Act. A discussion paper was released by the previous government that went a considerable way toward doing that. For various reasons, we have not been able to pick up or complete that work. I think there will be considerable public discussion required before a major overhaul of the Real Estate Act can be made.
With the amendments we're making here, we're trying to deal with a number of issues that we think are of immediate importance and can't wait for the more comprehensive review that the member is calling for. I realize that he's calling for it on a specific section only, but if he reflects on the issues that I'm aware of and that I have no doubt he is aware of with respect to the whole question of the real estate industry, there is a need for a broader public discussion. I think the discussion paper that was released in 1990 needs to be dusted off, renewed and put out again for public discussion.
This is an issue where there are conflicting interests between consumers and industry representatives. There are different opinions within the industry as to how many issues
[ Page 14176 ]
should be handled. What we are attempting to do with Bill 15 is simply address some of the major issues where we have evidence that there's a problem and some consensus around a solution.
D. Mitchell: I think I can anticipate where she's heading and what she's saying on this. Maybe I could just ask the minister for a very simple commitment, then. She's indicated that she agrees that this disclosure requirement and other major elements of the Real Estate Act do require further input and a broader review and that this might be forthcoming. I'm wondering if the minister, then, could simply make a commitment this morning in committee that this bill establishes the concept, in principle, of disclosure, but because it doesn't go far enough, the minister agrees not only that there will be a public process that will address a number of other elements for the review she's contemplating for the Real Estate Act of British Columbia, but that this particular issue of disclosure will have further public input, and whether it be a select standing committee of this House that reviews it and receives input from interested British Columbians, or some other kind of public process, the minister and the government are committed to that, to a major look at the Real Estate Act in British Columbia and to a major overhaul perhaps by the next session of this Legislature. Hopefully that will take place before the next election. I wonder if the minister could just make that commitment?
Hon. E. Cull: Well, as I said, there had been some work done by the previous administration in looking at the Real Estate Act. Unfortunately that work, I think, is dated now. It will require some new work to be done on it. Anything that would involve overhauling an act of this significance will require considerable public consultation. I think that I can commit to doing that; I'm not sure I can commit to doing it in the time frame that the member has outlined, but it is on the list.
There are a number of bills that are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. I have had a chance to review them and to try to prioritize them; we will put this one back onto the list of things to be done. If we can get a new discussion paper out there, then it is possible that it can come forward for debate in another session -- obviously, not this one.
[11:00]
The Chair: It seems to me we've covered this ground at some length. Are there other speakers on section 9?
J. Dalton: Heaven forbid, hon. Chair, that I would extend this rather protracted debate, but I wanted to get a couple of remarks on the record. Firstly, I've spoken both with lawyers who practice in this particular industry and with the executive of the Real Estate Association, and neither has had any particular concern such as my friend from the neighbouring riding of West Vancouver-Garibaldi has expressed. Now that doesn't mean the government doesn't have a role in regulating the industry. Obviously it does. But I think the industry itself is comfortable, and I comment as well that lawyers who practice in the industry are comfortable with these disclosure provisions.
I would add that I believe the concern that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has expressed about dual agency is at least caught in part by subsection (b) in this amendment. So I just draw the member's attention to that.
The other thing is that I was happy to hear the minister and also my colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi comment about the need to revamp this act. No doubt what we're doing here is further complicating a very complicated act anyway. I draw the committee's attention to the comments I read into the record in second reading of John Mulberry, the legal director of Vancouver. He commented that section 50, which we're getting to later, is probably one of the most convoluted sections of any piece of legislation. I just wanted to draw the committee's attention to that. Certainly we should flag the need to revamp the entire act, but I think we can live with this for now.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
D. Mitchell: Just a brief question on section 10. I was certainly delighted with the intervention of the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who represents the industry. I guess somebody's got to look after the actual purchasers and sellers of real estate and look after their interests as well. It's good to know that someone's representing the industry, and I only wish he'd do it effectively.
Section 10 is pursuant to section 9. It enables the making of regulations for the purpose of section 9, which is this disclosure section. I have two very brief questions for the minister. What kind of exemptions are being contemplated under the regulations? And in particular, under section 10(f.3), I wonder if the minister can tell us: what are the prescribed types of information being contemplated? This might actually answer one of the questions I was trying to raise under the previous section. What prescribed types of information are going to be required for licensees to disclose to their customers?
Hon. E. Cull: The answer to the last half of the question is that there isn't a list of things that are being contemplated at this point. But should we find need to use that section -- again, it gives the power to do things through order-in-council -- we would then again circulate the regulation prior to implementing it.
This section deals with situations like this: individuals who simply deposit strata cheques to the strata corporation account, but who never actually have any control over the moneys. It exempts them from the requirement to obtain a licence. Another example would be hotel operators. They can be exempted by regulation from the requirements applicable to other short-term property managers.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
J. Dalton: I just have a question or concern about the definition of shared interest in land. I'm wondering if this amendment has not cast the net too far. For example, people have asked me whether recreational land is caught by this change in definition and whether duplexes may be caught. I can appreciate the government's concern, which is well founded, about conversion of rental accommodation and some of the examples that I cited in second reading. But
[ Page 14177 ]
perhaps the minister could comment as to whether this definition is capturing things that were not intended, with the fairly recent controversy over change in rental accommodation.
Hon. E. Cull: I was having a little bit of difficulty there, because the member is actually anticipating a section we haven't come to yet. We could discuss it in a little more detail, but maybe I'll just do it here.
The definition is intentionally broad. We've defined it in such a way that it would capture recreational property, and in fact I think it should. I mean, local governments clearly have an interest in ensuring that the infrastructure standards going into a recreational property would also meet development standards. A lot of so-called recreational property may start off that way and often ends up being year-round housing. So it is important that the provisions -- that the approving officer be involved, etc. -- are in fact covered for recreational property as well.
The definition applies to both commercial and residential interests, but there is an existing regulation under the Real Estate Act which excludes purely commercial properties from the application of part 2. Similarly, there are other situations that we don't want to be caught, such as spouses or several couples jointly buying property, as long as the developer is not selling both an interest and a limitation on the rights that normally accompany that interest. That's not captured by this as well, so it's broad. There are some exceptions, but recreational property, I think, is appropriately covered.
J. Dalton: The other example I cited -- whether duplexes are caught by this....
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, I missed the question, but my staff tell me that they heard it. The answer is yes, it will be covered.
Sections 11 and 12 approved.
On section 13.
D. Schreck: The very end of section 13 deals with the effective date of the protection of those who purchase an undivided interest. In particular, there is at least one building of which I am aware near Capilano College in North Vancouver which will no doubt be affected by this section, and a ruling must be made. Could the minister please clarify the process that those who have an interest -- be it as tenants or as prospective purchasers -- in a building that is caught midstream on this may follow, in order to get clarification of where they stand?
In particular, as I understand the situation, there may be those who have made an offer to purchase, but section 13, subsection 50.04(7) -- the very last paragraph of section 13 -- makes the amendments effective if there is a binding contract. Of course, whether or not a binding contract exists -- unless the matter is placed before a court -- will depend on someone's legal opinion. Given that when most of us put in offers on real estate we include some escape clauses, I am particularly curious as to who will be making the judgment on whether or not a binding contract exists, as this will affect both those who have put in offers and the tenants in the building they will be dealing with as their landlord.
Hon. E. Cull: With respect to the effective date, the effective date for this section is as of the date of first reading. That means that if there has been one interest sold, the property does not come entirely under the new provisions of this act, although some provisions will apply in any event -- disclosure, for example. You don't have to unwind it and go back and get municipal approval, but you will have to start meeting the disclosure requirements of the act, even if you have sold an interest or two after first reading. But if the property has not had any interest sold, then the provisions of the act apply as at first reading, particulary the approval.
So how will it be determined what is covered? This will be determined by the superintendent of real estate on a case-by-case basis, because there is going to be some complexity around this. Once the legislation becomes effective, the developer won't be able to continue without filing a disclosure statement with the superintendent. Before accepting the disclosure statement, at that point the superintendent will have to determine whether or not the development falls under the scope of the municipal approval and upgrading requirements. For things that may be caught in-stream, the superintendent will be making the final decisions as to what's in stream and what isn't.
