1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)

Volume 21, Number 3

[ Page 15503 ]

The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I call committee stage on Bill 13, and Committee of Supply in Committee A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 13; W. Hurd in the chair.

On section 2 (continued).

D. Jarvis: I want to go back to subsection 1.1(3). In my opinion, a no-compensation policy seems to be introduced in the bill -- and in several bills, it appears. It's a running policy that's coming toward us and it's affecting the industry considerably -- at least their idea of what this government is trying to do to them. It's used to avoid compensation and basically to expropriate claimholders. This regulation says that no compensation will be paid, and it refers to subsection (1) or (2). Subsections (1) and (2) describe what a mineral is, and they give the minister the right to decide what is a mineral and what is not a mineral. So if there is no problem.... Before, you only paid compensation in a tenure claim on minerals. So if it's not a mineral, why would we even think of putting a no-compensation clause into it? Why don't we just remove that compensation clause? Because the perception is that it's going to diminish the right of a holder of a mineral claim.

Hon. A. Edwards: There's no diminution of right; there is no compensation. The clause is there to clarify that, in case anyone thought there might be.

D. Jarvis: I'm sorry. The minister sat down rather quickly, and I didn't quite get what her answer was. She missed the mike.

Hon. A. Edwards: Since there is no diminution of right, there is no right to compensation. The clause is the kind of thing which goes into legislation that clarifies that beyond question.

J. Tyabji: I am sure this minister means what she's saying. It's just hard to understand, if no right is being diminished, why there would have to be a clause for compensation.

Having said that, there is a clause that allows for no compensation in section 2. I would like to, for that reason, move the amendment under my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 2, line 1.1 (3) to add, after "made under subsection (1) or (2)", the words "provided such regulation could be reasonably anticipated".]

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: Subsection 1.1(3) reads: "No compensation is payable by the government to any person and no proceedings may be commenced or maintained to claim compensation from the government as a result a regulation made under subsection (1) or (2)." The amendment is to add after "made under subsection (1) or (2)" the words "provided such regulation could be reasonably anticipated."

The reason we've brought this amendment forward is that -- as the minister, I am sure, is aware -- for the purposes of litigation, anyone should have the provision of reasonableness when it comes to their individual rights. In this case we're talking about rights of tenure or, as the minister has said, simply rights of staking a claim. I don't believe we've actually received an assurance here that we're not talking about tenure rights. I think that's what the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was trying to say. The minister has said we're not talking about tenure rights, but we don't see any provision for that in the act.

Even if we're just talking about the rights that are given under the staking of a claim, as the minister is aware, before the miner gets to the point of staking a claim there could be a couple of years of development, whether it's geological surveying, travelling, research or whatever it is that leads to that point. There could be a lot of setup prior to staking a claim. Even in that respect.... The minister had used the example of agates before the break. In the event of the minister deciding that for the purposes of this act the regulation including agates in the definition of "mineral" was going to change, all of a sudden minerals would no longer include agates.

We believe there should be a provision for reasonableness there. If this minister is no longer the minister, and someone else comes in and decides that something which one would reasonably anticipate would be included in the definition is no longer included, they would have some protection. What the amendment does is provide protection to the miner, in that there has to be a provision for reasonableness. In that way, it provides a little bit of protection to this section of the act. If this section does involve tenure, that's a pretty serious power -- as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was saying -- for the minister to change by regulation. If it is only about staking a claim, there should still be some allowance for a reasonable expectation that when somebody sets out, under the act, through the regulations, to follow up on a mineral -- once they've done all that work and staked their claim -- they don't wake up the next morning and find that they have no mineral that they can access.

Hon. D. Miller: What if it's not a mineral? They can still mine it.

J. Tyabji: The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour has said if it's not a mineral, they can't mine it. Clearly, he hasn't read....

Hon. D. Miller: They can still mine it; that's the point.

J. Tyabji: For the sake of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, let's just briefly look and see. Specifically, the minister has listed a group of materials that are not minerals, and we know there are other acts which are going to have impact on them; the Land Act is one. There are going to be acts, I'm sure, under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Other acts.... I think the member for 

[ Page 15504 ]

North Vancouver-Seymour can probably name more than I can, because it's his portfolio. There are going to be other acts which will impact on them, and suddenly the staking of the claim will no longer have any value.

It's a simple amendment. It just allows for some kind of protection in the event of somebody wanting to be able to proceed because there has been no reasonable anticipation of the change. We think it's something that will give the mining industry a little bit of assurance that they're not just left with no expectation of what to anticipate and no understanding of what the minister is going to be doing.

Hon. A. Edwards: I would oppose the amendment, because there is no particular reason in the amendment as proposed that you would need it. It is normal practice for people to reasonably anticipate what is coming up -- a government makes that happen. I oppose it mainly because such a clause could give rise to a huge amount of frivolous litigation.

[6:45]

D. Jarvis: There are no guarantees under subsection 1.1(3), and that's probably the problem. There are just no guarantees. I'd like this minister to tell me what she would consider.... Using a gypsum mine as an example, could she or could she not at some time under this bill say that gypsum is a non-mineral, and that if I were a stakeholder in there, I would not have any rights from there on in if she wanted to put a park in the area I have staked out, or to give it to the aboriginals for a settlement? That's the question: what is a mineral and what is not a mineral? Why do you have the right -- or do you have the right in this -- to say that anything that was a mineral is, as of this moment, not a mineral? Do you have the right to change what is classified as a mineral today? Do you have that right to now change it and say it is not a mineral? If you don't, can you assure all the miners out there and in your riding -- because most of my complaints are coming from your area, believe me.... It's the East Kootenays chamber of commerce that is putting up the biggest squabble and writing the most letters to me. Not squabbles -- complaints, I guess. So can the minister assure them....

An Hon. Member: Concerns.

D. Jarvis: Concerns -- yes, that's it. A lack of debating skills sometimes puts you into a position where you don't get all the correct verbiage out.

Can the minister assure us that what is today a mineral will not be declared a non-mineral by her government in the future and therefore preclude them from...?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, that's what it says, minister. It says in there that it gives you the right, the power -- a very broad power -- to say what is a mineral and what is not a mineral. I leave it up to you. Give us an explanation, and they'll be satisfied -- a specific one, or a guarantee.

L. Fox: Just very briefly, as I read through the amendment.... I recognize that I am coming back in late from lunch, and I probably missed some of the discussion, but it seems to me that the amendment is pretty reasonable. It puts words in there such as "provided such regulation could be reasonably anticipated." That, to me, allows a whole host of opportunities for the ministry and the government to forewarn.... If any negotiation is happening, whether it be native land claims or consideration around a park, where there has been ample opportunity to make those individuals.... Whether they are prospecting or looking at acquiring a tenure, I think it is only reasonable that they should be made aware that some kind of consideration is being given that could cause them to lose their tenure. All this amendment asks for is some reasonableness on behalf of the government.

I don't think it in any way precludes the minister from acting under section 1.1. I think it would send a signal that there is no heavy-handedness intended by this particular section. The way it reads, we can all envision different scenarios in different parts of our world, given all the complexities that we're dealing with: the parks thrust, native land claims concerns, and all those other things. I think we should do the best we can to have some authority within government, but we should also give some comfort to British Columbians, to the mining industry and to tenure holders that the government has no intention of using its heavy hand here.

I would ask the minister to give it some thought and consideration. Remembering that the resource industry is a major breadwinner in British Columbia, we need to give them the confidence to make their investments and to have some confidence that they are going to have some reasonableness from this government in terms of retaining their tenures.

Hon. A. Edwards: The mining industry asked my ministry and the Ministry of Lands to please clarify the issue between dimension stone and construction stone. The ministry is responding to that request by the mining industry in order to be clear about what is dimension stone and what is construction stone. This second section of the bill allows us to do that, and clarifies the situation that there will be no compensation for those who do not know that this particular substance is called dimension stone when they stake their claim rather than what it was yesterday when someone else staked their claim. The amendment as proposed would probably lead to unnecessary litigation. I would call for the vote on the question of the amendment.

J. Tyabji: In giving that explanation, I think the minister speaks in favour of the amendment, because she is saying that the section that was brought in is to provide for those technical grey areas that may exist between mineral -- as this minister wants to set it out for Crown rights and minerals -- or dimension stone, which is not included in the definition of "mineral." If that's what this is for, then it can reasonably be anticipated that if something is closely related to either of the two, it will be regulated out of the definition of "mineral." That's reasonably anticipated. Any miner who is going to be trying to stake a claim or act on tenure rights....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The minister says tenure isn't included, although we still don't see that. So let's say we're just talking about staking a claim. If someone goes out to stake a claim 

[ Page 15505 ]

and suddenly something that's very closely related to dimension stone is included in the regulations, you couldn't litigate that, because the amendment about reasonable anticipation means that something closely related to dimension stone or construction stone could not be the cause for litigation.

Where I am really concerned is.... First of all, the minister has said that tenure is not included, and we haven't seen that in the act.... I don't read anywhere that tenure is not included. Second, the minister is anticipating that there will be a landslide of litigation. Her answer to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was that she can't support this amendment because there would be a landslide of litigation. A miner is not going to litigate against the government unless there's been an unreasonable change in the definition. If this minister has arbitrarily taken something out of the definition that is going to result in a miner losing money that that person has already invested, then there will be litigation.

So there are a couple of things here. First of all, why would a miner litigate if we're not talking about tenure rights? Why would a miner do that? And why would a miner litigate if it could be reasonably anticipated that the substance they are after could have been caught under this definition? Clearly the amendment protects the miner from an unreasonable change in the definition of "mineral." If this minister isn't going to make an unreasonable change in the definition, she's got nothing to fear from this amendment. If the minister says it doesn't apply to tenure rights, she's got nothing to fear from this amendment, because if tenure rights are not included, there is no reason to compensate. And if she's not planning to change the definition of "mineral" in an unreasonable way, there is no reason to litigate.

So the minister, in stating what she's stating for the record, is speaking in favour of the amendment. The only reason this amendment would ever come into play is if there were an unreasonable change in the definition of "mineral," or if the tenure rights of a miner were affected and they required compensation. Those would be the only two reasons. So this amendment is meant to protect the industry from a perception that the government is going in with a heavy hand and is prepared to arbitrarily move away from the reasonable anticipation of what a mineral is.

Interjections.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. I'm sure members are all wondering why we've called this meeting, so let me advise you this is Bill 13 and we are on section 2 -- the amendment to section 2.

[7:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

D. Jarvis: We have now been here over two hours tonight, and it took almost two hours yesterday to pass only one section out of 48 in this bill. Now, that sounds like a filibuster, and this is not a filibuster as far as we're concerned. We are earnestly trying to get some cooperation out of the minister to discuss and to add or delete sections of the bill that are causing great concern to people in the mineral industry.

So I ask the minister again, which I did prior to the vote on the amendment.... There don't appear to be any guarantees in here on this compensation aspect. It says in the bill that no compensation is payable by the government, when the minister is given the power to say that rock or a natural substance is not a mineral. So a no-compensation section seems to be looming here. So will the minister guarantee that when this bill is passed, any mineral that is classified as a mineral now will not be changed by the minister to become a non-mineral so as to allow this socialist government not to pay compensation on a mineral claim? That's a simple fact, and that's all the minister has to do: make that assertion.

The Chair: I'm going to recognize the minister, but with a caution that we seem now to be moving very closely to a second reading debate. We are, after all, on section 2.

Hon. A. Edwards: No.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said no, she will not give any guarantees. So here we are with a bill where the minister has stated all the fears of the B.C. Mining Association, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, and the Eastern British Columbia Chamber of Mines -- where all you fellows live, where all your voters are. They are now right in saying that this is another socialist attitude toward mining in this province and that they're trying to take away the claims of all the miners in this province. So it does....

Mr. Chairman, I don't think you should push that button and cut me off. I want to say that it's closure if you do push that.

All we have asked the minister to say is.... So now we can see a simple little fact. If I have a claim today and it's copper -- say, I'm mining a little copper mine -- she will not admit that she has the right to say tomorrow that it's not a mineral and therefore I have no compensation under this government. So what they're trying to do is put in a no-compensation law for anyone who has a mineral claim, and it's subject to any minister, or any bureaucrat under that minister, who could be what you'd call an unreasonable person.

[ Page 15506 ]

So I would ask the minister again: is she prepared to give a guarantee or any statement to the effect that she will not change what is classified as a mineral today to a non-mineral tomorrow, which would enable her government to say to those tenure holders that there's no compensation?

Hon. A. Edwards: At the request of the mining industry, these amendments are introduced to allow two ministers to determine whether rock and natural substances are minerals or not under the Mineral Tenure Act. Because of the way the act works, there will be no need for compensation, because there is no diminution of right.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps we can address the concerns of the opposition and put the minister's submissions in writing and in the statute. She has said from the beginning of our debate on section 2 that compensation does not apply, because existing tenure rights are not affected by a change in regulation, and that there's going to be no retroactivity. So with that in mind, I would move an amendment by adding subsection 1.1(4): "The new regulation shall not affect existing tenure rights and shall not be retroactive."

The reason the amendment needs to be moved is that I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is absolutely right: the mining industry wants something in writing to reflect what the minister has been telling us. Now, if the minister is true to her word that it won't be retroactive, and it doesn't affect existing tenure rights -- she said it would affect staked claims that had not turned into tenure rights yet, but that it wouldn't affect existing tenure rights -- then I'm sure this will be a friendly amendment, and the minister could allow this amendment to pass. We could get on with it and allow the mining industry, which has obviously made representations to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, to have some assurance that what we're stating in debate will actually be reflected in the legislation.

The Chair: Hon. member, I'm going to recognize the minister and allow her to respond, but on the face of it, it would seem to me that your amendment has the effect of contradicting the intention of the section and therefore would not be in order. But I would defer, obviously, to the minister and let her respond.

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Edwards: Everything that I have said is consistent. There is no diminution of rights because there is no effect on someone who holds a tenure under the law as it was at the time that the claim was taken under the tenure. The change in the definition of "mineral" or not applies to what happens subsequently; there is no retroactivity to it. The amendment is unnecessary and redundant.

Interjections.

The Chair: My advice is that the amendment is indeed out of order, and therefore I so rule.

Section 2 approved on division.

On section 3.

J. Tyabji: We would certainly defer to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, but we note in section 3 that the change that occurs is that instead of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designating mining divisions, it becomes the chief gold commissioner, and then there is a provision to publish that in the Gazette. What was it that led the minister to this amendment?

[7:15]

Hon. A. Edwards: Efficiency. In the simple administrative task of deciding where the boundaries of a mining division would be, these decisions really hardly need the kind of process that goes into a cabinet decision. These decisions are generally put together by the chief gold commissioner, and they make those decisions as administrative decisions. They are not the kind of decision that we feel needs that kind of process.

D. Jarvis: I just want to make a comment on this section. It appears that the minister is basically transferring all the powers to a civil servant. I'll use that expression: what if this civil servant, this political appointee, is an unreasonable man? He could cause havoc in the industry. Does the minister have any comments on that?

Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, before I omit any further having introduced the people who are with me, I would like to introduce my assistant deputy minister of minerals on my right, Bruce McRae; and on my left is the chief gold commissioner, Mr. Denis Lieutard. He is not a political hack or political appointee, and I don't expect that that kind of position would be filled in a political way. If it were, such a government would certainly have to take the political responsibility for such action.

D. Jarvis: I would like to say that I did not call the two gentlemen sitting beside the minister -- her staff -- hacks. I just said political appointees. Who knows if somewhere down the line a political appointee...? Political appointees do change, and the minister is quite aware of that -- and so do civil servants, especially in this government. They're changing political appointees all the way along the line, at every level; in fact, it's close to 4,000 now. Anyway, I just wanted to say that to the minister. I didn't call them political hacks, but they could be unreasonable persons -- not necessarily in your staff now, but in someone else's staff tomorrow.

J. Tyabji: First of all, I think I'd like to agree with the member for North Vancouver-Seymour that when we're debating legislation, we're not debating it based on the people who are in this chamber; we're debating it on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Clearly, until this is amended again, this will be the legislation that will be in place.

What the minister has done is taken something which was in front of cabinet and given it to someone who's within the bureaucracy. The minister made the point that this was done for efficiency. We all know that the most efficient form of government is a dictatorship. If we want to be really efficient, we can get rid of this; we can have what this government does nine months of the year -- government by order-in-council. We can get rid of debate, and we can have a very efficient way of dealing with the province -- democracy be forgotten.

But the fact is that the divisions that are designated in the province may -- not all the time, but they may -- require some degree of accountability for the people who are served 

[ Page 15507 ]

by the mining industry. The reason we have government is to ensure that the greater interests of the public are protected. What we see in this section.... I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said it quite clearly. The power that's been taken from cabinet into an unaccountable, unelected person.... What reference is there in this section to accountability? Here we see the reference: "If a designation is made...the chief gold commissioner must, without delay, publish notice of the designation in the Gazette...." Who reads the Gazette? How many people actually get the Gazette? The mining industry may or may not.

Let's assume for a second that the mining industry, or the executive -- because the executive are the people who are most in touch with the elected members -- follow what goes on in the Gazette. Let's say they're upset about it. Who do they go to? Do they go to the gold commissioner? This may be a reasonable gold commissioner, but what if the next one isn't? If we really wanted to get into a debate about why we need accountability at senior decision-making levels, we have only to look at what happens with the Workers' Compensation Board, ICBC, B.C. Hydro -- all the different agencies that supposedly work on behalf of the public trust or the general public and are at arm's length from government: people cannot get them to make decisions in an expedient or accountable way.

Ninety-nine percent of the time these decisions may not be controversial, but the reason there's accountability built into the decision-making is for that 1 percent, or the minority of the time -- maybe it will be more often than 1 percent -- when someone makes a mistake. The reason accountability is built in is that if the minister is on the line for the mistake, she's going to be a lot more responsive when she attends a convention of the Mining Association and they're upset with her -- or whoever is filling that position. She's going to respond fairly quickly. But if it happens to be somebody who's at arm's length from the process, or someone who's unaccountable -- other than tonight, how often are people even going to know who's in that position? -- what is the process by which the public can have redress?

That's why philosophically we cannot support this. The reason the machinery was designed the way it was was for accountability. If anything, we should be moving in the other direction. If the minister feels she has too much on her plate or that cabinet has too much on its plate, bring things before the House. Let's have an actual proper sitting of this assembly -- spring and fall. Let's bring things in so that the assembly can make decisions on land use -- which is how it should be anyway -- and we can have adequate debate about these things. That would allow for more accountability. This government is again and again, in legislation before this House, in the name of efficiency, moving toward bureaucratic government.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour is saying "relevancy." What could be more relevant than dealing with the fact that cabinet is being removed and a senior civil servant is now going to be doing the job of cabinet?

I'm sure that if this government isn't going to sit in the fall -- as it won't -- we're going to be dealing with order-in-council decisions again. They're just saying: "Don't put so much on the list. We don't need so many things on the list. Let's pass it off as much as we can." That's what this amendment is all about -- making the minister's workload a little bit lighter.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour is saying "aye." It's unfortunate to have this kind of callous disregard, and it's obviously endemic in these proceedings. But this is going to be one of the sections that will come back.... As we go through the bill, we'll see that it is written throughout the bill: removing cabinet, removing the minister and removing accountability. The minister does not represent her party; she does not represent herself. She represents the people of British Columbia, and they're supposed to have input into these decisions. By removing herself from these positions, she is removing the people of British Columbia, who have vested their trust in this government. This government has appointed her to the position of overseeing these things, and menial though they may be to her, they are part of the weight of responsibility of her office. We don't believe that that should be removed, and competent though this gold commissioner may be, as we go through this bill we'll see that there are going to be many things passed on to him that removes government from any sort of spotlight or public process. And we don't agree with that.

Hon. A. Edwards: As much as I would like to inflate the importance of all of this, because it might make everybody else connected with it look important, this is the kind of decision that determines where the records are kept. It says that this mining division and its records will be kept in this office. That is an administrative decision that the gold commissioner can easily make from his position as the administrator of mineral titles in British Columbia.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

D. Jarvis: We're almost halfway through page 3 now, so we're starting to move -- five hours later.

I can't agree with this section at all. There are several items in this section that are completed out of it. For example, in subsection (b), for clarity's sake, I feel that "Canadian citizen" should be added. I think that sub-subsection (b)(a)(ii) is an affront. It means that a prospector must be politically correct in order to obtain a licence. To a certain degree this is going to stifle any kind of activity by ordinary people out there -- any spontaneity in the industry. You are asking people who go out to prospect to know the integrated resource management principles of this government. It is an affront. Half of the people out there....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if the temporary House Leader would mind his own business and stop interjecting all the time. He's the temporary House Leader. He should be having some control of this House, not trying to interfere and create a filibuster.

So I would ask the minister.... I honestly think that this is an infringement of people's rights and that it's going to be 

[ Page 15508 ]

used to limit the entry of people into the mining industry. Since British Columbia first became a resource-based province back in the early 1800s.... Not everyone in this country has an education. How many mines have been discovered by someone who only has a grade 5 or grade 10 or grade 12 education? And then you expect him to write exams and have knowledge of mineral exploration. Who's going to decide what the knowledge of mineral exploration is going to be? To what level, what degree? Furthermore, who's it going to be -- someone to write an exam on integrated resource management principles of the government? That is just plain stupid. It's going to stifle creativity. It's an infringement of people's rights, and it's going to limit the people coming into this industry. It's an affront to the independent, free men that build this province.

I was wondering if the minister would care to explain why she put this into the bill. Was this another amendment that was put in by these political appointees? Is this a political appointee's theory? We're starting to look at.... What is the expression? If you don't have a lot of education, can you not even go out and explore, and look for a mine? Do you have to have a degree now? This is just a ridiculous addition to the act.

Hon. A. Edwards: The people who are with me are career civil servants.

I'm going to respond to the section stating: "...demonstrates, to the satisfaction of a gold commissioner, a minimum prescribed standard of knowledge respecting mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles in British Columbia...." There is no word in there saying that there is a written examination, as far as I know.

What we need to ensure is that people know.... Whether they have a grade 2 or a grade 5 education, or whatever, there is no requirement to be literate in order to be a free miner in British Columbia as long as you can indicate to the satisfaction of the gold commissioner that you know what rights you are going to be dealing with. A free miner may or may not enter onto other people's property; he or she has to know about that. A free miner will be working in areas where integrated resource management principles are in use; they need to know them and be able to follow them. Anyone who wants a free-miner's certificate is not allowed to go out and operate without knowing whether or not they would be infringing on other people's rights, and they need to be sure that they don't have the right to do that.

I believe that that is a reasonable requirement, and that's what the amendment is about.

D. Jarvis: Maybe it doesn't specifically say here that the person has to write an exam, but it does say here that he must demonstrate "to the satisfaction of a gold commissioner...."

The minister has explained a few items that she would like free miners to be able to understand. Why can't the gold commissioner simply write out a list of rules and regulations that this government is so famous for writing all the time? I mean, you are just plying the industry with more rules and regulations than it has ever seen before. Write out a little slip. When he comes in for his free-miner's licence, you give him a slip, just as when you go hunting or the rest of it. If you go out fishing, you don't have to stand up before....

How is the gold commissioner going to ascertain whether that person has the knowledge that you want without giving either an oral exam or a written exam? Very simple. Your logic is wrong; it's just completely wrong. It's a draconian law that you are trying to put forward, another amendment that is just.... You are destroying the industry.

I'm telling those members in the back from the resource areas in this province that I'd be ashamed to go home and tell them that you stood up and voted for a bill such as this. You will feel it in the next election. Believe me, you guys are going to go down really hard, because you have no comprehension as to how to create wealth in this province or how to support the mining industry.

[7:30]

J. Tyabji: We're going to be on this section for a little while; we haven't even got to some of the other sections. I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour asked a really important question: how is the gold commissioner going to become satisfied that the person making the application has the prescribed minimum level of knowledge respecting mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles?

What is an integrated resource management principle? What does that mean? And who decides? If we're talking about this government, we know that this government has brought in integrated resource management principles that include archaeological, historical and certainly aboriginal aspects, and there could be financial aspects. How is that determined?

I guess the first thing is: who's prescribing the minimum level? Who's training the gold commissioners, so that they can administer whatever kind of examination? As the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said, how are they going to determine it? Is it oral? Is it written? Is it a conversation? Is it something over the phone? Is it because the applicant happened to buy them a new swimming pool? I mean, what are we talking about when we talk about a minimum level of knowledge? Who's prescribing? Who's training the gold commissioners to do this? And who's going to be watching this process to ensure that it's done fairly?

Hon. A. Edwards: We're not trying to be obstructionist about this at all. A free miner has to read rock; he has to read assays; he has to know contracts.

An Hon. Member: Or she.

Hon. A. Edwards: Exactly. So wherever a free miner goes, she is going to have to be able to deal with this. But certainly she would not want to be operating without having a good sense of our land use rules.

There are a number of ways you could test this kind of knowledge in the public. Sometimes there are requirements that there would be a book, which a free miner might sign that they had read. We haven't established that yet, but we will certainly be dealing with the industry when we do establish that. We may suggest something; they may come back to us. Certainly, when we do try something, we will be evaluating whether it works or not.

The issue is that you cannot give a free-miner certificate to someone without expecting that they have some understanding of what that certificate gives them and what their 

[ Page 15509 ]

rights and other people's rights are. A free-miner certificate bears a lot of power; there is a requirement and an expectation. I believe it's broadly understood and shared by a number of people in the industry that this is a reasonable thing to do -- that you don't hand over free-miner certificates to someone without assuring that they have some sense of what this miner certificate means, what they can do, what they can do with other people's property, and so on.

D. Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister could explain to us what she means by an integrated resource management principle.

Hon. A. Edwards: It could be a large number of things. An integrated land resource principle is some of the rules that we or any government -- in British Columbia, certainly -- have in place when we deal with integrated land use and have more than one resource group using land. As I say, more than one -- so you may have two, four or seven. A free miner who is expecting to use the resource for that free miner's own purpose should have a sense of how we integrate resource use in this province.

D. Jarvis: Can the minister tell me, then, have there been any problems in the past that would cause her and her ministry to write such rules into the act?

Is the minister aware that because of the other rules and regulations you've already put into this province since you came into power in 1991, over 90 percent of the prospectors in your riding and your area in the Kootenays are not working? That's exactly because of something like this. You're going on and on and on. You're destroying the industry, and you sit back there and smile. Wait till you go to the polls. We'll find out.

J. Tyabji: Following up on that point, what I'd like to know is: if it turns out that a person does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the gold commissioner...? Actually, one of the questions would be: how many gold commissioners are there in the province who'd be determining all this? If the person who does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of that gold commissioner that they have have a minimum prescribed standard of knowledge respecting mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles, where does the person go to appeal? What is the provision for that person to follow, to go around that gold commissioner and go to the next step?

Hon. A. Edwards: There are seven gold commissioners across the province, and they will be doing the work. We don't expect that there will be very many people who are turned away when they want to have a free-miner certificate. What we want to do is to begin as well as we can to ensure that those who get free-miner certificates know that they have responsibilities, that they should have a certain level of information and knowledge, and that they should recognize that they are operating in an environment where they are not going to be the only people who want to use the resource. So what we are going to try to do is bring this in and make people understand that.

We don't expect that the requirements will be so onerous that people will be failing their free-miner certificate. If they did, they probably could come back and do it again. It's not an issue of wanting to turn people away from getting free-miner certificates. But we want people who are interested, who have the initiative and the knowledge to go out and be free miners, and if they do that, we want them to have a certain amount of information that assures us that they know the principles of integrated resource management -- in other words, the principles of where their rights end and someone else's start -- before they go out and begin to do some work.

J. Tyabji: This question was asked earlier, but I don't believe it was answered: who will be prescribing this minimum standard, and will it be the same standard for all seven gold commissioners? Will there be a centralized set of minimum prescriptions, or will it be something that each gold commissioner will decide for himself or herself, depending on their own perspective of what needs to be set out?

Hon. A. Edwards: After consultation with the industry, regulations will be set, and it will be the same regulations for all seven gold commissioners.

J. Tyabji: Then will there also be...? Will this minister commit to allowing in that consultation the question of what happens or what the procedure is for someone who doesn't make it through the first round? Will that person be automatically allowed to reapply, and will that person have that explained to him or her at the time that they do not succeed in meeting a gold commissioner's satisfaction for these minimum levels?

Hon. A. Edwards: I've already assured the member that that's the case.

J. Tyabji: I didn't hear that assurance, but that's good to know.

I think the most difficult section of section 4 has to be subsection 4(a). Whenever something comes in that takes out the necessity of making reference to Canadian citizenship, that always raises a red flag. When I see in the explanation that it says it removes "Canadian citizenship requirements for applicants for a free miner certificate to comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement," the thing that strikes me is: why would this government bring this in? Why would this government -- who brought in a motion against NAFTA, whose federal party has come out strongly against NAFTA -- bring in a provision to remove from the definition of "corporation" the reference to Canadian citizens?

What this definition does, in effect, is take section 7 of the Mineral Tenure Act, which is titled "Free miner certificate...." In the section where it says, "For the purposes of this section, 'Canadian corporation' means..." and lists four different things that a Canadian corporation means.... And then it says: "...in which at least 50% of the directors are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada." What this minister is doing with this amendment is taking out the line that says: "...in which at least 50% of the directors are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada."

I spent some time with this, because this bill has been on the order paper for some time; my amendment has been on the order paper for some time now, and I don't understand why this government would bring in this amendment. Unless this government is under the impression or has been advised that it would be vulnerable to reference to an all-party tribunal 

[ Page 15510 ]

or an international tribunal under NAFTA, why would it remove the provision that says that a Canadian corporation must have at least 50 percent of its directors be Canadian citizens or permanent residents? If they're not Canadian citizens, they have to be permanent residents. This, I think, goes to the heart of what this bill is about, because although we see that the gold commissioner gets a lot of powers under this bill, we know that the provisions of NAFTA are being brought out by this government, which is just something that I don't know if I'll ever understand.

But what is most important to flag is that the mining industry in British Columbia, for the last couple of years, has faced some of its stiffest competition from Chile, and that Chile is currently in discussions with the signatories to NAFTA to come into NAFTA. So at the same time that one of our largest competitors is thinking of coming into NAFTA, our own provincial government is removing from the definition of a Canadian corporation the provision that at least 50 percent of its board be permanent residents of Canada or Canadian citizens.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member from somewhere -- Skeena -- is asking me if I supported NAFTA. I totally oppose NAFTA; I campaigned against the Free Trade Agreement and against the North American Free Trade Agreement for this very reason. When we talk about the generation of wealth in this province and in this country, and when we talk about sovereignty, it goes right to the heart of a tiny little amendment like this. Something this small can have an impact. Mining is still, I believe, the third largest industry in British Columbia; it certainly generates an enormous amount of wealth in this province. That sovereignty is something most of us should cherish very deeply, and when I see an NDP government bringing in an amendment to remove a reference to Canadian citizenship, then I know that we should be very worried about the future of the province and of the country, if we're concerned about -- as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour talked about -- the people who are unemployed right now in the Kootenays. And I know -- I've been there and talked to many of them -- that there are people who are worried about not working. The minister is saying that there isn't a problem with unemployment.

D. Streifel: Name names. Who did you talk to?

J. Tyabji: I don't even want to begin to list them, because if you talk to people in the Mining Association....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I'm sorry, hon. Chair, but I'm not going to carry on separate debates in this chamber.

With respect to section 4, I think this is a shameful amendment. I think this amendment should be stood down from the bill. I think that this government should have talked to its caucus, because I've canvassed the members of the government, and they're not even aware that they're taking out...

D. Streifel: Name names.

J. Tyabji: I would encourage the member for Mission-Kent to put his comments on record so that we can then engage in a legitimate debate.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: And the member for Skeena is saying it's investor-friendly. I see how the priorities of the NDP are changing.

An Hon. Member: What has that got to do with the section?

J. Tyabji: This section is about Canadian citizenship and Canadian corporations in the mining industry. It is also about the applicants for free miner certificates, and it's about the North American Free Trade Agreement. It should be stood down. And after I hear the minister's comments, then we can move into the amendment.

[7:45]

Hon. A. Edwards: I'll deal first with the amendment to section 7(1) in the act. This, as it stands, did not restrict in any way the complete foreign ownership of companies that operated in Canada. So it was a toothless clause; it didn't work. What foreign-owned companies did was appoint Canadian directors, and it did nothing to require Canadian ownership in any company that worked here. The only way you can manage foreign ownership in this country is through federal legislation. So we have given up trying to ensure that companies which come in have Canadian directors, because that doesn't do anything for ownership.

As far as the actual free miner citizenship is concerned, we've put in requirements that they be "age 18 or over and ordinarily a resident of Canada for not less than 183 days in each calender year or authorized to work in Canada...." We believe these will be the kinds of requirements that will deal with what happens in the industry right now. We are not going to have hordes of Chileans pounding on the door, because that is not the way the competition works. But almost every country in which miners operate these days has no restriction on citizenship in order to get a free miner certificate.

In order to fit in with the full global pattern of things and, again, in order to allow the industry to work as well as it wants to work -- and certainly it likes this amendment -- this amendment is here. It requires that people live a large part of the year in Canada or that they have a work certificate to be here. Those requirements, we think, really serve the purpose of the province.

J. Tyabji: With all due respect to the minister, that is one of the worst answers I have ever had for something this important. What the minister has said is that, for the purpose of this section, corporation in the act now means a company that doesn't even include Canadian directors. We now have a definition of Canadian corporation that doesn't even include Canadian directors. The minister is shaking her head. That is exactly how it reads.

She was talking about foreign ownership of companies and saying: "All that that section of the bill -- that one line -- meant was that foreign-owned companies came in and appointed a bunch of Canadian directors, and they were still foreign-owned." Well, what she's doing is removing the provision for them to appoint those Canadian directors, so now not only are they foreign-owned, but they have foreigners as their 

[ Page 15511 ]

directors. And they can now be defined as Canadian companies, Canadian corporations. This minister is saying -- because she said that it was just a bunch of directors who were Canadian and that wasn't enough -- that she's now removing the provision for them to be Canadian directors. That's a step backwards.

She talks about moving toward the global definitions for labour and corporation. The difference is that in the act we're not talking about the definition of corporation, we're talking about the definition of Canadian corporation. The act says "Canadian corporation," and she has removed the only provision for Canadians to be in that corporation. So it's wide-open now.

As for the mobility of the free miners and the provision that they have to be "age 18 or over and ordinarily a resident of Canada for not less than 183 days in each calendar year or authorized to work in Canada," that's pretty wide-open. Basically what this says is: a Canadian corporation is now anything that fulfils those four requirements; it doesn't have to have any Canadian citizens as directors; and a free miner is someone authorized to work in Canada. That's also wide-open.

The minister might say we're not going to have "hordes of Chileans" coming into Canada, but what about mobility of capital? What have we seen there? I'm sure the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has comments on this as well: the mobility of technology; the mobility of capital; the mobility of experts; the mobility of the research and development that we've been doing in British Columbia. We've seen that mobility from our mining industry, and it's headed south. What do we see now? We see this minister saying: "Well, that wasn't enough. Now we're going to remove these citizenship provisions. We're going to remove the restrictions, the minimal, small...." These were pathetic restrictions anyway -- we're in agreement on that -- but why would you get rid of them? Why would the minister get rid of these anomalous provisions that were in the act as it stood?

I'm just staggered that this is an NDP government bringing this in. I don't know if this minister consulted with her federal counterparts, or if she talked to some of the other NDP ministers or critics -- I guess that would leave one other province now -- before she brought this in, and if this is something they felt compelled to do; but before I move my amendment, that's what I would like to ask. Did this minister feel that she had to amend the act with subsection (a) because she was compelled to do so because Canada is a signatory to the North American Free Trade Agreement, or did she choose to do that?

Hon. A. Edwards: I think a reading of the act as it is will indicate that the definition of what is a Canadian corporation will now be left to other legislation. It will not be determined for our purposes under this legislation. It will be determined by the Company Act, the Company Clauses Act, the Trust Company Act or the Insurance Act. Those acts will determine what a Canadian corporation is. So to suggest that the Canadian corporation definition is now wide open because it's not in the Mineral Tenure Act is to misread the legislation.

J. Tyabji: I note the minister didn't answer my question about whether she felt compelled to make this amendment because of the North American Free Trade Agreement or whether she chose to do that. We obviously have a difference of opinion with respect to the reading of section 7, because section 7 begins by saying: "For the purposes of this section, Canadian corporation means...." It talks about a company -- not a Canadian company as defined, but it lists four of them.

What we're saying in this act is that for the purposes of mining and the Mineral Tenure Act, we will now define a Canadian corporation as any company as defined in those other acts. It's not limited to being Canadian, and if we look into those other acts, we'll see there are provisions for foreign ownership. So this minister has chosen to change the definition of Canadian corporation in the Mineral Tenure Amendment Act. It's the only act we're dealing with.

I would like to move the amendment under my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 4 (a),

Add to the end of section (a) the words "and substituting the following: 'in which the directors of the Canadian corporation have, as one of their objectives, the general interest of Canada.' "]

The reason this was brought in was because the Mineral Tenure Act says Canadian corporation, specifically. It doesn't talk about a corporation which is allowed to mine; it doesn't talk about a company for the purposes of the other acts. It's talking about a Canadian corporation, and because it is doing that, we felt it was important, in the absence of Canadian citizenship provisions, to tie to that the general interest of Canada, so that somewhere within the definition of a Canadian corporation there should be a reference to the general interest of Canada. That way, even though the minister has removed the provision for those directors to be at least 50 percent Canadian citizens -- they can be citizens of any country, but they're directors of something defined as a Canadian corporation by this minister -- they have to have the general interest of Canada as one of their objectives. That's pretty wide open, but it was impossible to move an amendment to this section and be in order, other than to have an open-ended amendment.

So I move that amendment, and I would hope that the minister could understand that some of us are very concerned that when we talk about a Canadian corporation, we're also talking about the general interests of Canada, and that notwithstanding the North American Free Trade Agreement, we have the ability as a sovereign country to allow the general interests of Canada to prevail within the context of the international agreements to which we are signatories. It's a very important point, and I hope the minister will see fit to allow this to stand as a friendly amendment.

On the amendment.

D. Jarvis: I'll be brief and say that the members of the eastern Kootenays chamber of commerce have stated that they feel that this NAFTA compliance is not necessary, and they do not want it in.

Hon. A. Edwards: I assume the member for North Vancouver-Seymour means the chamber of mines. Is that correct?

I would like to say, as simply as I can, that I believe that the impossibility of defining this clause legally.... If it were put into legislation, it would be bad wording. So we will vote against the amendment.

[ Page 15512 ]

The Chair: I don't think a great deal of debate is required on the amendment.

J. Tyabji: I don't plan to have a great deal of debate. I just want to put on the record that I am extremely disappointed that the minister has prejudged the outcome of some sort of possible legal challenge in the definition of a Canadian corporation on something as important as the general interest of Canada. I would have hoped that this minister would have erred on the side of caution, and allowed for some reference to Canada's general interest in the definition of a Canadian corporation when she's taking out the amendment for the board of directors. It would have given us something to protect our mining industry at the NAFTA table, because we do know the pressures that exist on it from foreign interests.

[8:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

D. Jarvis: I believe the member for Okanagan East will be submitting another amendment, to subsection (4).

Prior to getting that, I wonder if we could go back over one aspect: what the minister was saying about the gold commissioner and transferring her powers to a civil servant. She was saying that everything would be in order, and I appreciate that everything would be in order, unless that political appointee or civil servant was an unreasonable person.

I'm talking about section 7(2)(a)(ii). That person wanting a free-miner's licence must go to the gold commissioner and prove to him that he is capable: that he has a standard knowledge respecting mineral exploration and a good knowledge of integrated resource management principles in British Columbia. The minister, we know, really couldn't give us that answer herself, because she doesn't have an understanding of it. I said that the free miner -- the man or woman applying for the licence -- would have to write an exam. The minister said there would not necessarily be an exam. I suggested that maybe all they have to do is have a sheet of paper with the rules and regulations on it. No answer came out of that. Then the minister said that he has to prove that he has read something with some knowledge of it.

Then we get down to section 7(4) that says: "Despite subsection (2)" -- where a free miner is required to have certain amount of knowledge.... He has got to be either politically correct.... That's what I think it means, because when we come to this part where she says that the gold commissioner does have unreasonable powers.... It says here that the chief gold commissioner may issue a free-miner certificate to an applicant who does not meet the eligibility requirements because of legitimate circumstances acceptable to the chief gold commissioner. That is where the powers are given to the chief gold commissioner. I'm wondering if the minister could relate to us and satisfy us as to what all the legitimate circumstances acceptable to a chief gold commissioner would be, notwithstanding the fact that that person could not comply with section 7(2)(a)(ii) -- standard knowledge of mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles of British Columbia.

Hon. A. Edwards: The reason this clause is here is to deal with estates. There are times when someone owns, as a free miner, a certificate, and because of that they own a claim. When they die, the person who would fall heir to the claim has to be a free miner -- or at least they have to be a free miner to dispose of the claim. There has to be that circumstance in order for someone to deal with the estate of a person who had a claim as a free miner in British Columbia. That is the circumstance that this amendment would deal with.

D. Jarvis: If that example is such that my father dies and leaves me his claim and I don't have a free-miner certificate.... I could go to the gold commissioner, and he would issue me a free-miner certificate. What if I decided that I wasn't going to dispose of my claim that I have inherited? What would he do? Doesn't that make it superfluous? I am now out on the road and entitled to go out with my free-miner certificate and explore where I want to explore.

Hon. A. Edwards: There are people who don't live in this country who may own mining claims. If they have an estate they need an executor to deal with that estate. Under those circumstances, the gold commissioner could say that they may conduct business in this province to deal with this claim.

D. Jarvis: If that's the case, then, the only legitimate circumstance we're talking about is in the event of an estate. If that's the only event we're talking about, why wouldn't we simply amend this and say it is applicable to an estate situation?

Hon. A. Edwards: Well, I suppose there could be a circumstance involved with a bankruptcy, too, or some other circumstance like that. These are the kinds of things that are anticipated by this amendment.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for her explanation, because we're getting to the point where you have abdicated your rights by transferring your powers to a gold commissioner who may be an unreasonable individual, and he may be able to give a free-miner's certificate to anyone he wants. Or he may say: "No, you are not politically correct, you don't belong to the party that's in power now, and my minister says: 'Don't allow him to have a free-miner's certificate.' " So that gold commissioner can restrict who he wants to give a free-miner's certificate to. To be or not to be, as I said earlier.

What you're saying is that the legitimate circumstance is acceptable, but that a melange of different things could hap-

[ Page 15513 ]

pen. It's not for estates, it's not for this, it's not for that. But it could be for this or it could be for that. So there again, this non-clarity you have in all your bills makes people feel insecure. The minister is smiling again when I say these things. She doesn't appreciate that's how people are feeling out there in the industry, and this is where she gets her support.

So can the minister say that a legitimate circumstance acceptable to the chief gold commissioner is anything that comes into the chief gold commissioner's mind at the time? If he likes the individual and if he's politically correct, he will give him a certificate; if he's not politically correct, he will not give him a certificate. Would the minister agree with that?

Hon. A. Edwards: Again, I hope it will clarify it if I draw attention to the fact that this would allow a free miner's certificate in order for someone to conduct business in B.C. Another example of what we might be talking about is if there had been a fraud perpetrated. So the point here is that someone needs a free-miner's certificate in order to deal with this free-miner claim -- to conduct business, to sign the papers and to move it over. The gold commissioner will make that decision.

[8:15]

I think, hon. Chair, we've spent a lot of time talking about whether a civil servant can do certain things that civil servants do every day, and which the minister is automatically responsible for. In legislation sometimes it says that the minister does it, and the minister will do it on the advice of the civil service. Here it says that the gold commissioner can do it, and the gold commissioner remains responsible to the minister. So we are trying to strike a balance there. This is not a matter of trying to devolve responsibility down so far that it won't matter, so that we can escape responsibility. Ministers are responsible for what goes on in their ministries; civil servants are responsible to the minister, and they do administrative work and they advise the minister.