D. Schreck: I appreciate that answer by the minister. I seek further clarification in terms of the criteria that the superintendent of real estate will be following -- in particular, whose interest the superintendent of real estate might be acting on behalf of in making that determination. What I mean by that is.... What we have before us is essentially the closing of a loophole. The parties that will contend that they have entered into a contract to purchase will be the potential purchasers and the sales agent or the owner of the property. I presume that both of them will be willing to contend that they do have a binding contract for sale. However, it may be the case that if either of those parties chose to escape from that contract, there would be subject-to clauses in the contract that they could choose to exercise. While the two parties to the purchase agreement may wish to proceed and conclude the purchase agreement, it may be the case that they would have the option not to. It may be to the benefit of the tenants in the building to test whether -- if one of the parties chose to get out of the purchase agreement -- they could do so. Hence the question to be determined is: is there any way for the parties to escape from the contract? If so, does it meet the test that's before us in terms of whether the municipality has to approve the sale of the undivided interest? In simpler terms, and not attributing bad motivation to anyone, if the potential purchaser and the owner chose to collude and say that they had a binding agreement for sale, could we expect the superintendent of real estate to, essentially, say that they are making an independent determination and looking after the public interest with respect to what determination the municipality might make as to whether it wants to see a potential withdrawal from the rental housing stock, and the potential interests of the tenants who, should this go through, may be dealing with a rather unstable situation as to who their landlord is?
Hon. E. Cull: The superintendent has to administer the legislation in the public interest. The superintendent is not acting on behalf of any individual party to this, and the superintendent will be dealing with the letter and the spirit of the law in this case. The situation the member has described is one that is a case of fraud, where someone deliberately tries to
[ Page 14178 ]
backdate an agreement in order to collude, to get around the law. I don't think the legislation can deal with fraud. I mean, obviously that's an offence which has other consequences and remedies. But if two individuals do attempt to defraud or collude in some fashion to break the law, unless someone has a way of bringing that to the attention of the superintendent, I suppose that it can happen.
The reason -- as I know the member knows very well, because of discussions that have been had around this particular section -- that we backdated, if you like, this one to the time of first reading was so the government's intention would be very clearly known and no one could run down the hall when the legislation was introduced and start to try to sell an interest to somebody for some nominal amount to get around this. I think we've closed the loophole as tightly as we possibly can, but if -- as is the case with many laws -- somebody is bound and determined to break the law and they can find others willing to assist them, it's very difficult to do anything except to enforce it after the fact.
[11:15]
D. Schreck: I very much thank the minister for that comment. I can assure her that this section of Hansard will certainly be in the hands of both the superintendent of real estate and every tenant who currently lives at Seymour Garden apartments.
The Chair: Before I recognize the next speaker in committee, my apologies. I have just noted that section 13 really consists of four sections. We ought logically, I think, to deal with section 50.01, and so forth. With your permission, members, I will then ask the first question. Shall section 13, section 50.01 pass? We'll focus the debate on that.
On section 13, section 50.01.
D. Mitchell: I wonder if I could, with the committee's indulgence, just take a moment to pay some credit in a non-partisan way to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale for the tremendous work he has actually done on this bill and on this concept. Seriously, I know that the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale deserves some credit over on the North Shore for the progress he has made in seeing that this legislation was brought forward -- and there is some urgency, as the minister said earlier, to bring this bill forward. I think, during the second reading debate in particular, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale spoke with some real passion for his constituents: the senior citizens in his riding and others who could potentially be affected by the outcome of this bill; the tenants in his riding; the renters in his riding who may be facing the loss of housing that is in such short supply -- affordable housing in the province everywhere, but on the North Shore in particular. So I think the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale really deserves some credit for that achievement.
I also note that during second reading debate, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale issued a challenge. He issued a challenge to the Liberal opposition, in particular -- a challenge that has not yet been met on this bill. I wonder when they're going to rise to that occasion, because it was a good challenge. It is a challenge to members of this Legislature who claim that they would like to be government one day to actually stand up and be counted on a very important issue affecting constituents; it's a challenge that hasn't been met yet.
On this section of the bill, I would like to ask the minister, because section 13 does impose disclosure requirements on developers who market shared interests.... Will the minister make the same kind of commitment she made earlier, when we were dealing with section 9, when it comes to the disclosure requirements for developers who market shared interests -- the disclosure requirements that she agrees need to be reviewed and will be reviewed as part of the larger process, and that there will be public consultation in? Will she make the same kind of commitment that that disclosure requirement will relate to developers who market shared interests as well?
Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows, we are talking about a different kind of disclosure here, and I believe that that is fully covered in the act. But, as I think any minister in this House would say, we are always willing to look at legislation, to hear from parties when legislation is not meeting the intent and, if necessary, to have further discussion and make changes as appropriate.
Section 13, sections 50.01 to 50.04 inclusive approved.
Sections 14 to 25 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 15, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. E. Cull: I call committee on Bill 5, the Securities Amendment Act, 1995.
SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 5; D. Lovick in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.
Section 7, section 9.11 approved.
On section 7, section 9.2.
F. Gingell: I was wondering if the minister would be good enough to define the word "participants" in subsection (3) -- the participants on which the funds are going to be spent from administrative penalties for the purpose of promoting knowledge.
Hon. E. Cull: It means investors.
F. Gingell: Then there's no thought that any of these funds will be used for promoting knowledge of brokers or any others. Perhaps the minister could explain how this might be accomplished.
[ Page 14179 ]
Hon. E. Cull: The member should refer to the existing legislation. This is a carryover from the existing legislation. We've got an annotated copy of the act here which the member may want to have a look at, which deals at length with that particular provision.
F. Gingell: Then perhaps the minister could tell the committee what programs are presently in place to perform this requirement.
Hon. E. Cull: There are a number of publications that the Securities Commission has produced, I believe, subsequent to this section. To draw the member's attention to it, I believe the only change in section 9 is the word "commission" in subsection (3)(a), so the rest of it is already there.
The Securities Commission is also working right now with the Knowledge Network and the Vancouver Stock Exchange on a television series to deal with brokers and investment, and a number of things that would have a broader public appeal, which was one of the things that was explored under the Matkin commission.
F. Gingell: Can the minister advise the committee if the commission does things like help fund programs through community colleges and those kinds of educational...?
Hon. E. Cull: It could do that. If the member is interested, I could have the commission prepare a list of programs or printed materials or other material that has been put together under this section.
G. Wilson: It certainly strikes me in reading this bill that the only real significant change Bill 5 introduces is in revenue-handling, and one of them is in the payment directly to the commission rather than to the consolidated revenue fund. I wonder if the minister might like to explain the rationale for that, for those of us who don't dabble in this kind of business.
Hon. E. Cull: Having moneys go directly to the commission as opposed to through the consolidated revenue fund is the major change in this legislation. It affects not only the specifics of promoting the knowledge of participants in the securities market but also the other day-to-day operations of the commission. Under the present arrangement, all revenue received by the commission goes into the consolidated revenue fund. The commission receives its budget as part of the budgeting process, and a certain amount of money is allocated to it to spend every year. There may not be a direct relationship with the amount of revenue that has been collected.
Although there is a special account that has existed for a number of years -- I don't know when it was first established, but it was long before our government -- that purportedly has this money put into it, as the member knows, with special accounts and the consolidated revenue fund, it's simply a notional account that tries to keep track of revenue over the years but may not actually represent real money. It certainly didn't represent real money in all the years that there was a deficit in British Columbia.
The change here is primarily -- and this is the whole purpose of second reading debate -- to provide greater financial autonomy to the Securities Commission so that the revenues collected from the securities industry can be used by the commission to increase their enforcement activities. I'm giving a somewhat lengthy answer here, because I hope this will answer a number of similar questions coming along in other sections.
One of the continuing complaints that I've received as minister and that Mr. Matkin identified when he did his review of securities regulations was that sufficient funds were not provided to the Securities Commission to be able to fund the regulatory activities that the commission and others felt should be in place. This is a recognition of that. It provides them with the financial autonomy to be able to do those things. To safeguard the taxpayers, in particular, and to make sure that the government keeps a strong hand on the operation of the Securities Commission, there a number of requirements for the commission that were outlined in second reading and that will be dealt with in specifics as we come to those sections.
[11:30]
G. Wilson: I don't want to go back into second reading debate on this. The shortcoming of the bill -- there are shortcomings certainly from our perspective -- is that the lot of the public investor really has not been sufficiently improved by what's being proposed. But I would like the minister to suggest, under section 7, section 9.2(3) -- and I guess it would be subject also to section 9.2(2), which makes reference to it.... If it's intended that having a greater degree of financial autonomy, that somehow the commission is going to be able to amend its process and regulations in order to better protect the public investor.... That's really at the heart of what, certainly, those members in the Alliance would like to see done in terms of the change in the process by which the commission is regulated and functions.