So I think that argument is really one of balance. I think this is the best balance -- that's why it's here. The section is specifically to deal with people who want to conduct business; it is not for people who want to go and mine.

D. Jarvis: Before I pass it on to the member for Okanagan East to deal with her amendment, I just want to say that it certainly is a surprise, for a party that stands up and says that they're for people's rights all the time. This whole bill is an infringement of people's rights, especially in the mining industry of British Columbia, and this is just another.... There's nothing wrong with civil servants or appointees having.... I appreciate that they do things every day that are similar to this, and all the rest of it, but they're not incorporated into these bills that give the people a bad feeling that compensation is being taken away from them, or their rights to having a free miner.... Things that they had in the past are now all being changed by this government.

L. Fox: Not that I want to quarrel with the official opposition's critic on this issue, but I note that in section 7(4) of the existing act the minister may, by order, authorize a free-miner certificate. This indeed does give the chief gold commissioner the freedom, I would suspect, to interpret regulations that would come down, and it gives, perhaps, some guidelines as to on what basis he or she, as gold commissioner, could indeed issue this certificate. I would see that as probably a depoliticization of the issue, unless the gold commissioner were indeed a political appointee. But my understanding of the gold commissioner is that he or she is not a political appointee. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Edwards: The gold commissioners, in my experience, are career civil servants. Of course, what you're talking about is at the leisure of any government.

L. Fox: Then just to follow up a bit, would there be specific guidelines drawn up in order to guide the gold commissioner in issuing these free-miner certificates that would follow in regulations, so that there would be some consistency applied in terms of how these certificates are issued?

Hon. A. Edwards: The commissioner certainly advises me that when he makes a policy change, he is very careful with it because there are maybe 10,000 other people who would be able to use that precedent. So policy changes are rare, and they certainly have to be very clear, as much as possible, and as specific as we can make them.

L. Fox: I have two more questions. Firstly -- and it may have been asked already, but I was out for a few moments; I apologize if it was -- why 183 days? Secondly, section 7(2)(a)(ii) talks about integrated resource management principles. Could the minister maybe define, in short form, what she means with those particular four words?

Hon. A. Edwards: This may answer your question: 183 is half of 365, plus a half. So if someone is living in the country for half a year at a time.... That certainly would cover more than a general mining season. It would have to be a long mining season if someone were there.... Anyway, that's what it is. It's a six-month measure.

I have already answered the other question you have, but what we have tried to say is that there are some principles in British Columbia about resource management. We have integrated resource management where we have more than one resource sector working in the same area. We have some principles. People need to know what rights they have and what rights others have, so that when they go out into an integrated resource management area to exploit a resource, they know what the principles in our province are.

L. Fox: I have just one further question. Six months or 183 days.... I wasn't quite sure why it wasn't 180 days; that's what we usually consider six months to be. I understand the rationale. It seems to me that if we look at where some of the shortest seasons are in terms of goldmining, one would be in Atlin. If you lived in the country and worked your placer mine in Atlin -- actually, there are more than just placer mines in Atlin -- you would live up to the obligations of this clause, because the season is slightly longer than six months. In fact, many times it's seven months.

J. Tyabji: We note that section 7(4) says: "Despite subsection (2), the chief gold commissioner may issue a free miner certificate to an applicant who does not meet the eligibility requirements under subsection (2)." -- if they need to conduct business. What I think is interesting is to note how this is different from the act prior to the amendment.

[ Page 15514 ]

We know that we have just seen a change in section 7 of the act under this section of the bill. We've taken out the Canadian citizenship provisions from the definition of a Canadian corporation in this bill, and we have taken out the Canadian citizenship provisions for the issuance of a free-miner certificate. Before it was amended, subsection (2) read that on application, a person had to be "18 years of age or over and a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada...a Canadian corporation, or...a partnership" of people from those two groups.

What this bill is doing.... First of all, we know that the designation of Canadian citizen has now been removed from "Canadian corporation." We know that under section 7(2)(a) we now have a person who doesn't have to be a Canadian citizen and only has to live here for six months. The minister has said that this tends to coincide with the mining season anyway, so it doesn't have to be somebody who has lived here for any length of time or has any interest in the future of Canada. We've talked about a minimum prescribed standard of knowledge, and we don't know what that is yet -- although it's supposed to be done in consultation with the mining industry.

What seems to be lacking from section 4 is an allowance for the general interests of Canada to be upheld by those people who are mining in British Columbia. That has been removed from the definitions of free miner and Canadian corporation under this act.

Given that we have removed the Canadian citizenship provisions, the amendment that I've put on the order paper for subsection (4) is:

[SECTION 4 (c):

Add the words "provided the applicant can demonstrate that she/he has, as one of his/her objectives, the general interest of Canada." following the words "conduct business in British Columbia."]

This amendment, as the minister can see, is similar to the amendment that was moved before. It has been done in order to tie up the loose end that has been left by removing any reference to Canadian citizenship. Even if we have to remove the reference to Canadian citizenship under NAFTA, we do not have to remove a reference to the general interests of Canada for NAFTA if we have it as one of the objectives of the people who are performing mining in British Columbia.

I would move the amendment to this section. I won't be calling a division on this, because we've just had a division vote. I would say very strongly to the minister that I can't stress enough the implications of what this section of the bill will have for the future of mining in this province. Without some kind of reference to the general interests of Canada, loose though that may be, there's absolutely no safety net for those of us who would like to see our country's interests be one of the general objectives of the people who are performing mining in British Columbia. It doesn't have to be an overriding objective. It doesn't have to be an act prescribed by law -- it couldn't be, under NAFTA. But if we have it as a general objective, it's something where we would at least be able to question the actions of people who are going to perform mining in British Columbia if it were deemed that those actions were not consistent with the best interests of the country.

So I move that amendment, and I hope the minister can support it.

On the amendment.

The Chair: The amendment is in order.

Before I recognize the minister, may I just caution members that we had an extensive debate on the previous amendment, the basic intent of which was precisely the same. We canvassed it at some length. It would seem to me, then, that we don't need to have another protracted debate on this particular amendment.

Having said that, I'll recognize the minister.

Hon. A. Edwards: I just want to point out that despite the member's comments about Canadian corporation, it is still required that we have a Canadian corporation. So there is constantly this definition that it is not Canadian anymore because it's defined somewhere else. It must be a Canadian corporation, so that is there.

As far as the actual citizenship is concerned, I say there are very few occupations -- I can't think of another one right now, and certainly can't think there would be one added -- where Canadian citizenship would be required. There may be professions, but there are not general resource sector exploitive activities that require Canadian citizenship. As with any other industry, the mining industry wants to have that there. So the objection to this amendment is the same as the objection to the last one.

J. Tyabji: Just briefly.... I don't know if the minister has understood that when we talk about Canadian corporation for the purposes of section 7 of the act, she's removed the provision for Canadian citizenship. So we're not talking about the definition of Canadian corporation that might exist in another act; we're talking about how she has defined it in this act. And she has just removed that. We can't say, "It's a Canadian corporation," and therefore it's a Canadian corporation. She just removed the requirement for the 50 percent citizenship for the directors.

In addition to that, with reference to the Canadian citizenship and occupation comment that the minister made, in most of our wealth-generating sectors -- for example, in agriculture or in forestry -- we don't have mobility of capital and tenure as we would with mining. Mining is one of the few industries that historically has been extremely mobile. It has been one of those industries that will move. People move very freely; capital and research and development can move across borders fairly freely.

That was probably why there was a Canadian citizenship requirement in the first place. You hardly need that with a farmer, because a farmer's going to be someone who lives on that land anyway, so they would automatically fulfil the requirement for permanent residency. That's why this is not exactly a typical wealth-generating industry.

[8:30]

Amendment negatived on division.

D. Jarvis: I hate to keep pushing this on and on, but there is obviously a philosophical disagreement on the testing of potential free-miner's certificates.

Did the Chairman have a comment there? No.

Interjection.

[ Page 15515 ]

D. Jarvis: Well, we have. We just finished doing an amendment on....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I think I have the right to go down.... This is the last section of section 4.

As I said, we have a philosophical disagreement on the testing of potential free miners, whether they should get a ticket or not, the appointment of the gold commissioner and all the rest of it. So I believe we should indicate, and I'm going to ask the minister if she is prepared to clearly tell the people out there, that no person who is knowledgable in prospecting or mineral exploration will be excluded from acquiring a free-miner certificate. Would the minister state that?

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm sure that any prospector or miner who is skilled and knowledgable would pass any test that the gold commissioner would put to them.

[A. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

D. Jarvis: Would the minister say that no person will be excluded? Not whether they have the knowledge she doesn't think they will. Will she guarantee that they will not exclude someone who has the full knowledge of mineral exploration and prospecting?

Hon. A. Edwards: I was interrupted. Could you repeat the question?

D. Jarvis: To answer the minister: she didn't hear me, because the previous Chairman was talking.

What I want to say, again, is that we have this philosophical disagreement. We must clearly indicate to everyone out there in the mining industry that no person who is knowledgable in prospecting or mineral exploration will be excluded. Not what the minister says, that anyone who has that knowledge certainly wouldn't.... I would like a specific: they will not be excluded, not just because they haven't.... Certainly they wouldn't be. Will they not be excluded? It's very simple. That's all she has to say.

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm being tested. I'm being examined to see if I can.... I'm sure that no one in this chamber wants a person in this province to have a free miner certificate without being able to demonstrate the basic information one would expect them to have about people's rights in the area where resource extraction takes place and to know their responsibilities under our integrated resource management principles.

D. Jarvis: The minister is dodging the question again. When she said that no one in this chamber would want it, I beg to differ with you. That's why we've been calling the yeas and nays on the votes, and why we're going to vote against this section. That's ridiculous. It's obvious that the minister will not guarantee the miners that now have free-miner certificates.... If they have the knowledge that the minister wants, their certificate won't be taken away. We can conclude from the minister not wishing to make that statement that people with miners' certificates will not be excluded from obtaining a free-miner certificate.

Section 4 of Bill 13 approved on the following division:

On section 5.

D. Jarvis: I want to say to Madam Minister that I'm really happy about this section 5, the first part of it: " 7.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who is not a free miner may hand pan for recreation purposes." Now, I've gone out and hand panned, and it's going to be the first time that this government isn't going to squeeze a dollar out of the miner in this province, fortunately. But I'm rising to the point....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: No, I don't even pay tax on it.

In any event, I would like to speak to subsection 71.(2). It is not a big concern, really, but I just thought that it.... You have down here: "A person must not hand pan on a valid mineral title unless the person receives permission from the recorded holder of the mineral title." But I think there should be consideration of putting "written permission" in there, because quite possibly, at another time.... You know, the old story: "No, he shouldn't have been in there." "He gave you permission?" "No, he didn't give any permission, etc., etc." Would the minister consider that?

Hon. A. Edwards: We believe that permission that is solid -- that you can prove -- is enough.

[8:45]

L. Fox: I think the minister should look at that suggestion with a little more seriousness. What constitutes permission? And on what basis? And in what region of this claim? I would think that written permission is a very reasonable request and would absolve the chief gold commissioner of a situation where there may have been a change of mind by an individual, and then they would say that they had not received that oral permission. I think you're opening the door here to....

Interjection.

L. Fox: Yes, the member suggests chaos. I'm not so sure chaos is the word, but you are opening the door for difficulties 

[ Page 15516 ]

in an agreement that was achieved between two individuals and may, for whatever reason, break down. Without a written permission slip, you could run into trespass charges and all kinds of things. I think the minister should seriously consider the suggestion that was made to amend this, and put in "written."

Hon. A. Edwards: Miners are honourable people, and in general, when they're there and there are hand panners....

Interjection.

Hon. A. Edwards: Well, the member seems to indicate that miners are not honourable people. I suppose there are some of those, too. Without elevating this to a contract situation, we have put in the act that permission must be granted and assured.

D. Jarvis: I really wasn't insinuating whatsoever that miners aren't honourable people. What I was trying to say was that there is confusion sometimes, and the minister should know full well that what is said to one person or is said.... A person can come onto a claim and talk to the person's spouse, and a month or a week later, whatever it is, the other spouse would say: "No, I didn't give permission." Who is he to know? But if he'd had written permission, that would be it.

But it's obvious that the minister is going to try to push this draconian socialist bill through the House, and it's a typical NDP government. It's a badge of courage to stand up, even with a simple little amendment like this, to get this bill to pass without amendment. That's your badge of courage. You have no rationalization of how people think and how they do things out there. As far as I'm concerned, we might as well just pass this whole bill right now and forget about it. But I would never get to that position.

L. Fox: I really believe that you are going to make the job of the gold commissioner and those who have to settle disputes between individuals a whole lot easier if, indeed, the request for written permission is given. If somebody is recreationally hand panning on a claim, and somebody comes along and says, "Now look, where is your permission to do that?" there is nothing that has to be produced. All the individual has to say is, "I received permission from the person who owns this claim," and then you have nothing at all to fall back on. It's not only a case of somebody who might break their word because of a conflict, but I think also a case of identifying a true trespasser. I think it would be important -- and I'm sure the minister would see the importance -- to be able to identify that trespasser.

With that, hon. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to section 5, section 7.1(2), to add the word "written" before the word "permission."

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to speak in favour of the amendment to 7.1(2), because I think that the members have outlined fairly clearly that it's not enough to just have permission. If one person is alleging that there is permission, and the other person is alleging that there is not, then the minister would have created a worse mess than what existed prior to this section coming into force.

Before this section we had recreational panners who may or may not be causing difficulties on a claim. Now we have the opportunity for permission to be received, but we could get into all kinds of fights about whether it was or was not. And just to make it a lot easier for the minister's staff, I would imagine written permission is a good idea. So I would support the amendment.

Hon. A. Edwards: This section was meant to help clarify what has been going on for years and to make clear that you do not need a free-miner certificate in order to hand pan, and that you should have permission if you want to pan on a mineral title. When a mineral title is granted, it's the holder of that title that should manage the mineral resource at that point. This gives that person the tools to do so. It is not something that the gold commissioner is going to get involved in. It's very unlikely that that would ever happen. A hand panner without a free-miner certificate is not going to be having a dispute that is going to involve the gold commissioner.

What this is, is an attempt to codify, if you like, what has gone on for years, which is a courtesy notification of the mineral title holder and permission before a hand panner pans on that title.

L. Fox: I don't take issue with most of what the minister is saying. But what typically happens -- from my experience in my part of the country -- is that in an area where claims are known and where there is known to be the opportunity to pan gold for recreational purposes, that is policed not by the gold commissioner, not by any inspector, but by the neighbouring claimers, the people who have those claims. Somebody sees a recreational person doing some panning on another person's claim, and immediately they go over and say: "What are you doing here? This is Joe Blow's claim." If I don't have written permission from the owner of that claim, I immediately -- because those folks are pretty protective -- have quite a problem. It would be in my best interest as a recreational panner to make sure that (a) if I'm going to pan in a respective area, I identify whether or not there are claims on it; and (b) if I want to do some recreational panning there, I find out who the owner is and get his or her written permission to pan. It seems quite logical that I would not want to be, I guess, harassed or, indeed, be told where to go by those folks, who can get very protective over their respective claims. I think it's very reasonable, and it would accommodate a very smooth transition and make a whole lot less confrontation between a recreational gold panner and those who legally have the claims.

Hon. A. Edwards: I think having written permission is one way of having permission. If a gold panner wanted to have it, they certainly could have it, but there are other ways of getting permission. The goal here is not to make this more bureaucratic and require more hoops that have to be jumped through. I certainly see no problem with having written permission if that makes it easier, but there are other ways to get permission.

L. Fox: Just one last thing. I'm very disappointed. This is, I think, a very good amendment, and the only reason the minister is not accepting it is that it seems to be against her will to accept any amendments. It's rather unfortunate that a minister gets so protective over a piece of legislation that she 

[ Page 15517 ]

isn't prepared to accept good input, reasonable input and reasonable rationale behind a very simple amendment. All it would require.... It would make it a whole lot smoother and clearer for those folks who want to do recreational panning to know what permission means when they look at the literature that's obviously going to be produced around this new legislation. If it was clear in terms of the word "written," then there would be no difficulty for the individual to understand what they had to do before they went out and started panning gold in a respective area. I think you owe it not only to those folks who own the claims but to the recreational panner to make doggone sure that you don't put him or her in a situation that is going to cause them embarrassment, and perhaps it could even go as far as legal problems.

Hon. A. Edwards: Our reading on it is that it doesn't need that much form or actual structure. If the opposition member feels very strongly that it needs that much structure.... I don't think it's going to make that much difference. I am not resisting an amendment from any principle, because the principle is only how much is required to make it work. If the idea is that you want a written piece of paper, which could be, I assume, a piece of notepaper or anything at all, I really don't have a principled objection to it. What I don't want to do is create a bunch more requirements that people are going to resent. Our sense of it is that this is reflecting what currently goes on. Why don't I simply suggest that I don't think it's necessary.

D. Jarvis: I just don't believe these statements that the minister is making now. It's unbelievable. You know, talk about jumping.... She doesn't want her people to be jumping through hoops, going through all this.... But in the section right before this, the miner has to go out and have a "standard of knowledge respecting mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles in British Columbia." Under the next section, he's got to know the Criminal Code, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Mines Act, the Mining Right of Way Act and the code on health. What the hell does she think is going on? All they're asking for is to put one little word in. Now, smarten up!

R. Chisholm: It seems that we're spending a rather large amount of time on one small word, but the fact of the matter is that if it isn't in there, we're going to spend an awful lot of time in the court system. The court system is already backed up, to the extent that it doesn't work. It's high time we eased the pressure on the court system. A simple little handwritten note is really not much to be obliged to do if you're going to go onto somebody's property -- which this is -- and pan for gold. These people can be very possessive, as has been mentioned in earlier speeches.

I think one word in this piece of legislation will alleviate a lot of court cases in the future, which we can ill afford in our justice system, which is falling apart. As the Attorney General, who just came in, can tell you, it's backed up. We don't need more court cases, especially of this minor nature. Let's just put it in there, and it will alleviate that problem.

I hope the minister is listening, because it isn't such a big thing. But it can be a big thing in the bureaucratic mess later on down the road and in the court system.

[9:00]

Amendment negatived on division.

L. Fox: It's too bad the Attorney General hadn't been in.... I recognize that he's busy, and I'm not faulting him. The discussion around that amendment, even though it failed, was a very reasonable discussion. I think it would be worthwhile if the Attorney General could have a good look at that before this section passes.

Without something that defines "permission," we're in real trouble in this section of the act. Perhaps "written" wasn't the right word; perhaps the minister has another suggestion. I can see all kinds of confusion coming forward, with individuals not being able to identify that they do have permission from the claim holder. I can see all kinds of harassment of recreational panners that the minister has never envisioned. I have been into gold claim areas -- recreationally as well as on other individuals' claims -- and I know how protective people can be over their claims. I'm afraid that because of that, I'm going to have to vote against this section.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

D. Jarvis: I would like to say that we're making remarkable progress. We're now starting on section 6, and we've been at this for almost eight hours; there are only 41 sections left to go. We're doing well, so hold on. I wonder if the minister realizes that the majority of the people on this side of the House -- who represent far more ridings than she does -- are all in disagreement with her and that people out there are not happy with this bill.

With respect to section 6, I would like to ask the minister if I could see if she has any clarification.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: We are hearing a lot of nattering from the member for Mission-Kent, especially for someone who doesn't live in a resource area -- that's what we're talking about here -- and has nothing to worry about. I'll tell you, the rest of his friends across the floor certainly have something to worry about -- that's for sure.

Before I was rudely interrupted.... I would like to ask the minister: in this section it says.... We were talking previously about the dictatorial powers given to the gold commissioner, and the minister said no, there are no dictatorial powers given to him.

I would just like to mention that in this section -- contrary to the previous section, which only asks for the fact that he had to have knowledge respecting mineral exploration and integrated resource management principles of the British Columbia government -- he now has to satisfy the gold commissioner that he has complied with and has a full knowledge of the activities related to the mineral title, this act, the regulations, the Criminal Code, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Mines Act, the Mining Right of Way Act, or the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia. If he hasn't got a good knowledge of all that, the gold commissioner has the right to cancel his licence.

If someone contravenes the Mines Act or does some simple infraction, are they liable to actually lose their free-mining certificate? If this is true in here, any miner out there must have more knowledge than a lawyer. I shouldn't use that 

[ Page 15518 ]

expression, because sometimes I suspect how much knowledge lawyers have. There, again, you're just piling all these requirements on the free miner that he has to have all this knowledge. You know full well that most of the explorers -- the people who go into exploration out there -- don't come into this business with PhDs. They're people who worked in mines all their lives.

They walk out or they're flying over country like Eskay Creek, for example. How do you think that was discovered? The guy who put through Eskay Creek simply was flying back and forth to the Premier mine and saw some discoloration on the side of a mountain up there. He went back on weekends and discovered probably the richest goldmine in the history of British Columbia. That's how he discovered it. I don't know whether he had the knowledge of all these things.

But now, if someone doesn't have this knowledge, your civil servant can take away his licence. Would the minister like to clarify some of these points? You know, maybe I'm wrong; maybe I'm right.

Hon. A. Edwards: This section is quite straightforward. A free miner must obey the law. There are quite a few laws that the free miner must obey. Now, under these new statutes, the free miner will probably be aware that he must obey these laws and have an idea of what they are, in case he or she didn't already know.

This says that if the chief gold commissioner has information that a free miner has broken or contravened a law, then the gold commissioner will notify the miner of the particulars of the contravention. So it's not that they are going to cancel the free-miner's certificate, but that intention and also the particulars of the contravention will be in the notice.

The free miner at this point has the option of requesting a hearing. If the free miner does not request a hearing, then the gold commissioner may go ahead and cancel the certificate. In any case, if the free miner gets a decision that she or he does not like, then the person may appeal the cancellation to a judge of the Supreme Court. It seems to me that that's the kind of process that happens to people who are licensed to have the kind of rights that free miners have.

D. Jarvis: Well, that might be true. I can't see where all the miners would violate the laws. I don't think they go out purposely to violate the laws. They're in the business. Most of them have been in the business for a long time, and they're not going to go out and do it.