Hon. E. Cull: I'll remind the member that there is another piece of legislation that is coming forward during this session, which deals with the other recommendations of the Matkin commission. So a number of the things the member will be looking for in terms of improved regulation, or the power to improve regulations, are going to be dealt with in that bill. This bill, as you recall, was a budget bill, because it had implications for the consolidated revenue fund and reporting, and so it deals more narrowly with the financial aspects of the commission and its relationship under the Public Service Act and other human resource matters. I think the more substantive bill that people are looking for is the one that is being prepared for introduction later in the session.
Section 7, section 9.2 approved.
On section 7, section 9.3.
F. Gingell: I meant to look it up, but is $5.5 million the balance in the special account? What would it have been had we gone through to March 31, 1995?
Hon. E. Cull: Was the member asking what the closing balance of the special account would be?
F. Gingell: Yes.
Hon. E. Cull: It's approximately $11 million.
F. Gingell: So basically what you're doing is making half of that sum available over the next three years, should it be required by the commission.
[ Page 14180 ]
Hon. E. Cull: That's correct. And as I just said to the other member on this question, the whole question of special accounts is particularly confusing because it leads one to believe that there's actually cash in an account somewhere. In fact, the consolidated revenue fund is one account, and if the account is in deficit, there certainly isn't any money in any special accounts.
Section 7, sections 9.3 to 9.6 inclusive approved.
On section 7, section 9.7.
G. Wilson: So we're on borrowing. Given the fact we have changed the focus in terms of revenue so that we have given greater autonomy and now recognize the minister as the fiscal agent for the commission, I wonder if the minister might outline for us what the duties conferred or imposed upon the commission might be with respect to approval procedures on borrowing. Clearly, if you're providing that kind of autonomy, it suggests that there is going to be an approval regulation with respect to the minister who is the fiscal agent. What are those likely to be, and how may they be different than what we've seen in the past?
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, it's not expected that the commission would have to borrow at all. There is no expectation here, but we wanted to make it clear that should that arise, the borrowing will be done by the Minister of Finance or through the Ministry of Finance, which, of course, borrows on behalf of all Crown corporations, ministries and agencies of government. To go into any other source would require cabinet approval, and that, I would have to say, would be highly unlikely.
G. Wilson: I'm asking for a more specific response. In terms of the procedure for borrowing, then, is that going to be discretionary to the Minister of Finance, or is there going to be an established procedure on borrowing should it occur?
Hon. E. Cull: If the commission wanted to submit a request to the Minister of Finance, then the Financial Administration Act applies, in sections 41.2 and 41.3; there are requirements set out there. It would be the normal requirements of the ministry in terms of borrowing or debt management.
Section 7, section 9.7 approved.
On section 7, section 9.8.
F. Gingell: Anytime we're setting up new Crown corporations that require auditors, I make a plea to the minister that the auditor general be consulted and play a role in the appointment of auditors. It is not that I would expect the auditor general to be appointed as auditor, particularly in this case. With an operation in Vancouver, it would probably not make fiscal sense. But the auditor general, in the end, is responsible for reporting on all the consolidated accounts of the province. We would simplify that and make it easier for the auditor general. It would be common sense if the auditor general always has a role, that is his by right in legislation, in the question of the appointment of the auditors.
With that in mind, I move an amendment that we would replace section 9.8(5) with the following words: "Each year, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, after consultation with the auditor general, shall appoint an auditor to report on the annual accounts of the commission, the cost of which shall be paid by the commission."
I think my sentence is a little simpler than that one. All it does is bring in a requirement for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to consult with the auditor general before the appointment of an auditor is made.
On the amendment.
Hon. E. Cull: Actually, it's an interesting proposal. But it's not necessary, because I've just concluded an agreement with the auditor general to do that not only in the case of the Securities Commission but in all other cases where there are Crowns or where the Minister of Finance has the legislative authority to deal with the audit. We've agreed with the auditor general to consult not only on who does it but on what would be covered. So it's something we've already foreseen and acted upon.
F. Gingell: I'm really pleased. As the minister knows, this is a subject I've been bringing up whenever the occasion arises.
But we do understand that these agreements are subject to changes in people, changes in offices, etc. Here is an opportunity for the minister to put into legislation something that the minister clearly believes in and that is nice and straightforward. So isn't it a preferable way to make this minor change to this section so that not only you as Minister of Finance but all ministers in the future -- unless the legislation were to be changed -- would be committed to the same good practices that you have seen fit to adopt?
Hon. E. Cull: Actually, I don't agree with the hon. member on the need for the legislative requirement. If I did, I would not want to make it in an ad hoc fashion, act by act; I would prefer to deal with it more comprehensively, which is why we've gone to an agreement with the auditor.
Amendment negatived.
Section 7, section 9.8 approved.
On section 7, section 9.9.
F. Gingell: I didn't realize that section 9.8 unamended passed, but evidently it has.
I didn't prepare an amendment, but I'd like to suggest to the minister that it would be good practice if this business plan is tabled in the House. The way that that can be done, of course, is to include it in the annual report that the commission will now be making. The business plan has been done separately, but good governance tells us all that the more there is a clear understanding of the directions that Crown corporations are going and how they intend to accomplish those goals in the next three years, in this case.... The publication of business plans is a worthwhile practice. I would like to suggest to you, hon. minister, that perhaps we should consider putting the business plan into the annual report.
Hon. E. Cull: That certainly can be required under section 9.91. I don't disagree with what the member is saying in
[ Page 14181 ]
terms of the more information, the better. We were trying, in this case -- as I said a few minutes ago -- to create some autonomy financially but not to create so much autonomy that the supervision of the government and also of the legislature was not there. I think section 9, which not only requires Treasury Board to scrutinize their business plan but also the Legislative Assembly to receive their annual report, is a significant improvement over the current situation. I'll take the member's comments about the business plan into serious consideration.
Section 7, sections 9.9 and 9.91 approved.
On section 8.
F. Gingell: Does section 8 mean that you'll go to the published financial statements -- as at March '95 -- that have been prepared for the special account that represents the operations of the Securities Commission, and divide it exactly on that basis? I notice that you talk about deferred revenue that was received before but not yet earned that would be paid over. You talk about the payment of liabilities for funds that were incurred before but not yet paid and would be paid by the consolidated revenue fund. I don't see you dealing with what we term accounts receivable. That seemed to be missing, or I haven't read it completely. Could you refer to that?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, my staff were just thinking about the accounts receivable question here. With respect to revenue that might have been collected but not earned, some of the fees and licences that are collected by the commission relate to future years -- for example, an operating licence issued for a two- or three-year period, not all of which may have lapsed. So the revenue collected for these licences which is related to the future years is recorded as deferred revenue in the consolidated revenue fund. This deals with that transition.
[11:45]
F. Gingell: What I'm talking about is work that the commission has done, the costs of which were paid by the consolidated revenue fund before March 31, 1995, and the money hasn't yet been received. The money really belongs to the consolidated revenue fund, not to the Securities Commission. It is the opposite of all these, and I was wondering about that.
Hon. E. Cull: All of those intricacies are contemplated and will be sorted out. Accounts receivable are backdated to the date that they are received, so it doesn't matter when you pay for them. When you receive them is how the accounting practices are used. So whether things have been paid for but not received, or received and not yet paid for, all of that in terms of whether it's consolidated revenue fund or the new system will have to be sorted out, and I know that the Ministry of Finance is more than capable of doing that.
G. Wilson: I had the same concerns as expressed by the member for Delta South, and I take the minister's response... Just one other question in addition to that, and that's the specific language within section 8(1) that talks about it: "...in satisfaction of liabilities incurred on the basis of an appropriation under the British Columbia Securities Commission special account." The little section note next to it talks about the "satisfaction of certain liabilities incurred before," and it doesn't.... It seems to me that we need to be clear on exactly what we're talking about here.
Hon. E. Cull: Subsection (1) is a standard statutory appropriation that is provided when special accounts are eliminated in this case, so it allows that the payment of commitments that have been made by the commission under the statutory authority of the special account can now be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. Because there are a lot of details here that have to be sorted out, the commission is working with the comptroller general to sort out exactly what the procedures are to make sure that all money is tracked to the appropriate place.
Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.
Title approved
Hon. E. Cull: Mr. Speaker, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 5, Securities Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. E. Cull moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:10 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)
On vote 26: minister's office, $343,000 (continued).
D. Jarvis: I would like to open up this morning by asking the minister what the prognosis or life term is of the Cominco mines -- the lead and zinc mines there.