But these powers are too broad to be given to a civil servant, and it's ridiculous in the sense that you've got to be a courtroom lawyer to know what you're doing here. The individual may not be politically correct to the gold commissioner, he could have his licence lifted, and we'd go through a lot of nonsense. This stuff is just typical socialist mumbo-jumbo that they're putting into this to create more problems, and I will be voting against this section.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I'll try to be heard among the yellings of the back bench, who take offence at the socialist-dogma label thrown at them.

An Hon. Member: He didn't say dogma; he said mumbo-jumbo.

J. Tyabji: Or mumbo-jumbo. I will remind the member for Mission-Kent that there was a witch running in his neighbouring riding, and I believe mumbo-jumbo is in the vocabulary of witches. So perhaps that's where the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was pulling his reference from.

Section 6 is one of the worst sections of the bill -- and we've had a lot.

An Hon. Member: That's what you said about the other sections.

J. Tyabji: Well, it's hard to choose. A lot of them are pretty bad.

The reason that section 6 is a problem -- and I'm glad the Attorney General is here for this debate -- is that we have the power of a court being transferred to a senior civil servant, and we have the accountability provision going from the minister to a senior civil servant. So what does the senior civil servant have the ability to do? We see that if the chief gold commissioner is satisfied -- it doesn't describe in what manner or what kind of evidence has to be produced -- with respect to activities related to the operation or use of a mineral title, that a free miner has contravened this Act, the regulations, the Criminal Code, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Mines Act, the Mining Right of Way Act or the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia, the chief gold commissioner must notify the free miner of the particulars of the contravention, and of the intention to cancel the free-miner's certificate.

At the time that the free miner receives certification, I'm not sure to what extent a free miner is going to be provided a list of all his or her rights or responsibilities under all these various acts, or whether it will be something that the free miner can request. We know that in a previous part of the bill, in order to be practising as a free miner, the free miner has to satisfy a gold commissioner that he or she has met all the requirements of the integrated resource management -- whatever it was in here -- principles with the minimum level of knowledge of mineral exploration, and all the things that we don't even know because they haven't been determined yet.

Once that person gets to that stage, then they have to be concerned that they may have contravened these acts. We don't take issue with the fact that those acts are important and that we obviously want to make sure the Criminal Code and all these other acts prevail. But if we start to look at things like the Heritage Conservation Act, that one is a real mess.

Last year we debated that for a while in this chamber, and we know that a rock could be deemed to be something that has heritage value and that a free miner may unwittingly contravene the heritage act by, for example, taking action against a rock. The minister may not have been here for those debates, but the minister for Small Business, Tourism and Culture was the one who brought that in. There was a long debate about what the definition of a heritage object is. When we see a debate like that and how open-ended it is, we see how easy it would be for the free miner to contravene that act without even knowing it and without even being aware of his or her rights or responsibilities under those other acts. So I guess one question would be: in what manner does the free miner have to be served with notice by the chief gold commissioner, and where is that laid out?

[ Page 15519 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: The method of notification is by registered mail to the last known address of the free miner.

I feel I should respond a bit. I can't imagine that if a particular rock had gone through a process to be deemed a heritage rock, that someone working in that area wouldn't know about it. I think a little common sense is appropriate here. Anybody who is working in the areas of our province where the resources are found knows that they must not contravene the Criminal Code, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Mines Act, the Mining Right of Way Act or the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia. They are going to be working in that sector, so if they have made some serious contravention.... If the particulars of the contravention are so severe that the gold commissioner has decided that that licence should be cancelled, then that will be laid out by the gold commissioner and sent by registered mail to the last known address. That is the way miners work with the government over title and other requirements they have. They have an address at which they can be notified, and there is the expectation of following rules.

The appeal procedure is the same as it was before. There is an appeal to the Supreme Court. Following that, there could be an appeal to the Court of Appeal by leave of the Court of Appeal. The only difference is that it no longer requires that the minister make this decision; the gold commissioner can do it. Again, it's a matter of balance. We believe that this is the kind of decision that a gold commissioner can reasonably and appropriately make.

[9:15]

J. Tyabji: With respect to the reference to the Heritage Conservation Act -- and I don't expect the minister to be aware of that act in any detail -- it does not provide for a rock that has already been deemed heritage to be something that if the miner impacts on it, the miner contravenes the act. In fact, it's only if the rock qualifies as something that may be deemed heritage that the free miner could find himself or herself in contravention of the Heritage Conservation Act. I'd be happy to look up that section of the bill. That was an extremely contentious bill at the time; we spent hours on the definitions. I know some of the members in the House right now tried to get that definition pinned down and were not successful in that, and the minister should be aware. There isn't going to be some rock in the middle of a plain with a big sign over it saying: "This is a heritage rock." For the purposes of the aboriginal provision in the Heritage Conservation Act, it would just have to be a rock that was on a route that was habitually used by aboriginal people historically to maybe be deemed a heritage site, and in that way the person could contravene this act now by contravening those other acts.

As to the service by registered mail that the minister was talking about, could she tell the House whether the 30 days begins to expire at the sending of that notice, or is it at the point where the registered mail is received by the free miner?

Hon. A. Edwards: Normally, service of notice means when the notice is received.

J. Tyabji: So at the point when the notice is received, the free miner then has 30 days to appeal to the chief gold commissioner. Why did the minister pass over her duties in this respect to the chief gold commissioner, rather than keeping the accountability with her office?

Hon. A. Edwards: A similar sort of thing, I guess, if you would be interested in analogies, is the powers that go to a conservation officer or a Forest Practices Code officer. These are the powers that go to civil servants who operate at this level of knowledge and proficiency.

J. Tyabji: The public says -- at least those people I have talked to; I have had extended conversations on the issue of accountability and the role of the government in adjudicating or determining when there has been a contravention and what the penalty should be -- that we actually need more accountability in our institutions rather than less. So if the minister is saying that there are other examples out there of a system whereby a civil servant has the power of a court, I would agree with her. It is true that there are examples out there, and it is those very examples which are making people extremely angry that the powers have not rested with the branch of government that retains accountability. The minister's office clearly has accountability, because it's the minister. Now we will have the gold commissioner, and I know that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has expressed a number of times how the people in the industry are consistently upset with the fact that now the power is going to be passed over to a civil servant. The minister is, in effect, washing her hands of this prospect.

In addition to this, the 30-day provision for someone to request a hearing is a bit problematic. In the event of the person requiring more time, I don't see an allowance for the waiver of that 30-day limit -- for example, if someone comes in after the limit has expired and would still like to have some sort of hearing.

Hon. A. Edwards: Frequently miners express satisfaction at being able to take their case to the chief gold commissioner, who certainly has a lot more information and knowledge about what happens in such areas as claims-staking and mineral tenure and title than the minister would, no matter what minister you have. That comes out of the history in this province. The gold commissioner has had quasi-judicial powers right from the first gold commissioner in the province. These powers, which are comparable to those of policemen, conservation officers and so on, are not unusual, particularly for the gold commissioner. I think the gold commissioner probably had much more power in the past than the gold commissioner does now, even with these powers. Again, this is a matter of practicality. It is a matter of trying to make the civil service work as efficiently as possible.

J. Tyabji: I go back to the comment that I made earlier: if we want supreme efficiency, we can remove the power of cabinet altogether and pass it over to the civil service or, alternately, put everything through by order-in-council.

On this section, why would the minister not have allowed the gold commissioner, if she wanted to, to adjudicate the proceeding but leave the determination of the cancellation of the licence or certificate with the minister? For example, after the 30-day period or the hearing, the gold commissioner makes a recommendation to the minister for cancellation. At least in that respect, the minister would have the opportunity to have the final say. I would assume that this minister, coming from a riding where there are a number of free miners 

[ Page 15520 ]

who hold certificates, would want to have some ability to be consulted by the chief gold commissioner. I'd like to hear that from her. Why would she not have at least written herself in here as a recommended method?

Hon. A. Edwards: The amendment requires that the gold commissioner do it, not the minister. I would not have to write myself in as minister, because the current legislation has the minister doing it. We have a desire to make government somewhat efficient, and I make no apology for that. We are not anywhere near being a dictatorship, which the member seems to think is the most efficient.... I'm not sure what her measure of efficiency is. A measure of efficiency sometimes has a number of aspects to it.

All I am saying, very clearly, is that we consider the appropriate thing to do in the administration of this act is have the gold commissioner deal with situations such as this. There is for a free miner a course of appeal to one court, and if not that court, to another court. That is the same as it is in the current legislation: if the decision of the minister isn't adequate, they have two levels of appeal.

Levels of appeal are expensive. I agree with the member, but certainly I am sure she would be objecting if they weren't there. I don't think that there's any principled objection to having the opportunity to appeal. I think that there is no principled objection, although I can see a point -- it is much more an argument.... Our position is that as far as the administration of the ministry is concerned, it makes much more sense to have the gold commissioner do these tasks.

J. Tyabji: I should put on the record that although I keep saying a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government, I'm not advocating it. In fact, on the contrary, I'm trying to point out that if we follow the line of logic that the minister has said assisted them in drafting this bill, that's where we would end up. I think that's what the member for North Vancouver-Seymour keeps saying. There's a lot of fear that there are going to be very few provisions for free miners and the mining community to have input, because the minister has been written out of the bill and a civil servant has been written in.

Having said that, the concern that the member for Prince George-Omineca expressed in the previous section about the word "written" is a concern that appears in this section as well. If the minister is saying that the recourse the free miner is going to have -- if that person's certificate is cancelled -- is through the court system, then the one thing the court system will demand is evidence. And it has to be tangible evidence; it has to be in the form of writing. That hasn't been allowed for here. Litigation is a very expensive way to go. There's no question we would be arguing against this minister if she hadn't provided for it, but the point is that that should be a last avenue of resort -- not the insurance policy that the minister has built in against the civil service.

I move the first amendment to section 6 that I have on the order paper.

[SECTION 6, line (a) (1) by adding, after "must notify" the words "in writing", and, after the words "a hearing." the words "A copy of such notice must be provided to the minister."]

The reason that that amendment is in there is that here, again, we have notification that it's not specified that it would be in writing, and we'd like that clarified. For example, we wouldn't like to leave on the shoulders of the gold commissioner the responsibility for doing that, and have that person say, "Oh well, we contacted the person personally, and the person has not responded," because there's no tangible, physical evidence of that. If there is going to be litigation later, you'll need a paper trail.

And the reason that we also add in there that a copy of such notice must be provided to the minister is that we are sure that this is an extraordinary circumstance and that the minister would want to be directly aware of what was going on in an action that was solely in her jurisdiction prior to this amendment. Prior to this section of this bill the minister was solely responsible. So if she's going to hand it over to the gold commissioner, she should at least be notified when the gold commissioner takes action under this section.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

So I move this amendment, and I guess I'd like to move the second amendment as well. Because at this point, after all the amendments that have been moved with so little support from the minister, I can't imagine that she's going to finally pass one, but the....

The Chair: I'm sorry, member, but I think, given that we are dealing with it section by section, I can't really take an amendment on section 7 at this time.

J. Tyabji: No, it's section 6.

The Chair: Oh, I apologize, member. I see you have two under section 6. Go ahead.

J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair. They are related amendments.

So I move the second amendment on the order paper.

[SECTION 6, line (a) (3) (a) by adding, after "person affected," the words "and to the minister,".]

The reason that's in there is that we believe if the gold commissioner takes the extraordinary measure of cancelling a certificate, the minister would want to know that. The minister would want to be aware not only when notice has gone out but when a certificate has been cancelled. And I assume that that's the very least the minister would want to be involved in, given that this used to be solely in her jurisdiction.

We feel very strongly about this, because without it we don't allow for a lot of protection for these people, on two fronts. We know that in this arena, politics always comes into play and that one of the things we offer as elected representatives is the ability to be somewhat accountable. Without the minister even being notified, there is no accountability at all. But, for example -- heaven forbid -- let's say there was a series of certificates being cancelled. If the minister has been notified, then at the point where an opposition member brings it forward because the opposition member has been cancelled by the free miner, the minister's not blindsided by something which used to be totally in her jurisdiction. It's a mechanical amendment; it's an amendment which is a protection to the minister, and it's also a protection to the free miner. Hopefully, it's something that will make this a more effective section of the bill.

On the amendments.

[ Page 15521 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: I need direction, because I don't know what amendment we're dealing with at the moment. There are two parts to the first amendment on the order paper, and there's another part. I would prefer to deal with.... Are we dealing with them all as a lump, or are we dealing with them one at a time?

The Chair: My suggestion, hon. minister, would be that if we're all agreeable, we deal with them as one block -- as a lump, to use your phrase.

Hon. A. Edwards: Actually, I was going to say that I have no objection. If the opposition feels it would be better to have "a copy of such notice provided to the minister" or, by the second amendment, "and to the minister," I really have no objection whatsoever, if the member thinks that will give protection. But I see no reason to put in that they must notify "in writing," because "notify," in legal terms, means in writing. There's no need to do that. I would not agree to that part of the amendment, but I would agree to the others if the opposition member feels they are necessary. I will agree to that amendment, but I will not agree to adding "in writing."

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Okanagan East, may I ask for a clarification? Is the minister accepting the two amendments, save and except the words "in writing" on line (a)(1)? I hope that clarifies it, then.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps I would then propose a friendly amendment to the amendment, to line (a)(1), which would remove the words "in writing" after "must notify." If we remove those....

The Chair: I think that is understood from what we've said thus far.

[9:30]

Hon. A. Edwards: If I have to vote against.... I don't want to mess up this legislation with words we don't need. I don't think the member means to repeat. It's a redundancy. In the legal terms of legislation, if you "notify," that is in writing. So I don't think the member means that, probably. I'm willing to accept the other amendment, the two additions, because I don't think that that goes against anything we intended. If the member would withdraw that phrase, "in writing," I will accept the amendment.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps we can get direction from the Chair. It's my understanding that if I put forward a friendly amendment to remove the first section of section 6, line (a)(1), as I've read it out -- to take out from the words "by" to the words "and...."

The Chair: My suggestion is that we don't need another amendment or motion to do that. Rather, what we have already agreed upon is to accept the two amendments standing in your name, save and except the phrase "in writing." The question, then, would be in order on the amendment.

J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair. I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised after all this discussion tonight. I would like to thank the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, because I do think that if her office is notified, that will make the mining community a bit happier with this section of the bill.

Amendments approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

J. Tyabji: We're just making such lightning speed here, I'm having a hard time keeping up. I know I have an amendment here, but I have to look it up.

First, before moving the amendment, I would like some clarification from the minister on this section, on what she meant by having: "If a dispute arises between (a) recorded holders on the same mineral lands, or (b) a recorded holder of a mineral title and a person having a right under another enactment to a mineral substance in the lands to which the mineral title relates...." In the original act, there is a specific reference to mineral tenure rights, and in this one we talk about recorded holders. Why was that change brought in?

Hon. A. Edwards: This is the current Mineral Tenure Act I'm looking at, in section 1 on interpretation, under the definition of "recorded holder." You will find that it means "a person whose name appears as the owner of the mineral title on the record of that title in the gold commissioner's office of the mining division in which the title is located, and includes the agent of that person." So this is redundant.

The Chair: On section 7, I haven't had an amendment moved yet.

J. Tyabji: I'm assuming that when we're talking about mineral title, all the mineral tenure rights would be included. If that's the case, then obviously it's a repetition to have that amendment moved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

The Chair: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

D. Jarvis: I'm going to sit down. I have to collect my thoughts on this again. Go ahead.

J. Tyabji: We know that a definition of bulk sample has been added in the definition section. The minister spoke a little bit about that in section 1. Could the minister tell us what this new section will mean to the mining industry and how that will play out? It's all new territory for us.

Hon. A. Edwards: The response of the mining industry, of course, will be very favourable, because the previous requirement was that any holder of a claim on a bulk sample could only produce a bulk sample of 1,000 tonnes per claim per year, which might or might not have suited the purposes of the claim holder. This allows some discretion to be used so that the environmental requirements can be met. In other words, there will be discretion to require that; but if it seems 

[ Page 15522 ]

reasonable that 1,000 tonnes is not enough, then a larger amount can be allowed under this section. Or if it is not needed, that can be controlled as well. This is an attempt to respond in a way to the needs of the claim holder.

J. Tyabji: I am having a hard time getting my head around this section, I have to say. Section 11.1(1) says: "Subject to subsection (2), the recorded holder of a claim must not produce minerals or placer minerals from the claim." Then section 11.1(2) says: "The recorded holder may, with the prior written approval of the district inspector appointed under the Mines Act, produce or cause to be produced a bulk sample from the claim." Unless I'm missing a section from the original act -- and maybe it's section 11, where we are talking about surface rights -- why is there a provision that says "the recorded holder of a claim must not produce minerals or placer minerals from the claim"? Is it because of production being tied to the definition of bulk sample? If that is the case, then we need more details. If it's not, I don't understand the word "produce" with respect to their claim.

Hon. A. Edwards: The difference is.... I did refer to this earlier. Basically, you cannot produce a mineral unless you have a lease. But this will be a claim, and you can have a bulk sample.

D. Jarvis: Would this not affect the ability of the small miner to operate?

Hon. A. Edwards: I think this may help small miners, in fact. If you want to produce a mineral, you have to get a lease. This gives you the opportunity to do a bulk sample and take out enough ore to get tested to see whether you want to get a lease. What we're dealing with is the extraction of a certain amount of ore that gives you a sample, and it gives you more information about whether or not you want to make the commitment to a mining lease.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

J. Tyabji: I'm interested in the change in wording in the disposition of surface rights. The original act says: "...where a person holds a claim that is located on land that is unreserved land owned by the Crown and is not lawfully occupied for a purpose other than mining." What is the difference in changing "a claim" to "a mining lease," especially given the changes that we've seen to bulk sampling and the reference to lease that we had in the previous section? Does the word "claim" have another meaning under a different act? Is that what's coming into play?

Hon. A. Edwards: When you move from a claim to a lease, you do that in order to produce minerals. You then need some surface rights in order to produce that mineral. What goes along with that, of course, is the requirement that you would do long-term reclamation. The mining lease gives you some surface rights but requires some reclamation. That is the difference. Then you have a long-term right to use land on the surface, and you also have a requirement. That's what a lease does, rather than a claim.

J. Tyabji: I'm assuming, then, that the reference to mining activity that replaces the development and production of minerals is for the purpose of capturing that reclamation activity under the definition of mining activity. So are we talking about the responsibilities that exist after the exploration or production of the minerals? Is that why that second section is changed?

Hon. A. Edwards: Essentially, that's correct. After exploration, you then get the lease.

D. Jarvis: I simply want to state that I believe that this section is just a further diminishment of the free miner's rights, and it diminishes a claim holder's priority. Would the minister like to comment on those statements?

Hon. A. Edwards: This section also protects a miner who is doing reclamation from interference from others and from the possibility of liability.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

[9:45]

G. Wilson: And now for something completely different. We had already flagged this section 11 earlier on, and I think the minister knows exactly what it is we're going to go after here, because there is concern. If one looks at the existing act and reads there what section 14 says, in effect we are talking about priority of rights on Crown land. Section 14(3) says:

"Where a disposition of surface rights to Crown land, whether surveyed or unsurveyed, is made and at that time a mineral title is in good standing over that land, then the disposition of surface rights shall not diminish the rights of the recorded holder, except to the extent determined otherwise by the Mediation and Arbitration Board in a decision under section 16(3)."

That has been removed and replaced by what we have in front of us, and essentially what they have done is break out the gold commissioner under section 10, the minister under section 15 and then the Mediation and Arbitration Board and the settlement under section 16(4). The concern we have, partly, is why it is necessary for there to be the kinds of powers accorded to the gold commissioner in this particular instance, and secondly, what is meant where it says, under subsection (3) in the preamble to the four sub-subsections: "...at the time of disposition there is a valid mineral title over the Crown land...."

That causes us some concern, because what is feared here is that priority rights to land are going to be diminished if there are arguments advanced that title over land may fall to another jurisdiction. I'm obviously referring to first nations claims. That provides by three various means for the rights accorded to somebody, who has otherwise been given a right to mine -- it provides an opportunity for those licences to be overwritten. That causes us a great deal of concern. I wish the minister could alleviate those concerns by explaining the intent of this section if that in fact is not so.

Hon. A. Edwards: Basically, this lays out an order, which says if the mineral title is there first, it has priority over a surface title that comes later. Or if the surface title belongs privately first, then the mineral title might come second if there is a conflict. If in fact that is all in order, then there will be no diminishment of rights except by these, in order.

[ Page 15523 ]

Now, the first one is by order of the chief gold commissioner, under dispute resolution. The second is by order of the minister under section 15, which we will deal with in a minute. But there are certain requirements; these are limited, by the way -- very limited. Then third is by the Mediation and Arbitration Board. And fourth is by a quitclaim agreement.

In no case can the right be taken away. In other words, the tenure cannot be taken away and can't be taken by any of these people. But it can be diminished, restrained or restricted somewhat by certain circumstances. This really is a reflection of what happens sometimes, as circumstances require. This puts it into the legislation.

D. Jarvis: It's rather interesting that the question I'm going to ask now I asked about the next section, but I was in the wrong section. It will be interesting to see if I get the same answer back from the minister.

In any event, I'm now awake again and ready to go for another couple of hours. This is truly a very draconian section of the bill; there's no question about it whatsoever. It further diminishes the free miner's rights and the claim holder's priority to the land. The minister has said that it doesn't take away tenure, but it diminishes the rights. It's been mentioned to me before. This section can be applied anywhere: somewhere like Windy Craggy. You're diminishing the rights to the free miner, and Windy Craggy in this instance would be a....

How do we know you're not going to apply this to the situation with Windy Craggy? The Windy Craggy situation has not been settled. It's been almost a year now. I think that on June 17 it will be two years since your Premier stood up.... I can remember him standing up and saying there would be quick and fair compensation on Windy Craggy. To this date, nothing has been done whatsoever. That's just typical of your government: when it comes to following the rules after they have been made, you don't follow them; you make your own rules as you go along. This is a good example of what you're going to do. You're going to cause unbelievable trouble throughout this province.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I hear the member for Skeena, who comes from a resource area.

An Hon. Member: He's going down.

D. Jarvis: He's going down so fast that it's not funny. He won't survive, because this is the attitude he takes toward his constituents. He will not support his constituents, and all his constituents make their living from the resource industry.