Hon. A. Edwards: The life expectancy of the Sullivan mine in Kimberley has been a matter of speculation for, I
[ Page 14182 ]
guess, the better part of the last half century. As far as I can understand right now, the expectation is that it would be wound down in about seven years.
D. Jarvis: I was going to mention to you, too, that Bob Haulbaur died last night of leukemia. I don't know if the minister is aware of it or if she saw it in the paper this morning. It was very sudden.
In any event, I also wanted to ask the minister about the unknown or hidden vein in the Sullivan mine. People have said to me that because of CORE they have been restricted from trying to find it. It is said that it might suddenly appear and that it would give them another 20 or 30 years of life. It's not necessarily where they have looked and explored already. They feel that they should expand out farther to look for it. With the onset of CORE, they have been restricted as to where they can look for it. It is now necessary for them to be more confined in the area where minerals have been found in the past than where they could be found in the future. Does she have any comment on that?
Hon. A. Edwards: The interesting part about the Sullivan mine is that it has an anomaly -- a vein that seems to cut off. Geologists believe that the other side of it is somewhere in the area. It could be anywhere, you know, from way up the valley to down below the border. There's a long area where geologists think they might find that other half of the Sullivan mine, if you want to put it that way. Cominco has been looking for it for many, many years. Other geologists have looked for it. There are those who think they know where the whole thing is.
As a result of the CORE process, part of the decision in the end was to maintain an area in Findlay Creek that would be open to continued exploration. That seems to be one of the more promising areas in which to find the other part of the Sullivan deposit. The ministry itself is going to do a geophysical survey this year to make sure that we do as much of the final work as we can to look for it. As you know, we can explore in any area that is not protected. We will be doing that kind of work.
[10:15]
Mr. Mick Henningson, the current vice-president in charge of Canadian operations, has announced that Cominco itself will be continuing to do some work. They had an active exploration program for years and years. I believe that the designation of protected lands will minimally interfere with the possibility of finding the other part of the Sullivan deposit.
D. Jarvis: There are a few small items I want to clean up before we get into another longer, more detailed subject, and those are with regard to a letter I received complaining that the Geological Survey of Canada has moved from the old Sun Tower in Vancouver to Victoria. Did the minister have any input as to saying yea or nay on this suggestion?
Hon. A. Edwards: That decision was made by a Liberal government in Ottawa. They made it all by themselves, and did not consult us first.
D. Jarvis: That is rather unfortunate. I assume from the minister's answer that she was never consulted whatsoever, and didn't know about it until it occurred.
Another letter arrived April 24 from a gentleman who belongs to the Tunnel and Rock Workers' Union. The minister may or may not have seen it by now. It is in regard to underground shift bosses' certificates. He is stating that a newspaper ad cancelled his ticket as of July 15, 1995, and he originally thought this was issued as a permanent certificate, but the new rules and regulations are such that they have to be re-examined. He feels it is going to be a hardship, as there are probably 2,000 to 3,000 unemployed workers in the mines who will now have to re-write their exams if they want to go back to work. He contends they can't afford to travel around the province, as they are unemployed. And taking more mine and rescue courses.... There are no exemptions whatsoever. Could the minister perhaps tell us: why this sudden change?
Hon. A. Edwards: There has been no change, but I can't give you the details on the case -- I don't have the name, for one thing. We have received letters that seem to perceive the same problem. We can get back to you on that, if you like, but there has been no change.
D. Jarvis: I'm not aware of the procedure, unfortunately. His name is -- and I don't imagine he would be upset if I mentioned it -- Greg Farstey, certificate UG-911. He contends a retesting system has now come about that wasn't there before, and that he and a lot of men he has known have probably forgotten more than the examiners will ever know. He's had more than 35 years of working underground, and he feels that it is rather a hardship, especially when he's now unemployed, to have to travel to another part of the province to be re-examined before he can go back to work again.
Hon. A. Edwards: We would be pleased to look into the situation and come back with a report.
D. Jarvis: Would the minister give me some idea as to what is happening with regard to the Fish Lake project? We have been informed that it has been held up essentially due to Fish Lake itself. The original idea was that this is a lake that was going to be drained and used as a tailing pond, and that it is being held up on that basis.
Hon. A. Edwards: This is another mine that looks like it should go ahead in British Columbia because it has very good interest and new investors. The whole thing is very optimistic. We are continuing to work with the proposal with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who have had some concerns. I hope and expect that we will be able to get past some of the initial problems in the very near future.
D. Jarvis: You say you're working with the Fisheries department. The Fisheries department said that they will not allow the mining company to drain that lake, whereas the mining company said they will take the species out of that lake and put them into another lake. The fish in there do not spawn. It's more.... I guess they dump them in there. So there shouldn't be any real problem. Why would it take all this time to come to a decision on this?
Hon. A. Edwards: I expect if Fisheries had said they would never allow it, we would have already made a decision. But we have not had that word. We continue to work on it with Fisheries and our own Ministry of Environment. The lake is called a closed system, where the fish continue to
[ Page 14183 ]
spawn. It's not a planted lake; it's not seeded. It is a native population that regenerates itself within that single lake, which is a relatively high recreational fishing lake. Those have been their concerns, and we continue to work with them. I am again very optimistic that we will come to some resolution.
D. Jarvis: I want to go back over the subject we were talking about late yesterday with respect to CORE. At that time you said that the mining companies and the coal companies are better off with the CORE situation as it is now. Yesterday I stated that all evidence presented to me shows that CORE has been somewhat restrictive to the mining industry in the Kootenay area.
Again, I would like to say that I have had complaints and questions from people throughout the Kootenay area. I can show you a stack of information from every coal company, every other hard rock mining group and every municipality in the Kootenays, including mayors and aldermen. I presume that you have the information, because they don't throw it at me without throwing a copy at you.
On that basis, I wonder who is wrong here. All these people -- hundreds of municipal representatives, hundreds of miners and a dozen or so large mining companies in what is probably the biggest mining development area of this province -- say that CORE has not been fair to them. I'm not quite sure of this number, but I believe that 16 out of the 23 representatives at the CORE table disagreed with the proposals sent to the government.
The government sent in representatives to talk to these people in the Kootenays. They acknowledged the fact that there were problems. They said that they would talk to Mr. Owens, the government and the rest of the people, and that they would try to address all the problems. Well, the answer came back with the final decision of CORE, and these problems were not addressed. Everyone is complaining. I mean even Eileen McCrory, who is on the far end of the spectrum, is not satisfied with the CORE report. One of the members from Delta suggested that it was a good balance, but that's not what people are looking for. People are not necessarily looking for a balance. They are not in disagreement with the premise of CORE, but they are in agreement that the CORE decisions were too restrictive for the continuation of mining in the Kootenays. There's no question that we need to be sustainable, but if you're going to restrict our resource industry in that area, then it's not a good report.
I wonder if the minister would like to clarify her ideas. Was she in favour of the CORE situation? Did the members of her ministry who attended the CORE hearings -- I believe two members of the Mines ministry attended -- act as advocates for the mining industry, or were they acting on behalf of the government and taking the theory side that the government was presenting in this situation?
Hon. A. Edwards: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour really raises a lot of meat for the grinder. I said that the coal companies in the East Kootenays-- and I will say it very clearly and hope that this time it gets through -- have never had such security for their properties. I don't believe any of them would disagree with that statement. They have continued to complain in certain circumstances, but it is a fact that they have never had their coal lands so securely put in place for coal mining -- ever. That is one of the benefits of the CORE process for them.
It's all very well, and it's an easy claim to make to say that we disagree with the process. Everybody disagrees with the process. One of the things about process is that it starts at a certain time and goes on. This particular process went on for about two years. At different times during those years, different people had different comments. They brought up different issues and had different ideas about what things should do. Right now in the East Kootenays particularly, and in the Kootenays in general, we have a land use plan that is not raising people's objections.
As you are probably well aware, there was huge political activity in the Kootenays after Commissioner Owen made his report following the CORE process, which is a process, not a hearing. It was a process at which various representatives of different sectors sat at a table and discussed what should happen in their own regions. There was one representative at that table representing government. The representative put forward the government positions that could not be gone around: this is government policy that you must work around in making decisions about your land use plan. The representative who sat at the table received advice from many ministries; certainly my ministry was represented at the table. I'm glad that my ministry was represented through our one government member at the table because we were able to disproportionately exclude high mineral potential land from protected areas. We've done that broadly.
In Vancouver Island the high mineral potential land now protected is 7.9 percent -- that's of the 13 percent protected area; in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, 9 percent of high mineral potential land is in the protected area; in Kootenay east, 13.7 percent, where we have 16.5 percent protected; and in the west, 10.8 percent, where there is, I believe, 11 percent protected. What that shows very clearly is that the percentage of high mineral land is lower proportionately than the amount of land protected.
With our mapping and the information we took to the table, we were able to assure that where there was high potential mining land, we tried to avoid it. Certainly the regions tried to avoid it by working around it. They wanted to protect their high mineral potential land for exploration.
[10:30]
The number of mineral claims in protected areas that would have to be bought out in east Kootenay is zero. There's a lot of talk that doesn't take into account the detail of what went on. Was the CORE process a good one? The CORE process was an excellent process that was different and introduced a different way of doing government. It brought government to the regions. Those who sat at the CORE table were people who came from the regions. It could be improved; certainly, anybody who sat through the process -- who will be extremely enthusiastic about what happened in the process -- will also say that it needs some revisions, that it needs to change. We need to have the next step, etc., etc.
But for one and a half years, people from all sectors in the Kootenays sat at those tables and came together to put together a plan. They reached better agreement than any of the other tables; they reached more agreement on the areas where they did agree than any of the other CORE tables; and they came out of it with an incomplete end -- but nevertheless, an end -- to the process that they had sat down and worked at. They put letters in to the commissioner saying: "This is where we sit." There is no question that the people
[ Page 14184 ]
who sat at the table were not all agreeing on everything that was there, but there was a huge centre core of information and agreement on the land use proposal.
So I would say, knowing how public processes go and how difficult they are, that I was more than gratified with what happened at the CORE tables in the East and West Kootenays and most particularly the East Kootenays.
D. Jarvis: The minister has suggested that the security for the coal industry has never been better. That could possibly be right for now, but for how long? They are looking at the future, and that is what they are complaining about. They have said -- and I see the minister smiling about that, but that is a fact.... I don't see how the minister can stand up and dispute that the people who are in the coal industry are unhappy with the CORE process. The CORE process was good, but it's obvious you didn't listen to the process that was supposedly presented, because the other groups gave input, and their input was not adhered to. It was probably given consideration, but it wasn't acceptable to them. The process of CORE is such that the.... That's one of the big faults of CORE. You did not explain to these people in the mining industry in the Kootenays which way they should go. You left them very unhappy, and they are still unhappy. Hopefully for you, there will not be an election soon. It would certainly reflect that they don't feel you have represented them responsibly.
Their member in that area feels you didn't represent them properly or enough in the sense that you weren't an advocate for their problem. They gave their input to the process, and when the process was finished their input was not considered sufficiently for them to be happy and satisfied that they can continue doing business in the future.
At the immediate time, everyone is happy out there. Prices and sales are great for everyone, so everyone's happy. There is money in their pockets, and they are doing very well. But in the long-term future, the regulations that are being put on them are too restrictive. I don't have a question at the moment, but I believe a member from the third party has something to add to that.
Hon. A. Edwards: I am amazed at the member suggesting that I didn't explain the CORE process well enough to people. The CORE process was not a top-down process. It was a process that allowed people to get together in a region and decide how they would decide about a land use plan, and they did that.
The coal industry was involved enthusiastically as a unit, I would say, until it came time to report to the commissioner. I am also aware that there is one coal company in the East Kootenays that continues to object strenuously to what happened with the land use plan. The other coal companies have not been in that position. There is one coal company that has consistently supported the CORE process and the plan from the word go. There is a steel company that has not made these kinds of objections. There is one company making objections; I wish they weren't.
I'm not here to argue about it. I'm really not here to open the linen to see whether it is perfectly clean in the Elk Valley or not. The member from North Vancouver-Seymour seems to want to say that nothing is going right in the East Kootenays. I can assure him that it is.
I wanted to talk just a bit about coal exploration in the southeastern part of the province. The coal reserves in the southeastern part of the province could last for decades and decades. Already, fairly well-defined coal deposits are being determined; they know where they are. They aren't to the point of being ready to mine every one of them, but they know where the coal deposits are. Not a lot of coal exploration goes on in the southeastern part of the province, because the Crow's Nest Pass Coal Co., which owned the Dominion coal lands for so long, know where the coal deposits are in the southeastern part of the province. So looking to the future and worrying about having to do coal exploration is like.... I won't even try to make a metaphor.
The companies know where the coal deposits are. Eighty-five percent of what they have already determined is in designated areas. In that land use plan, we have a tiny bit of designated lands for forestry, but coal has 85 percent of its known area. I look at these arguments in an attempt to look at the substance of what's said rather than simply to listen to the tone. The substance indicates that there has been a very clear recognition in the East Kootenays plan that coal is an important commodity, and that the industry is important and should continue. It has 85 percent of already identified coal lands, which include a whole lot more than is currently being mined, in designated areas.
Again, I want to make clear to any member who doesn't understand the CORE process -- it hasn't happened in your area, maybe that's why -- that it is a regional process which was directed by the people who sat at the table, and there was only one government representative at that table.
R. Neufeld: Let's deal with the Kootenay CORE plan and also some of the other CORE plans. I disagree a bit with the minister, although I know it's a difficult issue. I stated yesterday that probably one of the most difficult issues facing British Columbians today is the matter of land use. What's going to be for forestry? What's going to be for mining? What's going to be for parks? And aboriginal land claims come into it. There's a whole array of things that certainly are not easy to deal with, and they are going to be with us for a long time, regardless of what government is here. We can all stand up and criticize. Part of my job is to criticize things that I find wrong, but I ask myself once in a while what would happen if I were ever fortunate enough to be in government. How would I handle it?
This is a process that was started previous to Parks 90 under another administration. I disagree with the CORE process and with the minister's statement that it is not top down. The Kootenays, I believe, was less top down, but the first one -- the Vancouver Island one -- was definitely top down. There is no doubt about that. The Cariboo was another example of where government hadn't learned quickly enough to get more input from the people in the affected area, because they certainly changed some of the issues in the Cariboo. Although we have had presentations made to us about forestry and mining, the Kootenay region has not seemed to have garnered the same press or notoriety that the other two processes have garnered.
It was interesting to listen to the minister talk about the mapping and the high mineral content of the three areas. Has this mapping been done over the years? I know that the ministry, and in fact in the annual report.... The latest one I have to go on is the 1992-93 annual report, because I think the
[ Page 14185 ]
1993-94 report is still being printed -- interestingly enough. It is difficult enough to deal with the estimates without it. But it's a nice touch: it will be ready in two weeks and your estimates will be done shortly. Anyhow, we will try to go from that.
There was some discussion about mapping and updating mapping in the province. In the mapping that has been done, you say that you've mapped all the high mineral content areas that the province knows of now. All the maps were done outside protected areas. Were there maps that we are not aware of that show high mineral content areas inside the protected areas?
Hon. A. Edwards: The mineral potential mapping began so that we could have a mineral potential map for Vancouver Island when they began the CORE process. That was the first project. We developed that on the scale of 1:250,000. It is not as detailed as we would like. The geological survey branch did it with input from the industry. We had meetings with the ministry, and they came in. It's not the most scientific of methods, but what it did was reflect the best that we could say at the time about where the really high potential areas are, where the medium potential areas are and where low potential areas are. We put those maps to the CORE tables. We started with Vancouver Island, because it got started first, and then we moved on. We had those maps available for the CORE processes. I believe we had them all available for the LRMPs up in your area right now.
What has happened is that we have been very clear that this is high potential land that we, as a ministry, would like in every case possible to be excluded from protected areas, and tables have been very much directed that way. All of the tables have recognized that if you can avoid high mineral potential areas, you draw your boundaries to exclude them. We have pretty generally been able to do that.
We've done better than you would think in a random survey. If you were just taking a random sampling, it would be different from this, but on Vancouver Island, where the percentage of parks is 13 percent, there is only 7.9 percent of high mineral potential land protected. In the Cariboo-Chilcotin, where I believe the number is fairly close to 12 percent, it's 9 percent. In Kootenay East, where the amount of protected area is over 16 percent, 13.7 percent is high mineral potential land. In the West Kootenay, it's closer to the actual amount, 10.8 percent. We had some difficulty with the Granby area, and a couple of other areas were very difficult ones.
In general, when you put the maps out, and the table can see where the high mineral potential is, they can generally work around it.
R. Neufeld: With industry's involvement with the ministry in mapping out those high-potential areas, has the ministry received any confirmation from industry that they were not listened to, or that areas were taken into a protected area when they were high mineral content? I don't know, because I haven't received any letters or complaints from industry. What has been industry's response to working with the ministry in the Kootenay region, for instance?