The Chair: Could we focus on section 11.

D. Jarvis: Anyway, I would say that this is a bad, bad section. The whole thing should be pulled right out, even before the whole bill is pulled out. This is bad business for the mining industry in this province. God knows why the socialists are putting things like this in to destroy the mining industry in this province. I'm going to vote against it.

Hon. A. Edwards: I will indulge myself with a short comment that brings to the attention of the House that all of these eventualities, all of these four situations, deal with dispute resolution. What you will have is a situation where there is an attempt to resolve a dispute. Where the rights of one have conflicted with the rights of another, an order will be made in which there could be a restraint on the tenure. There can be no taking of the tenure. That is not even included. It's a restraint on the tenure that can be made in cases of a dispute. In this case, it could be a dispute that's being decided by the gold commissioner, by order of the minister or by the Mediation and Arbitration Board.

The Mediation and Arbitration Board was listed in the current act. Other sections of the act said the same thing that we are putting here. In other words, it gave the minister and the gold commissioner the opportunity to do exactly what is here; it was in a different place. Now there is also the opportunity for owners of claims. If that kind of dispute comes up, there can be a resolution.

G. Wilson: I don't want to overtly disagree with the minister here, but unless I'm misreading this section, I just don't think the interpretation holds up. What the minister is saying is that there is no proposition for removal or cancellation, and I don't think that's true. Section 14(3)(b) says: "...by order of the minister under section 15...." Under section 15, which we're going to get to in a minute, it says "...the recorded holder or other person conducting operations in respect of a mineral title does not comply with...." And one of the things that they may not comply with or may contravene is the protection of a protected heritage property. That causes some concern, because the action that the chief gold commissioner can take is to put such onerous restrictions on the miner that they effectively can't do anything. You may have a right to the mineral, but you certainly can't do anything to get at it. That's what causes us concern, especially with respect to first nations negotiations. If the first nations negotiations demonstrate that this is a heritage property or that they have an a priori claim, then presumably the chief gold commissioner, the minister, or the Mediation and Arbitration Board can then act on that in a manner that makes the extraction of minerals impossible.

Hon. A. Edwards: May I suggest that we debate that in section 15? This section simply clarifies under what sections we do it. Pardon me, I've worded that incorrectly. It clarifies and puts together the parts of the previous act that were already there, and it says that under these circumstances there can be a restriction on the mineral title. It does not allow for taking the mineral; it allows for a restriction on the actual tenure. As to what those restrictions can be, we will discuss that partly under section 15.

G. Wilson: Except that it's almost impossible to look at the intent of the section without understanding what's in sections 10, 15 and 16(4). It's under those sections that those powers are delegated, so we more or less have to look at those sections. The other problem is that it says "...the disposition of surface rights does not diminish the rights of the recorded holder except to the extent otherwise determined by...." It says it doesn't diminish the rights, unless, of course, the gold commissioner, the minister or the Mediation and Arbitration Board diminishes the rights under the sections which have empowered them to do so. We have to look at them in concert with those other sections, because that's what empowers those individuals to act.

[ Page 15524 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: This does collect them all in one place, but the actual power of what can be done -- for what the minister can do -- will be dealt with under section 15, and this is, as I say.... The actual discussion of what those restrictions can be, can be discussed in another clause.

[10:00]

G. Wilson: I wonder if I might suggest that maybe the minister would set this section down until we are done with 15, then, and we can come back and see the full implications. You can't look at this one in the absence of the other. Either that, or we could just vote against this, and then find out why we did it when we get to section 15 -- which doesn't make a lot of sense.

Section 11 of Bill 13 approved on the following division:

Hon. A. Edwards: Considering the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Interjection.

The Chair: I regret to advise members that the motion isn't debatable.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:08 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Schreck in the chair.

The committee met at 6:41 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 35: minister's office, $432,868.

The Chair: The convention is that the minister now has up to 30 minutes for an opening statement.

Hon. A. Petter: I am pleased to present the Ministry of Forests estimates for the 1995-96 fiscal year. Over the last three and a half years, British Columbia has seen a remarkable and dramatic change in the way we manage our natural resources, and in particular our forest resources. Security and certainty are finally replacing the history of valley-by-valley land use disputes, as British Columbians come together to make decisions on which areas should be protected and which are secured for sustainable resource use, economic development and job creation.

The neglect of the forest resource that was part of the sad history of this province over recent decades has now been replaced with a new focus on renewing our forests and taking better care of them so that we can sustain all of the important values of our forests and have the jobs, which the forests have generated in the past, continue into the future.

These changes would not be possible without a new sense of partnership and a shared purpose, which our government has worked hard to foster, among those with a stake in our forests -- in particular, forest workers, communities, environmentalists, companies, first nations and government itself. The past was very much marked by attempts by governments to play off workers against environmentalists against communities, usually to the detriment of all three; this is now giving way to a new era of cooperation and partnership that is showing up in many of the initiatives that have been undertaken by this government in cooperation with the many groups who have an interest and a stake in our forest resource. Together we've come a long way over the last few years, and we're starting to see that hard work pays off in dividends for our forest sector and for British Columbia as a whole.

Public confidence in B.C.'s forest policy and practices is growing, both at home and abroad, and that confidence is already translating into more secure markets for our forest products overseas and greater stability for B.C.'s forest communities and forest workers. Indeed, B.C.'s economic record over the past three years has been an enviable one, and the forest sector has been a major factor in that economic performance.

Direct employment in the industry is up 15 percent over the last three years, from 91,000 in 1991 to 105,000 in 1994 -- an additional 14,000 jobs. Capital expenditures in the forest industry have climbed by 30 percent since 1991, from $1.43 billion to an estimated $1.9 billion this year. As well, with our ideal location, abundant natural resources, highly skilled workforce and world-class infrastructure, we continue to attract new business and investment at a truly enviable rate.

[ Page 15525 ]

I'm proud of what our government is achieving in conjunction with British Columbians around the province. At the same time, I recognize -- and I think British Columbians recognize -- that to ensure the continued health of the forest sector, we must build on these achievements. We must continue to invest in the future of our forests, our forest workers and our forest communities.

There are some who say we can't afford these investments. Instead of investing in our future, they argue, the government ought to leave that future to others. The reality is that for many years we had governments in B.C. that did exactly that. The near-disastrous results that flowed from that neglect are, indeed, the policies that we have had to change and the state of the resource that we are now trying to remedy. The results were instability for communities and for forest workers, and instability on the land base.

[6:45]

Just to give a sense of how great that neglect was, I wanted to briefly quote from a recent article by one of the leading professional foresters in the province, Rob Kyle, who recently wrote an article documenting what occurred in the early 1980s. In that article he referred to the fact that at the very time professional foresters and the Forest Service were saying, in the early 1980s, that we would be facing severe future timber shortages unless forest management budgets were increased, the government of the day decided to pare back on forest investments -- indeed, to pare back radically, to the tune of 70 percent -- and to leave the future, at that time, to others.

He then goes on to quote an interaction between a reporter for a Vancouver newspaper and a representative of then Premier, Bill Bennett. Referring to the reporter's conversation with the representative from Mr. Bennett's office, he wrote: "Asked why the government was slashing forestry budgets so drastically, this official replied that forestry was thought of by the government as a sunset industry. 'Besides,' he said, 'people don't care about forestry; there are no votes in it.' "

Well, that was the attitude of the past, in the early 1980s. It was that attitude and the consequences of that attitude -- the lack of investment, the lack of vision, the lack of commitment to the future of forestry -- that created so many of the problems we now face and that we are now reversing through these policies. I think British Columbians should be very concerned about those who, as was said in the early 1980s, wrote off forestry as a sunset industry. Certainly this government has made it very clear that we regard forestry not as a sunset industry but as a sunrise industry, one in which future investment is absolutely essential to ensure future jobs and the future health of the resource itself.

We know that the people of British Columbia do care about forestry. We believe, too, that by acting now we can ensure a long-term sustainable future for our forests and forest sector. We're simply not prepared to allow that future to be determined by others. That's exactly what we proved over the last three and a half years, and we intend to go on proving it.

In consultation with the people of British Columbia, our government has developed a plan for the province that will allow us to build on our achievements in forestry and other areas. Under this plan we are taking action to make our economy more productive and efficient by making affordable investments in three areas: (1) the skills of B.C.'s labour force; (2) the modernization of the province's infrastructure; and (3) renewing B.C.'s natural resource base, particularly our vital forest base.

The Ministry of Forests spending estimates that I'm presenting today set out a component of that plan to ensure that we continue to work to renew and sustain B.C.'s forests in 1995-96. One of the most important focuses of my ministry this fiscal year will be to push forward with the implementation of the major forestry and land use initiatives that have been put in place over the last two years. In particular, we will be working hard to ensure a higher standard of forest stewardship in B.C. through the implementation of B.C.'s Forest Practices Code. I think it is particularly appropriate that these estimates are taking place this evening, because tomorrow the Forest Practices Code comes into legal effect. Tomorrow will mark a very important step forward in forest management in this province for that reason.

Implementation of the code obviously means major new responsibilities for staff in my ministry and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Last year we began gearing up for those new responsibilities by launching an intensive training program for staff, deploying staff to our district offices where they will be needed the most and hiring new staff to work on code planning and enforcement. This year we will be carrying on with and completing that process.

We will also be continuing our provincewide timber supply review. This review is designed to give Ministry of Forests staff and the public accurate, up-to-date information to set sustainable harvest levels and to gain the information we need to make strategic investments to ensure that the future of our resource is well provided for. We can start to reverse those downward trends that flowed from neglectful policies of the past.

I can tell you that my ministry will be working with communities and forest companies to address the challenges and the opportunities that will result from the timber supply review. As well, we'll keep working with communities, first nations, industry and other government ministries to bring certainty to B.C.'s commercial forest land base and protect important wilderness areas through land use planning.

I think one of the most important results to come from land use planning is the creation of the forest land reserve. The legislation for the reserve was passed in last year's session and will enable us to ensure that forest companies and forest workers have the secure access to timber resources that they need.

I recall that last year during the estimates debate members of the opposition asked: "Why don't we have a legislative framework in which we can secure a forest land base for commercial forestry?" Notwithstanding their opposition, we passed that legislation, and we now have that opportunity. We intend to use that legislation to ensure that the forest land base is given the same measure of security that in the past has been enjoyed only by those who hold agricultural land or care about parkland. The forest land base is surely as important in terms of commercial potential, and that land base will be now secured through the Forest Land Reserve Act.

At the same time, we will continue our efforts to double B.C.'s protected areas to 12 percent of the province's land 

[ Page 15526 ]

base. To date, about 9 percent of the province has been protected. So you see, we're well on our way to meeting that goal. That goal in turn is part of creating greater land base stability and greater security for the future as people become more confident that all the values in the land base are being provided for.

My ministry will continue to play a significant role in the implementation of the forest renewal plan. Our government put a major forest investment plan in place last year in cooperation with our forest partners: forest companies, workers, communities, first nations and environmental groups. That partnership has, I'm pleased to say, grown and flourished over the last year. As a result, we now have a very effective board partnership agency that is administering the plan. Over the next few years, it will invest up to $4 million a year -- dollars raised from increased stumpage and royalty fees -- in our forests and forest communities in order to increase the health and productivity of our forest lands and create new jobs for forest workers. It will ensure that we have an adequate resource base for the future.

To manage that investment program, as I've said, we created a partnership agency -- Forest Renewal B.C. Ministry of Forests district staff are working with Forest Renewal B.C. and forest communities to plan and implement the forest renewal projects in their areas. We're already estimating that new forest renewal projects for 1995-96 in areas such as watershed restoration and forest tending will create an estimated 4,500 direct and 2,500 spinoff full-time jobs.

Unlike previous governments, and those across the floor who aspire to government, our government has demonstrated a clear vision of the kind of future we want for our forest sector -- a vision we have developed with our forest partners. It is a vision that includes a healthy forest environment, a strong forest industry, viable forest communities and good forest jobs, not just for the next five years, but into the next century.

We now have in place the framework to move forward, based on a sustainable resource base, based on the stability of the land, based on a strategy to invest in the future and based on growing public confidence at home and internationally in what we're doing. This year's budget estimates move us along that path, and it's for that reason that I am very pleased to be here presenting these estimates.

During 1995-96, my ministry will continue to work with forest workers, industry, communities, environmental groups, first nations and other government agencies to ensure that this vision continues to be fulfilled in this province and that we continue to move forward to achieve that sustainable forestry base that we all desire and the stable communities which depend upon it.

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

W. Hurd: You do me a disservice.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Surrey-White Rock. I apologize, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Thank you for that timely correction, hon. Chair.

This is the fourth set of estimates that I have now participated in in this committee, with the current minister and with his predecessor, the current Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. Since this is, I suppose, a year in which the government will ultimately be going to the people of the province to seek a mandate to continue, I think that it is important for us, during this set of estimates, to review what has occurred over the past three and a half years -- the changes to which the minister alluded and, more importantly, how we can measure the impacts of those changes and the success with which licensees, communities, the government and the Ministry of Forests have been able to cope with them.

In preparing for this set of estimates, I had a chance to go back and look at some of the findings of the Peat Marwick Thorne summary, particularly where it pertains to resource rents and the entire resource issue. The interesting thing about that document, besides the cost to the government of some $1 million, was the number of findings with respect to a number of ministries of government, but particularly those that deal with resources.

This document really sought to measure outputs from ministry expenditures -- the kind of results, if you can use that term, that can be measured, verified and audited in the field. It seems that those are the issues that we hope, on this side of the House, to raise during this set of estimates. I think the minister has often talked in the chamber about the vision that he claims his government has. That's understood when the changes proposed are dramatic ones. But the difficulty continues to exist both for people in forest-dependent communities and members on this side of the House to really discern the impact, the success, of the programs that are being proposed. I think it's really important to get some of the fundamental truths that exist for forestry in British Columbia in 1995 on the record.

One of those facts is that our forest soils consistently underperform on a world scale. We get less harvest from our soils than perhaps any other jurisdiction in the world. There is a tremendous opportunity for incremental improvements to the harvest with the types of investments that we know can increase long-term growth and yields.

The minister has suggested, and continues to suggest, that the best way to achieve those investments is under the auspices of a Crown corporation. That's the vision the government has and that's the position they've taken. There is no doubt that having dedicated revenue designed for forest-enhancement work is an important development. However, given the opportunity to invest the money in proven silvicultural techniques which would increase growth and yields.... When we look at the mandate of the Forest Renewal B.C. corporation, we see a five-envelope group of committees with a mandate to invest....

The Chair: Hon. members, I regret the bells signify a division in the other House. This committee stands recessed until the division is concluded.

The committee recessed from 6:58 p.m. to 7:08 p.m.

[D. Mitchell in the chair.]

W. Hurd: I was making a brief statement when the division was called in Committee B. I was talking about the best way to invest in the forest land base in British Columbia. One of the graphs that I'm often struck by is the comparison 

[ Page 15527 ]

between the level of investment on private-managed forest land compared to various forms of forest licences. It's quite a dramatic difference. With a reduced land base available for forestry in British Columbia, clearly the challenge ahead of us is to find a way to induce that kind of investment on public lands in the province.

That leads us, inevitably, into a discussion about the whole notion of tenure reform in British Columbia. This is something that I know has been raised by the opposition repeatedly during estimates and in other forums. It is about the need to review the licensing system in British Columbia to provide more incentives and more interest on the part of licensees, large and small -- and communities, from that standpoint. The idea of a community forest tenure exists in the city of Revelstoke.

The whole notion is that we have to find a way to increase the level of security in order to induce a higher level of private sector investment on the forest land base. I think that continues to be the missing component in forest management in British Columbia. We know the government has developed a Crown corporation model, which was what I was alluding to when we broke up for the vote in the House.

The mandate of that corporation is to invest in growth in yields, but also to make direct investments in communities, in value-added manufacturing -- appointing a wood-design chair at the Kootenay School of the Arts, for example. Some of the other measures come to the fore that really take us well away from the whole sphere of silvicultural excellence and enhanced forest management in British Columbia.

Just before I leave Forest Renewal B.C., one of the things that tends to trouble me is the information that upwards of -- in my understanding, anyway -- 30 to 40 percent of the work being done under this Crown corporation is in the form of applications from the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests. I know that from a legislative standpoint, there's designed to be a separation here and that the Forest Renewal B.C. corporation is into incremental investments beyond the scope of the Ministries of Environment and Forests.

It becomes very difficult to make that kind of distinction, to discern what exactly the corporation is investing in that the ministry wouldn't otherwise be doing. That again speaks of a need to find a way in this province to galvanize the private sector -- communities, woodlot owners -- to makes those kinds of long-term investments in the forest land base. I don't see that happening, and it's regrettable. I know the minister has talked in the past about tenure farm and has indicated that it's going to be on the government's agenda at some point. We certainly don't see evidence of it in this set of estimates or in anything that's come before us in the House.

The other issue I wanted to briefly talk about during this round of opening statements is the whole notion of the annual allowable sustainable harvest in British Columbia. In the past I've talked in this chamber about the importance of setting a target level for harvesting in British Columbia -- a goal of a sustainable level of harvest. I've listened carefully to a presentation by the chief forester of the province on where he sees the annual allowable harvest heading. I think he mentioned a figure of 62-63 million cubic metres, which one hopes can somehow be mitigated, because the results, as we know, would be very difficult for many communities, particularly forest-dependent and resource-dependent communities. I'm gratified and encouraged to hear the minister talk now about sustainable harvests in the province and about establishing a target level for British Columbia. I think Mr. Stoney of the International Woodworkers of America has talked about 71 million cubic metres off public lands, believing that that represents a sustainable figure. That figure is shared by some in the industry.

I'm troubled when I note that the minister, in suggesting that we should have an annual allowable harvest target in British Columbia, attempts to tie it in some way to the maintenance of employment. I was quite surprised to hear the minister make reference to this during the recent Price Waterhouse conference. I'm sure he will take the opportunity to correct me if this is erroneous, but the impression I had from the minister's remarks was that we can and should pursue a target harvest for British Columbia. It's a relatively new concept. We haven't heard it from him in the past, but he did say that we could do that. He also said that we need to require some level of employment in exchange. I certainly hope that during the course of this set of estimates we can investigate this and ask what work is being done by the ministry to come up with that sustainable harvest level.

I hope we can also investigate whether, within the mandate of Forest Renewal B.C., we should above all else attempt to mitigate the rationing-down of the annual allowable harvest and scrutinize the investments that are made to see whether they actually increase long-term growth and yields or represent short-term job creation measures that might look good in an election year but don't provide the kind of long-term stability to which the minister alluded.

[7:15]

I suppose the other point I can make is on the ongoing debate over the impact of the regulations and standards in the Forest Practices Code. The minister has claimed that the impact will be no more than 4 to 6 percent. As the critic for Forests -- and having now been joined by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who I know has been in contact with the licensees in his forest region -- I've seen reliable studies which indicate that the impact is much greater than 4 to 6 percent. What continues to create concern and instability is just trying to determine where the annual allowable harvest is headed in terms of the Forest Practices Code alone.

The minister made reference in his remarks to the considerable challenge his ministry faces in dealing with the myriad of changes we have seen in the last three and a half years. I certainly concur with that, having had the opportunity to talk to some district staff and licensees at functions that I've been to. It's obvious that there's a tremendous challenge. I'm aware that during the last fiscal year the minister sent forth an emissary from his office to determine why cutting permits were being inordinately delayed. I will be very interested during the course of these estimates to find out what was reported to the minister and what remedies have been undertaken to expedite the approval process for cutting permits in the province.

So with those brief remarks, I now want to get into a line of questioning with the minister. I alluded earlier to the Peat Marwick Thorne financial summary of 1992, which warned quite correctly about the impact of the alienation of resources and how it will affect government costs and revenues. I think it's important to read into the record some of the concerns expressed at that time by Peat Marwick Thorne, the government-appointed accounting company that was man-

[ Page 15528 ]

dated to look at this issue. They pointed out that the alienation of resources through the withdrawal of land for parks, wilderness areas, urban development and the settlement of aboriginal land claims will affect government costs and revenues in a number of ways, including the reduction of revenues received through royalties, licences and compensation to companies and individuals -- and indirectly through potential reductions in corporate and personal income tax. This assumes that alternative economic activity does not occur or generate sufficient revenues.

Since we are piling up these compensation issues with respect to the Island and the Kootenay land use plans, I wonder whether any effort is being made by the Ministry of Forests to at least address the stumpage and royalty impacts of these reductions in the annual allowable harvest. Or is the mandate for that issue totally within the purview of the Ministry of Finance?

I'd be very interested in knowing whether the ministry is accepting any responsibility or has any resources devoted to dealing with that critical issue, given the fact that for the Vancouver Island land use plan alone, compensation figures in the range of $500 million have been floated out there. To my knowledge, they have not necessarily been denied by the minister. Could he tell the committee, to start with, what work is being done by the ministry with respect to the impacts on Crown revenues for the land use decisions that are in place and reductions in the allowable annual harvest?

Hon. A. Petter: I think I should start by introducing some of my staff who are with me today, for the benefit of members: to my left, Don Wright, assistant deputy minister of the policy and planning division; to my immediate right, Bob Friesen, executive director of operations; and Harry Powell, seated behind me,

I just want to briefly reply in general to the statement made by the member opposite and then come to the specific point he raised at the end. I must say that I find it quite extraordinary to hear the member raising concerns about the productivity of the land and the need to get on with initiatives to increase our productivity and the return from the forest soils, as he puts it, given the complete absence of any strategy on the part of that member or his party to do exactly that -- other than, if I read between the lines, the apparent suggestion that we should start privatizing the land base to provide greater security for those who might want to acquire that land base and start investing, or perhaps to lay off employees, since he seems concerned about the fact we might maintain employment levels in the province, which is apparently an overriding concern of the member and his party.

Yet when this government has taken the necessary fundamental framework steps that must be taken to provide a future that is more productive than the past, he and his party have systematically stood in the way of each and every one of those initiatives. If you're going to increase productivity on the land, the first thing you have to do is deal with land use and get stability on the land. You have to resolve the conflicts and you have to identify the part of that land base that you're going to dedicate to forestry.

This government has done exactly that through two related initiatives: first, there is the land use planning initiative represented by the Commission on Resources and Environment, and the land and resources management planning processes to resolve those long-standing conflicts and establish some stability. I think the results, which certainly have not come easily, have been tremendously beneficial in achieving stability on Vancouver Island, in the Kootenays, in the Cariboo and most recently in Kamloops. Yet the Liberal Party has systematically criticized and stood in the way of each and every one of those changes. They criticized the Vancouver Island land use plan and threatened to undo that plan, and by doing so, tried to create instability rather than the stability that we need in order to have a productive forest land base.

Second, we said that once we had land use plans in place, we had to have an instrument to maintain the productive forest land that was designated for commercial use. We brought forward a Forest Land Reserve Act to create, for the first time in this province, a reserve for commercial forest lands so that licence holders and communities and workers would know the part of the land base that they could rely on to increase productivity and take advantage of that stability. Yet the member and his party voted against that initiative as well. So much for land use stability, the very basis of getting on with the job of increasing productivity.

Then we get to the code -- the need to have a more stable understanding of practices. Notwithstanding the member's claim that he and his party voted in support of the code, the fact of the matter is that they continue to speak against key provisions of the code. In particular, they voted to try to gut the enforcement provisions of the code.

Then we get to the question of investment. The Crown, as the landowner of Crown forest land on behalf of the public, has an obligation to ensure that there is adequate investment. The member seems to mouth a commitment that's similar, yet when this government came forward with a partnership proposal in which industry, workers and communities, along with environmentalists and first nations, stood together as one and said, "We want to proceed with a plan to invest in our forest land base," the Liberal Party stood up and said: "No way. We're against it. Vote against it." Now the member stands up and asks: "What are you doing about productivity on the land?" He is against land use planning, against the fundamental aspects of the Forest Practices Code and against an investment strategy, but he has the audacity to ask that question. The only suggestion he offers is that we should start privatizing the land base in order to provide greater security.

And what does the member say after that? He says he's concerned that as a government, in addition to setting some target levels for the resource, we are saying: "We also believe it's an important government objective to set employment levels to accompany those target levels because, after all, the benefit of the resource is only felt if people get good, secure jobs and communities get stability out of that resource." Yet the member, if I understand the point of his comments, says that he is opposed to setting employment targets; he's opposed to the notion that government should concern itself with the fact that the resource is supposed to maintain adequate levels of employment in this province.

This is further evidence of the complete lack of any kind of coherent policy in this regard. I fear that this is an indication of where we would go if the Liberal Party were ever in the position to direct -- or rather misdirect -- forest policy. I fear that where we'd go is right back where we came from, into the abyss of past governments and their failure to provide for the future the way this government has.

[ Page 15529 ]

The member asks about revenues and land use planning. I hope the member realizes that the costs to the public and the costs to communities of having instability of the land base -- the cost of not having a land use plan -- were tremendous costs that have been removed by land use plans that do include, yes, some additional designated parkland. The Minister of Environment recently released a study, however, that showed that even those parklands produce significant revenues. I hope the member, in his consideration of the costs and benefits of land use planning, doesn't discount the costs of not having land use plans. In the view of this government, those costs certainly far outweigh the costs that have come about as a result of having land use plans.

W. Hurd: One of the wonderful benefits of this being an election year is that the minister has to go forth and sell the same kind of....

N. Lortie: It's not an election year.

W. Hurd: It will be an election year, one hopes; the Premier has made a commitment. I realize that doesn't mean too much these days, but a commitment has been made that there will be an election this year, and the minister will have to go forth and talk to licensees and people in communities and win their support for these land use plans, this new stability and this new commitment to communities that he has talked about. I can tell you that he's going to have a lot of trouble.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

As critic, one of the things that I've been attempting to do for the last three and a half years is go out and listen to people and talk to forest managers. We have a Minister of Forests who doesn't believe it's appropriate to meet with licensees. That's the position he has taken. He calls it sympathetic administration. How in the world can you find out what's going on with the land base if you're not prepared to meet with the people who have been given a licence to take the resource out of the woods? He won't meet with them. I can remember that an owner of a family sawmill came all the way down from the Queen Charlottes to visit this minister, and the message in the House on that occasion was that he doesn't meet with licensees because it might be perceived somehow that he's engaged in the "sympathetic administration" policies of the past. It's pathetic. I've talked to people all over the province who can't get a meeting with this minister. They're losing annual allowable harvest. I've got a report here from one of the tree farm licence holders in the province about the impact of the Forest Practices Code on that particular tree farm. This person can't get a meeting with the minister to discuss the impacts. So he can stand up in this chamber and mouth all the rhetoric he wants to about land use plans and his government's vision and commitment, but the people he's going to have to sell it to are not convinced. They're just not convinced.

I know for a fact that some of the regional managers, who seem to be forgotten in this top-down bureaucratic approach by this ministry, are really struggling with these changes. They're between a rock and a hard place. The minister talks about the million-dollar fines under the Forest Practices Code. The import of a regional manager making an error in judgment is now a critical problem in the province of British Columbia. I feel for some of these regional staff. They are experiencing grave difficulties out there that are resulting in delays in cutting permits.

In my original remarks, I alluded to the circus tour that one of the minister's senior staff made around the province to find out why the cutting permits were not being issued on time. I was up in the South Okanagan talking to some of the forest managers in the Okanagan, and this emissary from the minister's office said: "Look, if you're not getting your cutting permits in time, you come to me in Victoria." That was what she said: "Come to me."

What licensees in their right minds are going to bypass the regional manager in the province of British Columbia and come down to Victoria with a complaint about their management area? We're losing touch with reality in this province with respect to forest management. We've got these plans and processes in place that the minister claims represent a visionary new approach to forest policy in British Columbia, and he can't answer a simple question. Why are we getting far higher yields and growth and long-term stability off public lands in British Columbia compared to private lands? What hope is there, even with the Forest Renewal B.C. corporation, that we're ever going to catch up without some sort of meaningful tenure reform? There's no commitment to that, none whatsoever.

[7:30]

We can engage in this kind of rhetoric in this chamber, but I get back to the fact that it's an election year in British Columbia. The minister will have to do something that he apparently has not done in the last two sets of estimates: he will actually have to go out and talk to forest managers. It's my understanding that tomorrow the minister is going up to Prince George to go out into the woods with Ken Bernsohn.

Hon. A. Petter: You had the opportunity and you wouldn't come.

W. Hurd: The minister says I wouldn't come. As the official opposition Whip, who has other duties in the House, I simply couldn't go. But I'd be happy to go.

An Hon. Member: He's already met with them.

W. Hurd: In any case, he's been invited to go up and go out into the woods. I encourage him to do so, because he will have a chance on that occasion to talk to a licensee in British Columbia. I do encourage him to do this, because I think it's important for him to meet licensees. If he won't do so here in Victoria, he can at least go out in the woods, where nobody can see him, and this whole notion of a sympathetic administration can somehow be laid to rest.

But he still hasn't answered the basic question that I put out there, which was an issue identified in the Peat Marwick Thorne summary back in 1992. The Peat Marwick study expressed grave concern about the cost to the Crown and the impacts of alienation of forest land in the province of British Columbia. Can the minister at least assure the committee, with respect to the impacts of these visionary land use policies that he talks about, that some work is being done to identify the cost to the Crown, if only for the sake of his own government? God forbid, if they were to be re-elected. These are lurking costs that the Peat Marwick Thorne summary has 

[ Page 15530 ]

identified that they want to see addressed. I hope that in the discussion in this chamber, the minister can assure us that that work is being done, as it was called for and recommended in 1992.

Hon. A. Petter: I regret the fact that the member declined the invitation from Mr. Bernsohn to come up and debate the issues of forestry in forest-based communities. Apparently he's full of bluster down here, but when he gets up to Prince George, I guess he'd have to explain why he voted against the forest renewal plan, why he tried to gut the Forest Practices Code, why he's tried to undermine land use plans and why he's against the forest land reserve. I guess he doesn't want to come up to Prince George and answer those questions.

As for meeting with licensees....

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: I know the member's friend is trying to come to his defence, but let me assure him that it's a futile exercise. Each and every one of these initiatives was brought about by an unprecedented involvement of all forest stakeholders.

The Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee, which was put together under this government, brought together large and small companies to help craft a policy. As government, we listened to that policy, those suggestions and that input and consulted more broadly with others. A proposal for the forest renewal plan came out of that. That's what the licence holders said should be done in this province.

We took it forward, and what happened? The one group in the province that voted against it was the Liberal Party. So much for listening to licence holders; so much for listening to the input from the forest industry, which the member mouths platitudes about until he's blue in the face. He should get out and talk to those who are suffering today because of the past policies that he continues to support, which this government has worked so hard to reverse so that we can have a stable future.

Similarly, the forest land reserve is a proposal which is supported by forest workers, forest companies and others to finally bring some stability to the forest land base. Who votes against it? The Liberal Party. The Reform Party didn't even vote against it, but the Liberal Party voted against it. So much for being in touch with the views of licence holders and the future of the forests.

The only suggestion this member has is that we ought to consider tenure reform. When you press him a little on it, he talks about privatizing the land base. I have said that I agree that we should get on with tenure reform. But you don't get on with tenure reform until you have some stability on the land base through land use planning and a forest land reserve that tells you that you have the commercial forest land base designated and protected for future commercial use, you have a regime of forest practices on that land base and you have an investment strategy. Then you can start to look at tenure reform, and certainly that is something that needs to be done. But how someone can say we should look at tenure reform, when they voted systematically against every initiative that the industry and this government have worked together to bring forward, strikes me as a tad hard to take.

In terms of the socioeconomic impacts of land use plans, those are considered as part of the land use planning exercise. Certainly each of the reports that came under the auspices of the CORE processes contains socioeconomic impacts. I have commented on that in the past, and the same is true of the land and resource management plans.

This member really needs to reconsider his position. It isn't too late before the election to recant and tell the people of British Columbia that you in fact support getting some stability on the land base, a protected-areas strategy, a Forest Practices Code and a forest renewal plan. Put all that baggage behind you and join us in making things better for the future, not longing for the past.

W. Hurd: I just want to focus the discussion on the Peat Marwick Thorne summary. The minister has indicated that socioeconomic impacts are part of the timber supply reviews in the province, and I appreciate that. I'm interested specifically in the impacts on Crown revenues, which, I think the minister would agree, have a potentially dramatic impact on government, given the fact that the province collects some $1 billion in stumpage directly and the fact that there's a series of secondary taxes, licences and fees that are directly tied to harvest level in British Columbia.

I want to ask the minister again what exactly is being done to determine what the impacts will be, specifically with respect to the reduction that might occur as a result of the Forest Practices Code. The minister has talked about it being between 4 percent and 6 percent. I know he's said that publicly; others would suggest that it's higher. Clearly it speaks to the need for the ministry to be focused on the potential impacts of alienation of revenues.

Could the minister tell us whether the figure of $500 million, with respect to the implementation of the Island land use plan, is an accurate barometer of what the Crown will have to pay in the future to implement the plan? Can his ministry come up with a figure today with respect to that land use plan and the others that are currently being implemented in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: The whole purpose of land use planning is to produce stability so we can invest and so we can increase the forest resource. The member alluded in his earlier comments to the fact that when speaking at the recent Price Waterhouse conference, I referred to the goal or target of maintaining a 70-million-cubic-metre cut in this province, or regaining that level of cut, by the year 2020.

We cannot do that unless we have land use plans. Within those land use plans, in addition to protecting additional areas, we are designating areas for intensive use to increase the productivity and return from that component of the forest land base. Throughout the entire forest land reserve, which is part of those land use plans, and the application of the forest renewal plan, we are confident that we can, through a target-setting and policy-driven exercise, ensure that we regain the harvest level that we have enjoyed in the past, which has been compromised by overcutting and bad forest management in the past.

If we do that, obviously we're not going to suffer a revenue loss. What this government is most concerned with is ensuring that we maintain the forest resource base. Retaining the forest resource base maintains the revenue base and the employment base. So we're not planning for reductions in the long term; we're planning for an increase in the long term. I 

[ Page 15531 ]

think the member is still in that old mind-set of forestry as a sunset industry, and he's asking me to calibrate how quickly the sun is going down.

Well, let me tell you, that may be the Liberal policy, but the New Democrat policy is to get the sun higher up in the sky in this industry, to maintain stability and to increase the return in terms of jobs and productivity from this land base. That's what we're planning to do -- not calculate the decline, but map out and plan for the increase in the productivity and the return from our forest lands.

W. Hurd: Referring again to the Peat Marwick Thorne study, they say: "So far as we know, the provincial government has not calculated the potential cost and revenue implications of future resource alienation and included these in its financial plans."

They're recommending that the ministry take a serious run at this issue over the short term, not the long term. We're not talking about a 25-year window of assessing costs to the Crown. I think what Peat Marwick Thorne was recommending is that this be done immediately. They suggest that "the scope of these impacts can be inferred from past and current events, including the $37 million paid to Doman Forest Products as compensation for their timber rights on south Moresby Island."

The minister talks about land use stability. He's correct to the point that we now know which areas of the province have been alienated from harvesting forever as a result of the government's commitment to reach a 12 percent protected area status in the province -- no argument. But what I think Peat Marwick Thorne is suggesting should occur is that once those decisions are made, the Crown should then make some attempt to determine what the loss in revenue is going to be, and that's only good governance.

I've asked the question three times. The minister has offered vague platitudes about long-term investments and the harvest rate not going down. But I'm asking specific questions about specific licences and specific cutting rights that have been alienated. What is the cost going to be to the provincial Crown?

I would think that the government would have that information, only because if they win another mandate, they would need it in order to reach some stability that the minister has talked about. What is being done -- a simple question -- in this fiscal year to determine what the costs are going to be to buy out those cutting rights or licences that have been alienated as a result of the government's land use plans?

Hon. A. Petter: Certainly the ministry and the government, in all of the decisions they make, engage in calculations of costs and benefits. The point I'm making to the member is that this is not simply a question of land use planning resulting in alienations, but of land use planning resulting in greater security, which produces economic benefits.

The Vancouver Island land use plan marginally but significantly increased the amount of land for protected area -- it's true -- to about 13 percent of the Vancouver Island land base. At the same time it secured 81 percent of the Vancouver Island land base in a forest land reserve. Within that, it designated a component for high-intensity use and provided a measure of security over the remainder so that those who previously might have not been inclined to invest in order to produce a return would now be inclined to do so.

The point is that when you're calculating the costs of land use planning, you also have to calculate the benefits of land use planning. You also have to calculate the fact that in the Cariboo people are now able to build a road into the Penfold valley, whereas two years ago, prior to the land use plan, had that been attempted there would have been a public outcry in the Cariboo that would have not allowed it take place. It's a matter of calculating those costs and benefits. Certainly that cost-benefit calculation is going on; it is part of the ongoing activities of government. It went on within the agencies that produced the information for government. The CORE reports contain socioeconomic data on the costs of land use plans, but the point I'm trying to make, which the member seems to lose, is that land use planning also produces significant benefits.

I haven't even talked about the intangible benefits that flow to British Columbia because of the increased confidence, both at home and abroad, that our forest products industry is now able to muster. I don't know if the member was able to see some of the recent ads run by the Forest Alliance in the New York Times. The Forest Alliance ran an ad in the New York Times talking about British Columbia's protected-areas strategy -- "Congratulations, British Columbia: Canadian Province Scores Top Marks in World Wildlife Fund's Environment Report" -- and trumpeting the fact that this government has protected significant areas of the province and has a commitment to double protected areas.

[7:45]

Why do you suppose they did that? It's not because it doesn't have a value to them; it has tremendous value to them. The forest industry and the Forest Alliance understand the protected-areas strategy, and the lands that are set aside help them to carry their case to foreign markets. That's a tremendous benefit that needs to be calculated, along with whatever costs are calculated. The fact that in its ad the Forest Alliance refers to the protected-areas strategy in positive terms is indicative to me that industry is starting to understand what the member does not -- namely, that protecting areas is good for the economy and the environment if it's done in the way that we've done it, through a cooperative land use planning process.

W. Hurd: As the minister knows, with respect to the land use plans that he's alluded to, there exist sensitive areas, low-intensity zones and special management areas, in regard to which many licensees are unaware of exactly what the harvesting parameters or rules will be. They represent a significant chunk of the land base; I think 8 percent is being mentioned as the figure for Vancouver Island. From the tours that I've had throughout the province -- I've flown over these special low-intensity zones and special management zones -- there appears to be no idea of what kinds of harvesting plans or parameters will be in place. Can the minister tell us whether he envisages the plan for these low-intensity areas to be similar to the recommendations of the Clayoquot scientific panel, for example? What work is being done to alleviate the uncertainty about the level of resource extraction that will be available in these low-intensity zones?

Hon. A. Petter: I regret the fact that the member clearly has not done his homework in this area. There was a report done recently by John Allan, the deputy minister of land use planning, on the low-intensity areas on Vancouver Island. It spelled out very clearly the requirements and expectations of 

[ Page 15532 ]

management within those areas. These were consistent with the government's commitment that those areas would be managed to protect special values but would not result in an overall harvest reduction within those areas of greater than 10 percent. If the member would like to have reference to that report or if he hasn't been able to secure it, I'd be happy to provide him with a copy. There he would find answers to the questions he has posed.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us how many cutting permits are currently before the ministry with respect to the low-intensity zones and what the time frame is for the approval of those permits?

Hon. A. Petter: I can't give the exact number. I'd be happy to find the number and get it back to the member. Suffice to say, there have already been numerous cutting permits issued on Vancouver Island within low-intensity areas. Indeed, my recollection is that the Premier announced the first round of those cutting permits shortly after the adoption of the land use plan. In doing so, he demonstrated very clearly that within those low-intensity areas that land use plan did provide for real harvesting opportunities, as we had said was the case. Now we have the John Allan report, which spells out the expectations for those low-intensity areas very clearly and provides greater security so licensees can proceed with cutting permits in a regular way.

W. Hurd: Continuing the discussion with respect to cutting permits, in my earlier remarks I alluded to the fact-finding mission that the minister participated in with respect to the flow of cutting permits in the province. I understand that....

N. Lortie: Send the secret agent man out now.

W. Hurd: Contrary to the opinion of the member for Delta North, it wasn't the government gumshoe hired by the Premier. We know what kinds of results he got. We spent $15,000 -- or was it higher than that? -- for nothing. This was supposedly a legitimate exercise in determining why the cutting permits were taking so long to approve.

I wonder if the minister would share with the committee what that fact-finding mission found and whether, in the spirit of honest and open government, he would be prepared to table that report in this committee.

Hon. A. Petter: If it's the individuals whom I think the member is referring to, we asked an individual to go into certain areas in which licensees had been expressing concerns to me and the Forest Service about cutting permits. That individual reviewed those situations. In some cases, the difficulty lay with the licensees themselves and misunderstandings around requirements under the code, in particular under the spirit-and-intent requirements surrounding the code. In other cases, solutions were found by bringing together licensees and the ministry into cooperative working committees. That has been done in some areas and has been very successful.

My understanding is that there have been some reports submitted, but no single, formal, all-embracing report as such. If the member is interested in pursuing that, I believe some of them are still in draft form. I can certainly undertake to look into what the status of those reports is and get back to him.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to enter the debate. I have a few brief questions for the minister. It's unfortunate, hon. Chair -- and I think you might agree -- that this debate isn't taking place in Committee B, in the large House. The minister's performance tonight is worthy of television, and this is a key set of estimates. The Forests estimates are pretty important to the province. Unfortunately, we're not in the large House under the glare of television cameras, and people can't see the minister's performance. I think it's definitely worthy of television.

I think the minister might have been a bit too hard on his Liberal critic, particularly when he was criticizing the member for Surrey-White Rock for not wanting to tag along on a field trip to the Prince George forest region. After all, the member for Surrey-White Rock pointed out that he has important duties as Whip of the Liberal caucus. I don't underestimate those duties. In fact, the Liberal caucus deserves to be whipped sometimes. I remember very well from when I was a member of that caucus that the Whip is needed in that caucus; I don't underestimate that.

On the other hand I think the member for Surrey-White Rock was also a bit too hard on the minister. I know that the minister, to give him some credit, is an individual who has no background in the forest industry whatsoever. He's one of the first Ministers of Forests in recent memory who has no direct connection to the forest industry in the province. Maybe there's a persuasive argument here somewhere that a layperson should be responsible for this ministry. Perhaps someone with no ties to it might be a little bit more objective. I'm not claiming that the minister is completely objective, but one thing I will say, to the minister's credit, is that he certainly hasn't hesitated to meet forestry stakeholders in the constituency I seek to represent.

For instance, I know that Corinne Lonsdale, the mayor of Squamish -- a forestry community in the riding I try to represent -- has had open access to the minister. I thank him for that. He's meeting with her tomorrow when she comes to visit us here in Victoria. It appears to me that at least for the area I try to represent, the minister has actually bent over backwards to meet with forestry operators, forestry coalition groups like the Soo Coalition, or the mayors of forestry-based communities. I have no complaints about that.

I do have a concern, though, about a current issue that's facing the forest industry in British Columbia. It's the threat of a renewed effort toward yet another countervailing duty from the Americans. This is a serious concern. It hasn't been raised yet in a serious manner during this session. I'd like to ask the minister what the Ministry of Forests is doing, not just monitoring this issue -- and hopefully they are monitoring it closely. I know that the industry is monitoring this.

I think we have to understand the significance of this. We're living through a time when declining lumber prices are threatening to force the closure of a number of sawmills in the interior of this province. Employment is going to be threatened very soon. At the same time there is what I might refer to as an unholy alliance, or the threat of one, in the United States between the American lumber manufacturers and the American greens. They are possibly getting together to force yet another countervail against Canadian lumber imports into the United States. This would be unprecedented; it could hurt us 

[ Page 15533 ]

tremendously. I know the industry is watching this and prevailing upon the federal government to take some action under NAFTA and through other mechanisms that are available.

Could the minister tell us what he, as the minister responsible for forests and the forest industry in this province, is doing with regard to the renewed threat of a countervailing duty against lumber manufacturers here in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the member's question. I suppose if there was more in the way of a forest resource in Surrey-White Rock, perhaps the member for Surrey-White Rock would appreciate my efforts to go out to forest communities.