[10:45]
Hon. A. Edwards: I would repeat what I said before: that they did work with us on this process. But they certainly say, and we all recognize, that you can't really tell. You never know where you're going to find minerals. You can't see it, and of course it.... Recently someone stumbled over an outcrop in Labrador, and now we've got another mine. Would we have known that in our mapping? We don't know. The trouble with subsurface rights is you don't know where they're going to be. But from the knowledge that we currently have, we have done it.
We have had, actually, international interest in this process. Our staff is out giving presentations on our mineral potential mapping process. After we had begun the process, we presented it to the assembly at the Mines ministers' meeting, and we had people really interested in it. So, considering it is still not scientific -- in the sense that you know what you're doing -- we have put together all the exploration that we have, and people who have been out in the field and have a sense of where things are have had the opportunity to put into our mapping whether they think this is a high, medium or low potential mineral area. Although the mining industry would like the opportunity to explore everywhere, they have been cooperative with us, and I think they'd rather have this than nothing at all.
R. Neufeld: I'm going to go onto a bit of a different subject. I think we can talk about that forever and not come to any conclusion. Again, going from the 1992-93 annual report, could the minister give me '93 and '94 dollar amounts for mineral exploration investment, if you have those figures?
Hon. A. Edwards: In 1993 it was approximately $66 million, and in 1994 it was $94 million.
Hon. G. Clark: Wow, that's good government.
R. Neufeld: It's interesting to see the Minister of Investment here. Talking about good government and great investment, we don't have to go back too many years to find these figures: $250 million in 1988 invested in the mining industry; about $200 million in 1989; around $250 million in 1990; in 1991, it dropped to $150 million; from there, we've gone to under $100 million -- in 1993, $66 million; and now back up to $94 million. So, this record, I would say, is not quite what the minister would hope it would be.
Would the minister give me information on -- I'm going again by the annual report for '92-93 -- the number of major operating metal mines and coal mines in British Columbia.
Hon. A. Edwards: I might remind the member that one of the reasons that mining exploration was so high in Canada -- and it was across Canada, in those years that you cited -- was because of flow-through shares. That was a federal initiative that we resisted them taking away. They took it away, but the flow-through shares....
R. Neufeld: Was that a Tory government?
An Hon. Member: Those right-wing governments always do that.
Hon. A. Edwards: It was definitely a federal government that had some kind of right-wing direction.
The exploration figures were very high during those flow-through years, and the tax process doesn't work the
[ Page 14186 ]
same way now and definitely doesn't encourage.... But I might say that in our figures for exploration expenditures from 1990 until 1994 -- we have them for Quebec, B.C. and Ontario and for Canada -- they show exactly the same shape. Over all, the five-year rank is: Quebec had the largest number of total dollars invested in expenditures, B.C. came second over the five-year time, and Ontario third. In 1990 we were at the top, in 1991 we were number two, in '92 and '93 we were number three. But overall, we are number two in the actual number of dollars invested. So it is not a pattern that we are suffering all by ourselves.
L. Fox: Give us the 1972....
Hon. A. Edwards: I haven't got figures from beyond the country.
R. Neufeld: I guess that was a response to my first question. The question was: what are the major operating metal mines in British Columbia in 1994 and what major coal mines are presently operating in British Columbia in 1994?
Hon. A. Edwards: I got so excited, I forgot to say that. We have 14 major operating metal mines: Afton, Endako, Eskay Creek, Gibraltar....
R. Neufeld: I don't need the names.
Hon. A. Edwards: You don't need the names? We have fourteen major metal mines and eight major coal mines. Golden Bear is currently shut down. As you know, Quesnel River is in the process of opening, as is Bralorne, so that would make 16 major metal mines. We're also hoping for Mount Polley to go ahead. There are mines that are sitting there, but right now we have to say 14.
R. Neufeld: If I use the annual report for 1992-93, there's no change from 1992-93 in the number of mines that are operating. It says 14 major operating metal mines and eight major operating coal mines in the 1992-93 report. Has it stayed even? The minister talks about new mines starting. Where are they?
Hon. A. Edwards: Afton was closed and reopened, as you know. Eskay Creek is a brand-new mine; one that is closed is Equity.
R. Neufeld: Yesterday the minister talked briefly about the $100 million incentive tax relief given by her government to the mining industry. I don't need it exactly down to the dollar on who received what and who didn't, but I'd like a little further explanation on what the tax incentives were really applied to and which companies received this $100 million benefit. Is there actually $100 million there or is that a number that you're striving to get?
Hon. A. Edwards: It was a five-year program, so it was not $100 million in the first year. In 1994, we reduced mineral tax rates for coal, as you know -- cut them in half. That was worth an estimated $10 million a year. We decided to allow a deduction of income tax against mineral tax, and that put our marginal tax rate below the psychological 50 percent level. I was talking yesterday about the marginal tax rate and the perception that we have high taxes. We brought down the tax rate below 50 percent even with the pattern that we have. As I said, we have a differently shaped tax system where at the beginning there's very low tax, and, as things become profitable, the tax rate increases.
We don't know what will happen with the enhanced mineral tax write-down, the ability to write down your capital on a new mine. We don't know what that will amount to -- actually, zero cost; obviously more later. Part of that was the exploration package, which was $4 million last year. This year it's $3 million, and it will go on for the five years. It will be $15 million over five years.
R. Neufeld: I have a Vancouver Stock Exchange report here, and some of the statistics in the report relate to questions that were asked yesterday. I'm going to read some of them into the record.
In 1994, $342 million, or 44 percent of the total exploration and mineral funding raised on the VSE, was directed to Latin America. This compares with $165 million pumped into Latin America by VSE companies in all of 1993. There has obviously been a tremendous movement of the mining industry from British Columbia to the Latin American countries.
I had asked the minister yesterday about costs of production, and I have here some statistics saying that in Latin American countries, although the ore grade is usually richer, the operating costs come in at less than 50 cents (U.S.) per pound of copper. Comparatively, a pound of copper runs about 75 cents (U.S.) in Canada -- a significant difference -- and 62 cents (U.S.) in the United States.
Can the minister -- and the questions were asked -- say what could be done to try and get this investment to stay as much as it can in British Columbia? You're not always going to keep all of it, but as much as you can. Has the ministry discussed any strategies around how they could change taxation or change the process in British Columbia and the mining industry so that our costs may not be exactly the same but would be more comparable -- maybe in the 10-cent range or something to that effect? Have there been internal studies of what could done within the ministry as well as with the ministry of revenue about what could be done to reduce those costs?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think you are well aware of the Premier's summit, in which the Premier, the Minister of Finance and I have been meeting with members of the industry on both the corporate side and the workers' side. We have put a few committees together on this, and I would certainly assure you that we have been looking closely at what can be done.
I might give you these figures. We have some comparative figures for all the Canadian provinces, some American states such as Alaska and Nevada, South Australia, which is a state as well, and New South Wales, but also such countries as Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil and so on. If you look at the average effective tax rates for base metal operations when they are at the lower end of profitability, which is a 10 percent internal rate of return, British Columbia comes about in the middle of the number. I've forgotten: that's the median or the mean? They are probably a little above the mean, but below the median. I don't know which is right. In the number of them, they are about middle. In the amount, they are little higher
[ Page 14187 ]
than middle. You have to use that a lot before you're really good at it.
If you look at mines that have a 25 percent internal rate of return, which is a higher rate of return, we are then higher up. Our tax rate is higher, but if you are at the lower end of your profitability, you will find that our tax rates are very competitive.
[11:00]
If you look at gold operations, we are below the norm, below the mean and the median, and we're way down here in that range, which is the 10 percent internal rate of return on gold operations. So our tax rates are not as far out as we keep being blamed for. People will say they are high. If you look at where they are and if you are making a 25 percent or higher rate of return, the rate will be higher, but if you are not making that kind of return, your tax rate is relatively low. That position was put together by the previous government, and it was one that the industry agreed with. I would say, though, that if you look at the competitive nature of this industry, which is a global industry and which only in recent years has been able to go into other countries with any degree of assurance that they could operate and get to these deposits, you will find that five copper mines have been proposed and are being pushed through the system. Overall, I find it very encouraging. Mount Polley, of course, already has its certificate. We have Kemess, Fish Lake, Tulsequah and Huckleberry. In each case, people are very eagerly pushing to get certificates and permits to go ahead and mine copper in B.C. I think the situation looks relatively healthy.