In any event, I think the member raises an extremely important concern that should be shared by all British Columbians, in particular the forest industry. I think there is perhaps a false view on the part of some forest communities and the forest industry that the outcome of the last countervail case somehow resolved once and for all the issues around countervail. That, as the member has suggested, is far from the case.

We should not be at all complacent as a jurisdiction, an industry or as forest communities that depend upon the forest industry about the position of the Americans and some of the powerful interest and lobby groups in the United States on this issue. The fact is that shortly after the countervail case was brought to what seemed at the time to be a very happy conclusion -- and was in terms of that particular case, in which we came away with a clear win and a demonstration that there was no countervailable subsidy -- the United States Congress, under pressure from some of those lobby groups, those timber interests in the United States, went back and made amendments to its legislation.

Of course, one of the fundamental weaknesses of the free trade agreement that this party certainly pointed out over the years is that it only allows one to enforce the laws of the other jurisdiction -- in this case, the United States. So the United States effectively has changed the rules of the game. They've tilted the playing field, and in particular have tried to create a situation in which we are more vulnerable in a future countervail case, should one be brought, by changing their own legislation.

In addition, the timber industry in the United States has been increasing pressure within the United States to re-establish some form of action and once again put in place some form of protection for their own interests, notwithstanding the outcome of the previous case and the widely held view -- certainly, I hope, the almost universally held view among British Columbians -- that the United States was not justified in instituting that countervail.

As a result of those concerns, some in industry in British Columbia, the British Columbia government and the government of Canada entered into a round of consultations with the United States. Those consultations are not negotiations, contrary to some claims that have been made south of the border. They are consultations that are aimed at trying to clarify some of these issues and, in particular, trying to inform those in the United States Congress and administration of our case and our practices so that they will better understand why we in British Columbia should be provided with free access to U.S. markets.

The member is right; the pressure is still on. And what has this government been doing? This government has been working very closely with the Canadian government and with those in industry who are alert to this threat. We have been participating in those consultations and through that participation have been putting forward the information and factual basis to demonstrate why we in British Columbia are competing fairly with the United States' market and why it would not be justified to consider any reinstitution of a countervail.

Our representative in those consultations has been Lorne Seitz, who is probably known to the member and who was recently this government's representative in Ottawa. More recently, he has been appointed deputy minister for the Ministry of Small Business. So we have been very actively involved and engaged in trying to ensure that we protect our position. In particular -- I will close with this because I know the bells have rung -- I think the concern that British Columbians should have is that the changes in legislation and the direction that some of the U.S. interests are taking are not simply about countervail. They are about trying to remove the log export restrictions that exist in this province and, by doing so, gain greater access to our natural resource base in a way that I think British Columbians would simply find unacceptable.

The committee recessed from 7:59 p.m. to 8:08 p.m.

D. Mitchell: I just want to follow up briefly on the minister's response on the issue of the countervail and the activity of the provincial government with respect to the threat, at least, of a new countervail.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the minister's complete rejection of the free trade agreement's dispute resolution mechanisms. After all, this year in their financial results, many lumber manufacturers in the province will be reflecting large reimbursements of the duties that were held in bonded trust over the last number of months or years, specifically because of the result of the dispute resolution mechanisms that were put in place with the free trade agreement. I'm not sure that we have ever won a dispute with the Americans before, either, with the lopsided tribunals that have been in place looking at these things.

But the minister is right. We're looking at a new threat right now, a new challenge. The minister talked about the fact that we believe we're consulting, but the Americans believe they're negotiating. There seems to be this dichotomy; we think we're consulting with our American neighbours and friends and trading partners, but they believe they're negotiating with us. That leads to some confusion and misunderstanding from time to time, as we've seen with another issue that's recently been in the news a lot, which is the whole issue of the Columbia downstream benefits, where the Americans reneged on a memorandum of agreement that was signed just last fall.

I know that lately there has been a wave of anti-Americanism sweeping over the cabinet of British Columbia, I'm not sure the people of British Columbia are experiencing the same thing. Just in that vein, while I'm here speaking -- I don't know if I'm seeing correctly, but the tie of the official sitting next to the minister seems to have some American flags on it. I don't know if that's a point of privilege or point of order -- or what I should be doing....

I'm not sure if the minister should be associating himself with the individual, but these Americans are insidious. I mean 

[ Page 15534 ]

they are infiltrating the Minister of Forests and the Ministry of Forests. They're everywhere. So I can understand why the minister is feeling a little paranoid about this issue.

I'd like to ask the minister.... He's indicated that yes, this issue is being monitored. He has no faith in NAFTA. What should we be pinning our hopes on, then? If this minister, who the forest industry and stakeholders in the province look to for some direction and guidance, has no faith that NAFTA is going to help us this time or that the dispute resolution mechanisms in NAFTA are going to help lumber manufacturers in British Columbia that wish to continue to export their product into the American marketplace, then what are we going to do?

The minister mentioned that our representative up until recently was Lorne Seitz, who has now been appointed Deputy Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Who is replacing Mr. Seitz? Who is watching and monitoring and carrying the brief for British Columbia in the United States? Are we employing the services of Mr. Karl Struble in Washington, D.C? Who is it? It would be useful to know who's in charge, who's watching the countervail issue on behalf of the minister and who's looking after the interests of British Columbia in this whole thing, since we have no faith in anyone else. I'd be interested in the minister's response.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure the member didn't intend to put words in my mouth when he suggested that my remarks were a complete rejection of the use of the trade resolution dispute mechanism. Clearly this government fought long and hard within the trade resolution dispute mechanism to protect the interests of B.C., and we were successful in doing so.

What I did say was that there is a fundamental flaw within the free trade agreement, one that has been pointed out in the past and one which the Americans are now seeking to exploit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to use every avenue that's available to us, including that agreement and the dispute resolution mechanism, but we need to recognize that there is a weakness and that the Americans, by changing their own legislation, can tilt the playing field in a way that is disadvantageous to our interests. That's something I think that those in British Columbia who are as concerned as I am, and as I hope the member is, about ensuring that we are not subjected unfairly to countervail action should be aware of.

What does it mean? It means that in addition to continuing to pursue our avenues, we also have to take political action and seek to make alliances in the United States. We are certainly pursuing that and have pursued that throughout this action. There are, fortunately, significant groups in the United States that are becoming more aware that their interests lie with those of British Columbia, as opposed to those of some of the large timber companies in the United States.

For example, homebuilders and consumers in the United States will be punished if the timber interests in the United States succeed in placing unfair impediments on the flow of Canadian lumber into the United States. Those groups can bring considerable pressure to bear if they understand that their interests are being adversely affected by those who would lobby for those kinds of measures. We're working along with industry to try to make common cause with those groups.

Similarly, there are groups in the Pacific Northwest that depend upon restrictions on the export of raw logs in order to ensure that those logs are processed within their jurisdiction. They share a concern with us that such restrictions not be subjected to challenge by self-serving economic interests in the United States. We have to work with those interests as well, and we will continue to do so.

In terms of the discrepancy between the version of some U.S. interests around negotiation versus consultation, let me assure the member that the terms of reference that govern this process very clearly indicate that this is a consultative process, not a negotiated process. Notwithstanding the fact that some in the United States have tried to misrepresent the process, the terms of reference make it very clear that consultation is the object of the exercise. Through that consultation we believe that if there is any fairness and any concern for the substantive elements of the argument, we can demonstrate that in fact our products are competing fairly with the United States, as we demonstrated through the last countervail action.

[8:15]

In terms of who is in charge and who has the brief, Mr. Seitz, I'm happy to say -- notwithstanding his change in role recently -- has agreed to continue through July. In any event, there is going to be a round of consultation here in British Columbia in early July, and I think it's important to maintain continuity through that period. Once we have an indication of the outcome, we will certainly be considering what changes may be necessary to accommodate Mr. Seitz in his new role. He has, I'm pleased to say, agreed to continue through July in order to enable us to maintain the continuity and work that has already taken place to protect B.C.'s interests.

D. Mitchell: I share the minister's frustration over this whole experience that we in British Columbia have to endure yet again. One can only fear that this is going to be ongoing, and there never will be an end to American protectionism as long as there is an American neighbour next to us that seeks to dominate the trading patterns it enjoys with all of its trading partners, I suppose, whether they are within or outside NAFTA.

The minister has indicated that he fears, as do I, that log exports might be one of the issues that our American neighbours, or some of them, are really trying to get at. Within the laws of British Columbia -- within the Forest Act, in fact -- we have a section that specifically prohibits the export of unmanufactured lumber in the form of round logs. That provision has been in the Forest Act for most of this century. The minister has indicated that we are in a consultative process, but he's also acknowledged that the Americans believe they're in a negotiating position with us now.

I think it's important for the minister, on the record, to indicate whether he believes there are any circumstances under which the Minister of Forests in British Columbia may be willing to even open up the prospect of negotiating the export of logs to our American neighbours. The current prohibition stands. It's one that I think most members of the Legislature support. In fact, we see exemptions to that section of the act from time to time passed by order-in-council. If anything, I think most British Columbians support the prohibition on unmanufactured timber leaving our province. We see that as tantamount to jobs leaving our province. If Americans do indeed want to have access to our forest resource in an unmanufactured or only semi-manufactured form, I think that has to be stopped.

[ Page 15535 ]

The minister indicated that he's going to continue to enjoy the benefit of Mr. Seitz, even though he's now taken a position in the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. I don't know if this is an extension of the minister's reach into another ministry of government. The imperialism within this government knows no bounds. His colleague the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture must be extremely accommodating indeed to be willing to share his deputy minister for this purpose.

I doubt that the issue will be resolved simply through the next round of negotiations that is going to be taking place in a few months. What does the minister see beyond that term? He hasn't mentioned the name of Karl Struble, and I enjoy that. I appreciate the fact that we're not going to be hiring lobbyists in Washington, D.C., but surely we must have somebody in the United States who's going to be not only carrying a watching brief on this issue for us, but helping to advance British Columbia's interests. We can't leave it up to a part-time official in the government of British Columbia, surely.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me answer the last point first. Certainly it's not simply Mr. Seitz. Mr. Seitz is backed up by some considerable talent and resources in both the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In fact, speaking on behalf of my own staff who handle this issue and have done so historically, it's an incredibly dedicated and capable group of people who helped to steer us through the countervail case to a successful conclusion. That staff is still well in place and well appreciated. While Mr. Seitz, I agree, will likely have to withdraw from this file over time, we'll have to find someone to replace him. I can assure the member that it won't be the individual he named.

This is not Mr. Seitz alone. This is a team that is working together, involving a very talented, knowledgable and dedicated group of people from both those ministries. Let me assure the member that that will provide the continuity, depth and talent we need to make sure that every opportunity that exists to protect our position is in fact taken advantage of.

With respect to the log export issue, I'm glad the member focused in on that, because I think it is a crucial issue for British Columbians. I would simply remind the member that not only is it the case that the provision of restrictions on raw log exports has existed in legislation for a long time, but under the free trade agreement, an explicit provision was put in that was intended to protect the position of British Columbia to maintain that very important restriction.

Notwithstanding that explicit protection within the free trade agreement, the United States continued in the last round and continues now, to maintain that such restrictions could be subject to countervailing duties. That is, I think, a very disturbing assertion. It's part of a larger pattern, I would suggest, in which we see the United States in one form or another trying to secure greater access to natural resources -- whether it's fish or water or timber. It's a historic pattern that this province has been fairly vigilant in resisting historically, but not always as vigilant as I would like, in some instances.

British Columbians should think very carefully about this issue. I agree with the member that British Columbians value tremendously the commitment that raw logs will not be shipped out of this province and that they will stay in this province to be processed here to create jobs and stability in British Columbia. I want to say to the member that insofar as this government has anything to say about this -- and this government is in power -- we will not yield one inch on the issue of raw log restrictions. Those restrictions are absolutely crucial to maintain employment and to ensure that our natural resource base continues to provide a return and benefits to those of us in British Columbia.

I would also suggest to the member that he should be as concerned as I am about the position that is taken by the official opposition on a range of issues. They continuously seem to indicate that B.C. is up for sale, whether it's through Crown corporations on the chopping block to the highest bidder or a general attitude of weakness in terms of dealing with the United States. I think British Columbians should be very, very careful in considering what the position of the official opposition would be on this particular issue, were they to come to power.

There is no doubt that if we are to maintain jobs and employment and stability here in B.C., we need a government that will stand up and protect our natural resources and will make sure those natural resources remain here in British Columbia to benefit British Columbians, whether it's fish or water or timber. Yet something that certainly causes me serious concern is the weakening one sees on the part of the official opposition, the salivation that takes place at the prospect of selling off our resources to the highest bidder and the reluctance with which the official opposition is prepared to stand up to the United States when the United States does have designs on our resources. Let me reassure the member again that as far as this government is concerned, we're not prepared to yield one cubic metre in terms of our support for the restrictions that exist on the export of raw logs, and that will continue to be our position.

Insofar as the U.S. is concerned and the choice of some to misrepresent these consultations as negotiations, I can only assume that's part of a pattern of posturing by some in the U.S., particularly in industry, who are trying to turn up the heat for political purposes in a very self-serving way. That simply tells me that we have to be additionally vigilant in responding. We have to keep our focus. We have to use this round of consultations to carry our message, as we have in the past, and to make sure that this policy area does not fall into the hands of those who will be prepared to relinquish control of our natural resources to those south of the border who would quickly create jobs and take those jobs away from British Columbians.

R. Neufeld: Would the minister just inform the committee how many cubic metres of raw logs are now exported out of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: I can get the figure in cubic metres for the member. I can tell the member that the number is around 1 percent of the total logs that are harvested in the province, and that number has come down significantly over the last three years.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister explain where most of those logs originate from and the reasoning for it?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I can get more detailed figures for the member, and I'd be happy to do so. But I believe that geographically, most of them would come from the northwest sector of the province, the north Kalum area. The member is 

[ Page 15536 ]

probably aware that under our policy we have a prohibition or restriction of raw logs, with an exception in circumstances where those logs cannot be processed economically or there is no market for those logs within the area. There's an independent group that monitors that situation, the export advisory committee, and advises government. That committee is very vigilant in ensuring that only logs that cannot be processed here or have no market in B.C. are exported. In addition, the government has phased out some of the blanket exemptions that existed under previous governments, particularly in the midcoast, to ensure that we do not export logs that could otherwise be processed here in B.C.

R. Neufeld: I want to go back to land use. I appreciate what the minister said about a land use strategy and a forest base. I think we've advocated, from the time I arrived at this Legislature, that there must be a base that the companies in the forest industry know they can use so that they can log and plan for the future. That's very important.

One of the difficulties of not being able to get cutting permits -- some of it happened in my area and lots around Prince George -- was the fact that there are other circumstances that, of course, play a role in not being able to obtain cutting permits, and that's the treaty process review that's going on at the present time, along with the land use plans.

It really did bottleneck an awful lot of cutting permits and companies being able to actually manage their business in a good form. In fact, it was very evident in my constituency, in Fort Nelson, where I witnessed I don't know how many thousands of truckloads of logs -- to be conservative -- coming out of the Yukon down to Fort Nelson, being offloaded and loaded onto to rail cars and taken to Prince George. We also trucked logs from Fort Nelson to Chetwynd last year. I think that's the farthest south they went. Some may have gone to Bear Lake, but I think most of them went to Chetwynd.

It is an ongoing concern with companies, and I just want to relay the fact to the minister that industry is having some problems in trying to plan. I'm not trying to make light of the fact that land use can't just happen overnight; that's certainly not a fact. But there's the possibility of not shutting the whole province down, had we gone a little more piece by piece, so that companies could continue working, and when we get to a land use plan for that area, then we deal with it. I think what happened was that we kind of put a kibosh on just about everything. Everyone was afraid to go ahead, understandably. I'm not saying it's wrong to let out cutting permits. That's just to let the minister know my thoughts on it and what I'm getting from my constituency.

[8:30]

In land use, the minister is aware that there's now an LRMP process going on in Peace River North, specifically in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson -- two independent boards working with many of the same team players. I just received a letter that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- in fact, the Lands division -- is dropping their representative from the LRMP process for some budgetary concerns. I asked the Minister of Energy the other day in estimates to help me lobby that ministry to put that person back in the process. I think it's a very important process, and, of course, they play a very important role with the LRMP process in my constituency. I just want to get the Minister of Forests' help to lobby that ministry to put that person, or persons -- however many they happen to be -- back into the LRMP process, so we can, when we're finished, come out with something in hand that we can actually take to the bank, rather than Lands saying: "Just a minute, now we have to look at it."

Hon. A. Petter: Very quickly, I appreciate the member's comments on a range of issues. Let me just break out some of those issues, because I think the member raises a number of points, some of which perhaps overlap.

In respect to cutting permits within the Prince George region, this issue was certainly drawn to my attention when I met with industry during a number of my visits up in the Prince George area.

An Hon. Member: You did?

Hon. A. Petter: On numerous occasions, yes, in the Prince George area. As a result of those meetings and those concerns -- I guess about a year ago now -- this is one of the processes we put in place, a consultative process between the ministry and the industry, with some facilitation. That process, I think, has been quite successful. As the member says, as we moved from the previous situation to the code, some people were reluctant to come forward. They thought perhaps they should wait and see. Some of that reluctance was on the part of industry, perhaps some on the part of the ministry, and that process helped establish a comfort level.

As a result, my understanding is that some of the immediate concerns that existed have now been resolved. We still have to build up that inventory of cutting permits we would all like to see, but I think the problems are much less today than they were when they were drawn to my attention. That's as a result of working cooperatively with industry and having someone from the ministry headquarters, as well as in the region, work to facilitate those kinds of problems.

With respect to the aboriginal consultation issue, which is a slightly different issue, that has less to do with treaty rights than it has to do with court decisions. In particular, the Delgamuukw and other decisions require the Crown to engage in consultation on certain issues prior to issuing cutting permits. I'm pleased to say in that regard that the ministry has been working very hard on a policy and procedure guideline. In fact, one was adopted about two months ago that has been widely circulated amongst industry and first nations. It sets clear time lines and expectations so that the processes around consultation cannot drag on indefinitely, and people can have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. I think that has helped to deal with some of the requirements placed upon us by those court decisions.

I would suggest that the reference the member makes to wood coming into Prince George from other jurisdictions has less to do with the difficulty in obtaining cutting permits than it has to do with another problem that we have to deal with -- that is, the fact that some mills in this province do have an excess of capacity in relation to the wood base. That's a historic problem that has to be grappled with, and as a result, in the short term at least, some of those mills are seeking to deal with that problem of the gap between their capacity and their access to wood supply by going outside the jurisdiction. It isn't strictly related to the other problems.

On the LRMP process, I'm pleased the member sees that as one which can achieve some certainty. I certainly think that 

[ Page 15537 ]

having dealt with some of the three most difficult areas in the province through the larger regional processes -- I'm talking about the Kootenays, the Cariboo and Vancouver Island -- the LRMP process, the land and resource management planning process that recently produced a very successful outcome in Kamloops, is likely the best way to go in other areas which are in need of land use plans.

In specific response to the member's request, this is the first I've heard of the withdrawal, or threatened withdrawal, of a representative from Crown Lands, and I'll be happy to take that up with the minister. Like the member, I want these processes to succeed, and I want to make sure the outcomes are reflective of all stakeholders and all governmental interests so that they will have the stability that we all desire.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that support. I'm sure that with the other ministers I've canvassed, we will have someone from Lands back in the process fairly soon.

I just want to ask the minister a little bit more about the agreement with Treaty 8. You said that there is now an agreement being circulated. I know there was one agreement circulated -- and it must be almost a year ago by now -- that nobody liked, to be perfectly frank, and it was discarded. I know that they went back to the drawing board to start over again, but I'm not aware if there is a new one out now or not.

Hon. A. Petter: Just to clarify, because I think the member may have misunderstood, what I was referring to was not an agreement or a memorandum of understanding or anything of that nature. I was talking about a policy and procedure manual or guidebook that the ministry has generated so that in fulfilling rights -- whether they're Delgamuukw-type rights or Treaty 8-type rights -- where we're required to consult, as we are, to ensure that forest activity is not interfering with some aboriginal right or some core aboriginal activity, that consultation process is clearly defined and laid out.

Licence holders, first nations and the ministry all know that the consultation must be concluded within a certain time frame. That, I think, has given a greater measure of security to licence holders, as well as to government, and has given a clearer sense of expectation to first nations about their involvement and participation in these consultations.

The Chair: Hon. members, that is indeed a division. We will take a recess until the vote is finished and return to the room.

The committee recessed from 8:37 p.m. to 8:46 p.m.

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: I just want to pursue a little further the agreement that has been circulating, as I understand, for the last two months: "Agreement between the Treaty 8 Tribal Association and the Omineca-Peace Interagency Management Committee on Protocol for Cooperation and Communication on Land and Resource Use." Are we talking about the same agreement?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed by staff that the agreement the member is referring to is likely an agreement -- and the member may be able to confirm this for me -- that is being sought with the Treaty 8 tribal council on the consultation process around the LRMP process. No? Well, that was my understanding. If that were the case, it would be under the land use coordination office. But if it's something else, I'm happy to look further into it and get back to the member. I must confess, I do not have top-of-mind knowledge on the particular agreement he's referring to. If he can give me more particulars on it, I'd be happy to follow up on it.

R. Neufeld: It was about a year ago that this particular agreement was tendered for, and actually by, Lands, and it deals with all resources, not just forestry. But, of course, we're dealing with your estimates. It's a fairly lengthy agreement that has to be signed by everyone, and there are some onerous provisions in it. I guess that's why some of the discussions around this agreement were taken by some to mean that there was a move afoot to curtail industry and its actions.

I just want to read one section, section 1.2: "Implementation of provincial policy commitments for joint stewardship of natural resources within Treaty 8 territory." If you think about that, it says quite a bit. I think the minister is probably more up to date on what Treaty 8 really means than I am. I do know some about it.