R. Neufeld: We can talk about tax rates, and we are comparable in return on investment. Regardless, the money is going to Latin America. The list of Canadians putting down stakes in Latin America reads like a miner's Who's Who. Joining Cominco and Teck in Chile are companies such as Placer Dome, Noranda, Inco, Falconbridge, Rio Algom and American Barrick Resources Corp. The list goes on and on. This is a problem for mining in British Columbia. I realize it is a global issue and a lot of other things come into play, like the value of the dollar, but if you go to the mining industry...
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: And we can say what we want. I'll read a quote into the record from Gary Livingstone, the president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C. He states:
"Mining is such a massive generator of wealth for Canadians, yet our governments -- likely through ignorance -- are discouraging this potential source of wealth...mounting environmental and regulatory red tape, coupled with land use alienation" -- we spoke about that -- "and the high tax rates in Canada, are the major issues that...actually encourage Canadian miners to look elsewhere to spend their money."
He goes on to talk about red tape:
"For instance, obtaining permits for Quebrada Blanca in Chile was accomplished in a matter of months. Industry experts estimate that permits for similar projects in [B.C.] would take upwards of three years to obtain."
Hon. minister, there seems to be some room to move in the area of red tape. I'm certainly not saying that we should ignore our environment, but I think we all know that there is an awful lot of red tape. I know there is a tremendous amount in the oil and gas industry that really doesn't have to be there. It is an irritant for the industry.
Industry is not the bad person that they've been made out to be in the province of British Columbia. I'm not saying that some of them don't have a bit of a black eye, but generally speaking they work pretty good, and they're concerned about the environment. Any major oil companies I've worked with, let me tell you.... The law comes down hard and firm to deal fairly and squarely with the environment or land use issues. Whether they have to deal with natives or whoever it happens to be, they are quite willing. But what we have is a government -- not just yours, specifically -- that seems to want to put all kinds of roadblocks in the way that discourage investment.
I want to give you one example. It doesn't have to do with mining, but it's a very good example. Fort Nelson has an industrial park that was paid for by the Ministry of Lands. It was developed probably 15 years ago. They didn't sell a single, solitary site in the place until about two years ago. They sold it for almost nothing to an Alberta company -- not a British Columbia company -- that now supplies hydro to Fort Nelson. It put some transformers on. The other use was a grant given to the rodeo association so that they could have a rodeo. A gentleman got a hold of me, and for two years he had being trying to purchase a piece of that property to put in a small sawmill to saw off-dimension lumber. For two years he battled with the bureaucracy in trying to buy this piece of land. He didn't want any money from government; he had his own. But he needed a piece of land. He had spent all the money he had, but he needed to buy that piece of land -- he received a lease -- so he could continue to borrow money against it to put into his plant to employ maybe 20 to 30 people. It was a good little operation, nothing wrong with it.
When I talked to the Ministry of Lands, they said they had to have his financial statements, his business plan, his environmental plan and his sales plan. They had a list of about six things they wanted. When I asked the person from Lands if the gentleman was borrowing any money from them, he said no. I then asked why he wanted to know his financial position and how he was going to fare in the long term. I will never forget his answer. He said: "I tell you, we are not in the business of selling land."
Madam Minister, I'm not saying that is part of your ministry, but those kinds of things happen. It's just indicative of what takes place in the mining industry, the forest industry and in the gas and oil industry. Here is a person wanting to start up a small plant that would employ 20 or 30 people, and he runs up against roadblocks like you wouldn't believe, all in the name of I don't know what. I think a lot of investors don't know what, and they do leave. The stats show it.
Somehow in the 1990s and in the next century, we have to be able to upgrade, get with the program so we can deal with things that are happening, and we can deal with the economy that's coming and with the changes coming in technology. But we can't continue to sit still and say that since this is the way it was before, we'll use that benchmark.
Somehow we have to encourage some of the $342 million that left British Columbia last year through the Vancouver Stock Exchange and went to Latin America.... We have to try and convince it to stay in B.C. to develop and produce high-paying union jobs so that we can distribute the wealth here in British Columbia and serve our people better.
Hon. A. Edwards: You've brought up one of the more interesting syndromes in the mining industry. In particular if
[ Page 14188 ]
it's going to operate internationally, it has to be international; it's not just going to operate here.
There is no question that our mining industry and certainly the companies that operate in B.C. are of global quality. These companies are leading the way in global development. I know it would be very nice if we could keep all the investment at home. What has happened, and this is for broad, general benefit.... I sometimes like to look at broad, general benefit rather than just saying it's all wrong, because we have this industry that has made Vancouver into an international mining centre. The security exchange continues to handle that money, so a lot of the benefits remain here.
Mining suppliers have also found a huge economic benefit to working with those developments done by Canadians, and Canadians really are taking advantage of these foreign opportunities for investment. While it is a competition for us to keep investment money here as much as we can, it also brings an economic benefit, because it is our companies based here that are working there.
A couple of things are also indicative of what's going to happen in countries in South America. Perhaps we could talk about Chile in particular, although Chile certainly isn't the only one. We look at these countries, and they do not have the mapping systems we do. While these mining projects have gone ahead, or have been identified, if you want to go and explore in some of these countries -- Venezuela, Argentina, Chile and so on -- you do not have the basic geological information that we have here in British Columbia. Companies would have to do all that work themselves, so where they go next, we don't know. It isn't there yet. So there will be fences around what happens.
If you look at the certification requirements, Deputy Minister John Allan, who's in charge of the environmental impact act, has been asked to go to Chile to tell them how it's done. They are contemplating how they're going to do their environmental assessments and so on. I believe he was invited because they thought it was a good process; that's what I understand. The mining industry actually invited him down there. The industry itself prompted the invitation; it isn't something that came simply from the Chilean government, weird as governments are.
I might also mention that we have made considerable progress in eliminating red tape. We have an advocate working with each project that is proposed here. We do that within our ministry. Certainly internationally we have an advocate working with any foreign company that wants to come in and invest, and they can get it through B.C. Trade or whatever -- it has another name. They work with people. So we have attempted to get past this.
I would also remind the member that I have never, ever, in my experience -- and it's getting to be longer than I'd like to admit -- heard the mining industry want government of any kind. It doesn't matter what the stripe of the government is. They say it has too much red tape; they claim it makes too much trouble. I'm not saying they claim that wrongly; I am simply saying that is their position. So it doesn't matter who you are, they're going to say: "We don't want any more.... You have too much government; you've got to get out of the way." And never, ever, are you going to have an industry that doesn't say that. They're going to say that loudly, and they're going to put that out there all the time.
I also want to mention that we have been working, and we have been leading the work, to persuade the federal government to deal with reclamation trust funds. That is another issue that the industry is interested in. We have our own legislation. We are pushing the federal government to respond so that it can be the best use of reclamation money that's set aside. So we're working on that as well.
F. Garden: I'm going to be asking the minister a question on the Mount Polley mine at Likely and also comment on the Kinross gold mine.
But before I do, I'd be remiss if I didn't congratulate the minister on the expeditious way that the mining industry has started to see.... I've heard some of the comments from the opposition about the bureaucratic red tape, and I just want to congratulate the minister on the way she is diligently working in reducing that red tape -- because it's not new. Dealing with mining applications and gas exploration permits has been this bureaucratic nightmare for years, long before we became government.
One of the main things that happened to me when I was running for election was the miners in my area saying: "For gosh sake, Frank, you've got to break through this somehow." That takes a bit of time, and I just want to congratulate the minister on the expeditious way she dealt with the permits for the Kinross gold mine and the Mount Polley mine. The only thing that held up the Mount Polley mine was their financing. Again, this government was going to help with that if it could, but they have now found that they've been able to get another source offshore that helps them.
People keep saying that if we don't do something, everybody's going to run off to Chile. Well, let them. B.C. can never compete with the low wages and the conditions that are prevalent in these countries in South America, and I wouldn't want us to do that.
[11:15]
The minerals in this province belong to the people of the province, and we as government have a responsibility to make sure that we get the best return that we can for our people, and not look at Chile and say: "Well, look what they're doing."
One thing about mineral exploration is that it's not like trees. You can grow trees back again, but once you take a mineral out of the ground, it's gone -- and it's irreplaceable. If they want to go south for the cheapest deal, they can. When they're finished with that country's resources, they'll be back here and we'll be getting the best dollar we can for our people. So I want to get rid of that argument. It's a specious argument, and the people across the floor should be dropping it, because we don't want to race to the bottom by competing with Chile and Peru on our mining stuff. I think this government is doing a great job on this, and I think they should continue.
I've also heard the CORE process mentioned around here this morning. In the CORE process in the Cariboo....
R. Neufeld: Is there a question there?
F. Garden: Yes, there's a question; it will be there. The member who is heckling me rambled on for about 20 minutes before he got to his question. I reserve that right.
In the CORE process in the Cariboo, the mapping process.... At one time, the mining group up there was quite concerned. During the process, they were out there with
[ Page 14189 ]
placards and doing their thing. At the end of the process, when they saw how we had looked at the mapping and made special curvatures in the map in order to make sure that placer mining was protected -- even in areas where there were going to be parks -- they all sat down, came up with the maps, and it was a tremendous success. So as far as the mining industry in the Cariboo is concerned, they had their say in the CORE process, and they left the table quite satisfied. It's a great thing.
Finally getting down to that question, we have the Kinross gold mine going good now -- as I said, expeditiously. Could the minister tell me how many jobs -- and this is what the people of Likely want to know -- will be involved in the mine at Mount Polley when it gets going? Because jobs are important to the people in the Cariboo.
C. Tanner: So what's the question?
Hon. A. Edwards: I might mention before I answer the question that Mount Polley, of course, is a particular pet of mine, because it was the first mine certificate I issued, and I was very pleased to get it out.
I also want to say that I know what you're saying about competing with Chile. We don't want to lower our wage rates and so on to compete with Chile. Nevertheless, we continue to compete with Chile, because our workforce is much better trained. It's much more technologically ready to deal with issues in modern mining and can produce more, even when our pay rates are compared to theirs. That's a benefit for us.
The Kinross mine will be.... This summer it will have 40 employees. It has had 200 construction jobs; 150 permanent jobs overall by the time it gets into full operation. Did you ask the same thing for Mount Polley?
F. Garden: Yes, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: It was expected to employ 229 people in seven years' time. It builds up to that.
R. Neufeld: It's interesting to listen to the member for Cariboo North talk about jobs and say: "Let the mining industry run to Chile." That is a terrible statement for anyone.... I don't care whether it's a backbencher; I don't care whether it's a person in opposition. I don't care who it is. It's absolutely unacceptable that anyone would stand up and put on record: "Let the mining industry run out of British Columbia. We don't care. Let them go."
Obviously this member doesn't know what really makes British Columbia tick. It's obvious, when he relates it only to jobs and to the value paid for those jobs. He's missing the boat completely. Nobody said that in British Columbia we should be paying the wages that they pay in Chile. But I'm not sure what the wages are in Chile. I know some of the other costs in Chile are pretty high. When I look at some of the costs for living, they talk about a 2,600-square-foot executive home on a 10,000-square-foot lot probably renting for $3,500 (U.S.) a month. Obviously, the costs are high down there. In fact, a McDonald's burger and fries cost you $4 (U.S.). So they must be making pretty good money.
We listen to the minister talk about how well British Columbia is doing and comparing taxes with Chile and what not. And then the member for Cariboo gets up and shoots that all down in flames. When he talks about red tape.... He obviously has not studied -- he doesn't really know what he is talking about. I can tell you about red tape in the gas and oil industry. Before this government came on board, a referral process -- through Lands, EMPR, Forests, and all the agencies that you had to go through before you could go out and start actual work -- could be done in one day. A walkaround was what they called it; the consultant would walk around, and in one day, it was done. Now we have some that last well over a month, and this member says there's no more red tape -- absolutely unbelievable.
Secondly, you talk about not caring about the mining industry and whether it goes to Chile or not. The member talks about a mine in the Cariboo, and that's great -- 40 jobs. But what happened to the 500 or 600 jobs that were going to be created at Windy Craggy in the Tatshenshini? Does the member talk about that? No, he doesn't. He says: "Kick them out and make them go down to Chile." That's what he says -- absolutely deplorable!
I have a couple of questions that I want to go into with regard to what the minister spoke about a bit earlier. That had to do with Deputy Minister John Allan going to Chile on the apparent invitation of the industry. Could the minister tell me whether that's going to be a cost to her ministry? Also, the chief inspector for mines was in Geneva for approximately six weeks. Again, that was in the 1992-93 annual report. Could the minister explain what it cost her ministry, if anything?
Hon. A. Edwards: I have to say -- the devil is making me do it -- that John Allan doesn't cost this ministry anything anymore. I'm quite sure that his invitation, if he were to go, would be at the cost of the Chilean government.
There are actually quite a few civil servants being asked to do different things around the world, telling governments that don't have our systems how it's done. Ralph McGinn, who was at the time the chief inspector of mines, was asked by the ILO to go and help them develop a health and safety mining code. It was modelled on the health and safety code that we developed here in B.C.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Edwards: No, he was there at the expense of the International Labour Organization.
I would also say there are a number of other people.... For example, our current chief gold commissioner went to Peru last year and this year to Ghana at their invitation to talk about how to do title registry and that kind of thing. They ask our people to go at their expense. This is not something that I would bear the cost of. I do think it's important that we send these people and that we have the ability to help them out with their problems and integrate as much as possible what's happening in an international industry.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister says. Who performs their duties while they are gone, if it is not a cost to the ministry at all? Or is it because there is not enough work to keep that person busy for the year? Do you do double duty? Obviously there must be a cost somewhere. When you take someone out of the system for six or eight weeks, something.... Or could that be the slowdown in some of the things happening within the mining industry?
Hon. A. Edwards: Almost invariably, they take holidays to do it.
[ Page 14190 ]
R. Neufeld: Are you telling me that the six weeks that the chief inspector worked in Geneva were holidays?
Hon. A. Edwards: That particular one was mainly holiday, some leave of absence.
R. Neufeld: Okay. In the '92-93 report, there was a section on aboriginal involvement in mining. There's just a short paragraph. Maybe the minister could bring us up to date on what's transpired with the aboriginal involvement in mining and where we are at today with it.
Hon. A. Edwards: We have, for the last three years, organized an aboriginal conference which has been designed to have aboriginal people participate in our discussions with other people interested in mining. We had it for two years in Prince George, and this year it was in Cranbrook. How did that escape me? Nevertheless, it has been a very useful discussion place. I have attended two of these conferences, and the discussion is very lively. It's really interesting to see the enthusiasm that is generally there to assure that the industry continues to operate and that it operates to everyone's benefit. So that's one of the things we have done.
We have just recently put out a handbook dealing with our permitting and so on, and dealing with Delgamuukw 2. So we do a lot of work to ensure that our ministry is as efficient as possible in dealing with the referrals and with consultations we need to have done.
R. Neufeld: Is the process to make the aboriginal community aware of what mining is going on in what parts of the province? Or is it to work with the aboriginal community to train them for jobs in the mining industry or for investment in the mining industry? I didn't quite get that from the minister, and I'm not sure exactly what it is.
Hon. A. Edwards: At the conferences, the discussions were very wide-ranging. The discussion is as much for government to try to understand what the aboriginal community needs to know to complete the consultations we do. We talk about the land use processes and about the kind of consultation, as well as how we can make sure they are comfortable with the technical assessments we do and make them useful. We talk about how they can get involved as investors or as employees. There is a lot of contracting done in the mining industry by first nations people, as well as them being employees. They do a lot of that, and you're probably well aware of the Tahltan nation in particular. They do a lot of that kind of work, but they're not the only ones. They are probably just the primary example. So it is a wide-ranging discussion on any of the issues that have to do with mining, and that's the only line we put around it.
R. Neufeld: Are they meetings that are just set up ad hoc, or do you have specific symposiums with the aboriginal community for which dates are set so that others can come and see what the discussions are about?
[11:30]
Hon. A. Edwards: The symposia we have had so far have been in May. The dates have been known, invitations have gone out and people have been notified. They have just finished in Cranbrook, and the place and date have not been selected for next year, but it will be made widely known.
R. Neufeld: I would appreciate that. I don't recall receiving anything on that, unless .... I'm just like you. I get a lot of mail, and I may have missed it, so I'll look for that next May.
Just briefly, I have another question about the prospectors' course. It was cancelled in 1992-93 because of not enough participation. What's happening now? Is it planned for this year? Has it already taken place or is it going to be cancelled again?
Hon. A. Edwards: That was a great disappointment. It was an advanced prospectors' course, and people enjoyed it a lot, but they had a hard time getting to it. That year it had to be cancelled, which was a disappointment. We now direct amounts of money through local mining chambers to do prospectors' courses. In particular, the chamber of mines for northwest B.C. -- and this goes back to the last question -- is working on how to make sure that that prospectors' course is available to aboriginal tribal councils and bands. I don't know if we have figures on the number of courses that we would give in a year, but I think almost every chamber in the province gives at least one, and we give them funding to do that.
R. Neufeld: Hon. Chair, I notice the time, and we usually break around 11:30 a.m. So I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:32 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]