Other things stated in it are forest harvest and management practices that respect mutual interests to maintain a sustainable environment -- which is fine -- and society and economy, as well as priority land use and livelihood treaty rights of Treaty 8 community members. I know that this was kind of shelved and that another one was brought forward. I would like to know -- and maybe the minister can tell me at some other time -- whether there is a new one out now. There's supposed to be one out soon or it may be circulating now. If the minister could get back to me on that, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. A. Petter: Just for the record, I'll be happy to look into it and get back to the member, if not during these estimates, then in writing shortly thereafter.

R. Neufeld: I want to bring one other issue forward. It has to do with Fort Nelson, Slocan Forest Products and a new OSB plant. I want to ask for a little help from the minister to lobby one of his colleagues again. The minister is quite aware of all the work that his ministry -- and I thank him -- and a lot of people did to finally get the cutting rights for Slocan so that they can make an investment of some $120 million in the OSB plant. But we've run into a couple of snags. It's not really with the Ministry of Forests, but it will affect the Ministry of Forests if Slocan cannot open the plant when they want to open it -- January 1996 -- at which time they think they'll be producing board. This might employ about 400 people in Fort Nelson.

The problem that Slocan has -- and they have alleviated some of it -- is in moving equipment to Fort Nelson via highway. As I understand it, because they encounter so much red tape in British Columbia, the ships that are bringing the loads from Europe are going to land in Seattle. The loads are then going to be trucked across the U.S. and all the way up through southern Alberta. Some of them will miss most of British Columbia, but for part of the loads the width was 

[ Page 15538 ]

reduced, and they're going up the Alaska Highway. The problem was the red tape to get them from Vancouver. This relates also to investment, which the minister was talking about. We've lost that portion of business for British Columbia because of red tape.

Second, some parts of the equipment are being built in Edmonton, specifically the two driers. I don't know the name of them, but the driers weigh approximately 150 tonnes apiece. They will be cut in half, for a total of four pieces. They are between 17 and 18 feet wide and about 26 feet long. Slocan has gone to a lot of work with firms that move this type of equipment all the time, and they've tried to work with B.C. Rail. To be frank, they had the best response from B.C. Rail. There's one bridge en route that's not wide enough to allow that equipment through. Because of the weight and width, we're not having such good luck with the Highways ministry.

The pieces being built right now in Edmonton will not be ready to be moved, I understand, until August. It has been suggested to Slocan that they move those pieces from Edmonton to Hay River, which is more than 700 miles to the north, put them on barges, take them across Great Slave Lake and up the Mackenzie River to Fort Simpson. If the minister is not aware of this, I can send him a map so that he can understand what I'm talking about. From Fort Simpson, they would go down the Liard River to where the Nelson River runs into the Liard River, and then down to Fort Nelson. Below Fort Nelson, they would unload the equipment and truck it almost 20 miles to the site.

They have to cross one major bridge and travel down a really narrow piece of road, all for the sake -- and I'll read from the letter of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- of this reasoning: "There is a safety risk for widths between 17 and 18 feet travelling 480 kilometres from Pouce Coupe to Fort Nelson on the Alaska Highway, which is a two-lane major highway frequented by logging trucks and other commercial vehicles and tourists." That is true.

This is where I get to investment. From Edmonton to the border to Pouce Coupe, there's absolutely no problem. I've lived up there all my life and made many trips between Edmonton, Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. I can guarantee you that the traffic that will be encountered on a two-lane highway, which in most places between Edmonton -- after you get off the end of the four-lane -- and Pouce Coupe is narrower than the Alaska Highway, is probably three times the traffic of logging trucks, commercial vehicles and tourists.

When I talked to people in Alberta, I thought the weight going over bridges might be the problem. They just put more wheels under them in Alberta. The person I talked to in Alberta said: "We don't care how heavy it is. Whatever you can tow down the highway will cross our bridges, and we'll allow it to go. You just have to put enough wheels under it." In Alberta they can get all the permits. They can move it right to Pouce Coupe, but the last 480 clicks or 320 miles, you're out to lunch. The other way around is probably almost in excess of 2,000 miles, if you were to follow the river. The cost to move four loads of equipment around that way is estimated to be between $500,000 and $800,000 more than it is to take it up the Alaska Highway.

I was a little concerned about the reasoning that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways used in another part of the letter. There is another route via the Liard Highway; it's called Highway 77. They talked about using it, but it's only 16 feet wide in places, so of course it can't handle that kind of width and definitely can't handle that kind of weight. There was no discussion about weight. There is a Bailey bridge on that route that won't even come close to handling it. In fact, you can't haul the 64,000 kilograms that you're legally able to haul down the Alaska Highway. I'm trying to get across to the minister there was not much homework done. I would say that they probably just said a flat no. I think it would be reprehensible if we didn't look carefully at helping this company get these loads to Fort Nelson.

The other big issue is that they are not going to be ready until August. The Mackenzie is fine for water in August and so is the Liard, but the Fort Nelson is not. Late June and July is usually when the Fort Nelson River, which is not a very big river to handle this kind of load, although it does.... At the right season or if there's enough rain, you're going to have enough water, but not likely in July. If they force this company to move by barge, we could be setting it back one full year, until next June or July. It's not quite a year, but it would be ten months before they could get those parts to Fort Nelson so that the OSB plant can be operational.

I think the minister quite understands what would happen to the $120 million investment that's being made in Fort Nelson now, and the 300 jobs that are expected. I relate all that to what the minister talked about in regard to investment. It's not just under your administration or your government's administration; these things have happened before. We have a mind-set in British Columbia, and have had for a long time, that we don't seem to want to do things for industry so they can get on with providing jobs, investment and good economics in the province. We seem to constantly run into a roadblock. I'm not attacking the NDP government. I'm saying that in British Columbia we seem to have that mind-set, and we have to get out of it somehow.

Ministry people tell me we build our highways and our bridges to the same standards as Alberta does. If that's the case, why would we not allow that kind of load to be moved? That's the question I ask, and I can't get an answer other than: "We have tourists on the highway; we have logging trucks and commercial trucks." I understand that. There are ways that you can deal with 18-foot-wide loads going down the Alaska Highway quite easily.

[9:00]

I know what I've been saying has been a little long. I wanted to make the point that this is serious, that we have to be looking at this soon. The Minister of Transportation and Highways is looking at it now. I've talked to the minister through estimates, but I would like your help. I would like the Ministry of Forests to lobby the Ministry of Highways to work with this company so that we can get this plant up and running. There are all kinds of logging plans -- and I think the minister is aware of all kinds of plans -- in jeopardy because we may not be able to get four loads to Fort Nelson. I think it's too big a risk to take to say that we have too much traffic on the Alaska Highway. I know it's a lot less than the traffic between Edmonton and Pouce Coupe -- a lot less.

Hon. A. Petter: Very briefly, I'd be happy to follow up and discuss the matter with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I appreciate the member taking the time to share the situation with me. Frankly, I wasn't aware of it, although I was in Kamloops fairly recently and did have 

[ Page 15539 ]

occasion to talk with Ike Barber. He didn't mention it to me. I just mention that because the Liberal critic seems to constantly suggest that I'm not in touch with members of the industry. I think it's important to recognize that my experience belies that suggestion. In any event, I'd be happy to follow up on it.

Obviously, the prospect of a new OSB plant is one that the member and I want to see become a reality as quickly as possible. For the record, I would point out as well that this opportunity is an example of how one expands opportunities through better resource management. It was as a result of the timber supply review process that we were able to ascertain that there was an adequate aspen resource. That enabled the chief forester to then establish a partition cut for aspen that only will to provide an opportunity to construct the oriented strand board plant, but also will deal with some historic problems the member is well aware of, in which aspen has been wasted in relation to the existing chopsticks operation.

I certainly share the concern, having participated and worked with the member and the company to get this far. It would be a shame indeed if these kinds of difficulties impeded the timely opening of that plant. I will take the matter up with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and I appreciate the member drawing it to my attention.

R. Neufeld: Just further to that, I'll get a copy of the package I have to the minister so that he's a bit more aware of some of the letters that have been written back and forth, and those types of things.

W. Hurd: The discussion in the past half-hour has been interesting and invites a number of questions. I just want to return briefly to the responsibility the minister alluded to with respect to consultation with first nations. I note that there is a court case currently unfolding in the province with respect to cutting rights held by MacMillan Bloedel in the Queen Charlottes. This is an action brought by the Haida nation, which is challenging the right of the Ministry of Forests to award cutting rights with respect to TFL 39. I wonder if the minister could describe the type of court action that's involved here and tell us what branch of the ministry will be dealing with this issue as it goes to trial or is disposed of in the courts.

Hon. A. Petter: The case the member is referring to, in fact, doesn't deal with cutting permits; it deals with the replacement of TFL 39. Hopefully, the member will be aware that there is a replacement process every five years with respect to tree farm licences. Tree farm licence 39 was replaced, and there was a legal action brought. I believe the Sierra Legal Defense Fund and the Council of the Haida Nation were involved in respect of that replacement.

The responsibility to respond to that legal action is one that lies with the Attorney General ministry, and it is counsel within the Attorney General ministry who have carriage of the government's action in respect of that litigation.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us what role the ministry will play in this case with respect to the requirement for consultation that he talked about earlier? The fact is that one branch of his ministry deals with the sensitivities of the Delgamuukw case, and others deal with the need for consultation with the ministry. Is there going to be a requirement here that the ministry forward to the Attorney General some sort of record of that consultation? Or is this impending action before the courts totally independent of the process that the ministry goes through in supposedly reviewing the harvesting plans -- the five-year management plan on TFL 39, which I assume requires a certain level of not only public consultation but also consultation with first nations? Can he describe for the committee what type of information his ministry may be required to provide, or is the action totally within the purview of the Attorney General, to seek from his ministry whatever information they need to defend the Crown?

Hon. A. Petter: The ministry works with the Ministry of Attorney General. The forms of consultation that are undertaken are based on the advice received from the Ministry of Attorney General in respect of that ministry's interpretation of various legal precedents, etc. In respect of this litigation, the relationship is much the same as that of a client -- in this case, the ministry -- to counsel, the Attorney General. So the ministry will be working with counsel in preparing the necessary affidavits and information that are required to meet the legal claims made by those who have brought this action, and I imagine that will be an interactive process, as it so often is, between client and counsel.

W. Hurd: Perhaps I can engage the minister in a discussion on whether he's somewhat concerned about this development, particularly as it might impact other TFL rollovers. Just quoting from the action, I think it involves not only the renewal of TFL 39, which has already been signed by the ministry, but also the harvest levels, or the harvesting rights, under that TFL, which are also being challenged. I wonder if the minister has any concerns about that development with respect to what it may mean in the future in the province, whether this is an isolated action in the Charlottes or whether there's a possibility of seeing this become a fact of life in the province of British Columbia. I wonder if he could offer some insight into where he thinks this particular issue might be going.

Hon. A. Petter: I guess my response would be that certainly I'm always concerned when there is litigation of this kind brought. Having said that, the ministry's position is that we've fulfilled all of our legal obligations to first nations and to others in respect of the replacement process that was undertaken.

The member has invited me to comment more generally on where this leaves us. I think this is further illustration of why we in this province need to move forward in terms of negotiations, particularly treaty negotiations with first nations. The alternative to resolving many of these outstanding issues around resources and resource use through negotiation is that first nations will pursue actions in the court, as unfortunately has been the case here.

So this is an example -- fortunately a not-too-common example -- of what can and does happen in the province when one has outstanding issues of this kind. What it says to me is: that's all the more reason to try to negotiate as quickly as we can, through treaties, a clearer and more firm understanding of the respective rights of first nations and of governments so that we don't face these kinds of very costly and counterproductive battles in the courts, in which the only people to benefit, it seems, are the lawyers. Certainly the benefits don't accrue, I think, to the litigants in either case in the long run.

[ Page 15540 ]

W. Hurd: The minister mentioned that the Sierra Legal Defense Fund joined in this action with the Haida band in the region. I find it interesting and somewhat troubling that he hasn't expressed some concern about the fact that this environmental organization, which has an agenda -- a mandate, I assume, from its membership -- and a concern on environment issues, would join in this action with the band.

I know the minister has spoken out in the past about international advertising campaigns by some environmental organizations with respect to misrepresenting the situation in the province of British Columbia, and I'm a little surprised and concerned that he seems to feel that this type of action, involving both a band and an environmental legal defence fund, is taking place in the province and may represent some sort of trend for the future that goes beyond the need to settle land claims through the Treaty Commission process. Is he at all concerned that legal defence funds such as the Sierra Legal Defense Fund may in some way use issues like the dispute over the rollover of TFL 39 to deal with environmental objectives that have little or nothing to do with settling first nations issues in the province?

Hon. A. Petter: Unlike the members of the official opposition, I don't see it as my role to make gratuitous comments about litigation or litigants while matters are before the court. I think the better course is to allow the court to resolve the substantive issues without making statements that could in any way be seen as prejudicing the rights of the parties to those actions. I can only say that, in general, I wish the official opposition had more respect for those principles. Unfortunately, they have demonstrated consistently that they do not.

W. Hurd: I think that it's a public issue obviously -- the decision on the part of any organization to sue, to pursue court action. I'll remind the minister that with respect to impacting the public perception of forest practices in British Columbia, it isn't just an international advertising campaign. It's also the possibility of litigation.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

While I respect the fact that some cases are before the courts and we can't comment on them, from a more general standpoint, I think there is concern on the part of forest-dependent communities out there that, in fact, this may be the tip of the iceberg, that this may be a trend in the province to a forest of litigation, paper and complaints brought forward that may end up being pursued through the courts. I am sure the people of British Columbia would appreciate a strong statement from the minister that the processes and audits are in place, supposedly, to ensure that there is a level of commitment to forest management on the land base and that litigation by groups that seek to delay or tie up the orderly processing of harvesting rights in the province is not welcome. I would hope that in the future he would realize the considerable concern and the threat this poses to forest-dependent communities and would suggest that the courts are not the best place to decide what is and what is not sustainable in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: I have consistently said exactly that. I do not believe the courts and litigation are the way to resolve these issues. I've said it in general in the past in respect of litigation, whether that litigation be brought by MacMillan Bloedel, as was the case on Vancouver Island in challenging the chief forester's decision, or by Evans Forest Products recently, or in respect of the case the member is referring to.

Having said that, I think we also have to recognize that in a free and democratic society, members of that society -- regardless of whether they be forest companies, first nations or environmental organizations -- have certain rights that they are free to pursue in court. I think we should be very careful in singling out particular litigants in ways that could prejudice those rights or be seen to suggest that they are not free to pursue those rights.

[9:15]

But as a matter of general policy, I fully agree that litigation is not the way to go, and that litigation is counterproductive in the long term. That has certainly been the thrust of this government's approach, and that's why we are pursuing through negotiation the resolution of issues such as first nations issues. That's why we have -- under the Forest Practices Code, for example -- instituted means other than litigation to try to resolve disputes that may arise with respect to forest practices.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us whether the development of the Forest Practices Board, as it's currently constituted under the code, will in any way offer an alternative to the types of private prosecutions we see developing? Is this meant to be sort of an adjunct or an alternative to court action? Or does he see the private prosecution aspect of claims of environmental degradation as separate and distinct from the whole Forest Practices Board process?

As I indicated, clearly there appears to be an increase in this type of activity, the private prosecution, which is traditionally taken over by the Crown. I'm just wondering whether the minister will at least make some sort of public statement saying that rather than a private prosecution, these types of allegations that come forward with respect to unsustainable practices, despoiling of streams, etc., can in some way be now mitigated or dealt with by the Forest Practices Board, and that's a more appropriate venue for them to be dealt with.

Hon. A. Petter: As so often is the case, the member is confusing issues. The cases which we've just been referring to are not private prosecutions. They are actions with respect to, in one case, assertions about consultations that should have allegedly taken place with respect to replacement processes or in the other case of litigation, assertions that the chief forester should have taken into account some factor or other. They're not private prosecutions by any stretch of definition or imagination.

However, let me try to answer the question I think the member intended, and that was: will the Forest Practices Code and, in particular, the presence of the Forest Practices Board help to direct members of the public to pursue remedies in ways other than litigation? The answer is clearly yes. In fact, one of the reasons that I was so insistent last year that we maintain full public access to the board -- notwithstanding the attempts by the official opposition and, I regret, by other opposition parties to restrict public access to the board -- was precisely this. If you restrict public access to the board, then that public is more likely to seek other remedies, such as litigation.

[ Page 15541 ]

Under the Forest Practices Code, members of the public who do not have direct access to the appeal process will have access to the board. If, for some reason or another, they feel there has been a breach in the requirements of the code and if they feel they have not received a satisfactory answer from the ministry, they can take that complaint or concern to the board. The board is empowered to examine, investigate and report back. In some circumstances, the board is empowered to actually pursue an appeal through the appeal process on behalf of a member of the public, in the event that a satisfactory resolution cannot be achieved through less formal means. So the whole thrust of the Forest Practices Board is to provide an alternative method through which accountability can be provided to the public without having to engage in the kind of litigation that unfortunately has become the norm in other jurisdictions.

I only regret that the member didn't see that fact last year, when we debated the code, and tried to restrict public access to the board. Had he succeeded in doing so, I fear he would have simply driven more people to consider litigation. Fortunately, he and his party failed in that effort, and we now have a board that can attain the full spectrum of public concerns and, by doing so, lessen the likelihood of litigation.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can describe for the committee the nature of the enforcement branch, which I understand has been formulated within the ministry -- a specific branch to deal with the kinds of complaints and concerns that would come before the Forest Practices Board. Perhaps, if I could ask another question first, the minister could describe the general purpose or mandate of the enforcement branch as it applies to the ministry and its activities.

Hon. A. Petter: There are two structures that I want to make sure are differentiated. The member is correct in saying that within the ministry there is an enforcement branch, whose mandate is to ensure that policy practices and training are carried out and that there is adequate enforcement of the Forest Practices Code.

In addition, the member may be aware that we have announced that we will be establishing an interministry enforcement team that will oversee code enforcement to ensure that there is consistency of code enforcement throughout the province and amongst ministries. Of course, the Ministries of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and Environment, Lands and Parks are involved in enforcement, along with the Ministry of Forests. That team will enable us to ensure that there is consistency and coordination on enforcement issues. So there are those two structures: the branch and the team.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can tell us how many FTEs are employed in the branch now. And I wonder if he could tell us what yardsticks the government uses to measure the performance of the enforcement team. Clearly this is an issue that will be of concern to those members of the public who, as I indicated earlier, may be tempted to pursue litigation or complaints to the board. I wonder if he could describe for the committee the number of full-time-equivalents. What is the measure of performance being used with respect to the members of the enforcement branch?

Hon. A. Petter: We're checking on the exact number, but the number is in the range of seven or eight FTEs. The member should understand that the branch is really a small group focused on enforcement policy, training and ensuring that the policy is there to create an environment for good enforcement. It is not itself an enforcement agency. We'll check and confirm it, but the answer is around eight FTEs.

W. Hurd: The branch, then, is a policy-making group, and the enforcement team is the one that is in the field doing the audits. Is that what we're dealing with here? What I'm looking for is some sort of idea as to how the Forest Practices Code regulations are going to be applied. I realize there's a responsibility through the district office to scrutinize plans that are brought forward to, hopefully, audit and verify the information contained in the plans. I guess the question that I'm asking is: how much on-site inspection or fieldwork are we going to get from the enforcement team? Is this a function that will be left more to the district staff and regional managers?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I want to be clear on this. The enforcement branch is there to support enforcement that is carried out within the field. The interministerial enforcement team is there to oversee, coordinate and ensure consistency across ministries and provincewide. The actual enforcement itself is done by groups called enforcement teams, but enforcement teams at the district level. We've drawn together resources at the district level and encouraged district managers to do so in order to provide better opportunities for enforcement, to reduce the administrative load and to put more people into the field, assisted by the reorganization that's taken place in the ministry, through which 200 FTEs who were previously located within regional headquarters are now being located within the district offices. So the actual enforcement -- the on-the-ground, day-to-day inspections -- is done by these district office enforcement teams in the field.

I'm now informed, upon checking, that the number of FTEs in the enforcement branch is nine.

W. Hurd: As the minister knows, the provisions of the code not only apply to standards and regulations as they are practised in the woods but also apply to plans, silvicultural prescriptions and other harvesting plans that are forwarded to the district office, which now has to comply with the rather stringent requirements of the Forest Practices Code. As the minister is aware, there are sizeable administrative penalties now for submitting plans that don't contain the required documentation or may be in non-compliance with the code.

I wonder if he can tell us whether the enforcement teams are dealing strictly with land-based audits or inspections. Or are they supposed to check the veracity of these plans as they apply to the actual forested areas of the province? What specifically is their role? As the minister knows, the code is far-reaching and all-encompassing, and one wonders how they'd be able to go out into the land base and undertake an inspection without having a detailed working knowledge of the plans that are on file at the district office.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member misunderstands. When a forest company or licence holder submits a plan, that plan is scrutinized by the ministry to ensure that it complies with the code. If it does not comply with the code, it is not approved. It's not a matter of there being penalties; it's a matter of it going back for adjustment until it meets the 

[ Page 15542 ]

requirements of the code. So the planning process is one in which the Forest Practices Code requirements help to guide both the licence holder and the staff in ensuring that the requirements of the code have been met.

Once the plans have been approved and found to have been in conformity with the code, obviously those plans then govern the activities that take place in the field and govern the enforcement teams in determining whether or not the licence holder has been living up to the terms of the plan.

W. Hurd: I think this is an important issue. This is a new function of the ministry. I really think we need to get into a discussion about the benchmarks or thresholds that the ministry hopes to achieve with respect to the field audits, the on-site inspections. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether the ministry has inspection targets that it expects to see at the district offices during the current fiscal year -- on-site field inspections that are signed by somebody who has actually set foot on the land base.

The minister will be aware that there's considerable concern about the enforcement teams, the fact that they are new FTEs and that they may or may not yet be fully experienced in the Forest Practices Code and exactly what they are looking at when they do go out on the land base to look at actual logging plans or logging shows as they unfold. Can the minister tell us, first of all, in terms of the number of inspections, what the targets are for district offices in terms of increasing the number of field audits? Are we dealing with percentages or numbers? What are the benchmarks that this minister expects to see with respect to actual field audits in the woods in the province?

Hon. A. Petter: I need to distinguish some terms that the member has tended to mix up. Audits are conducted, or will be conducted, for the most part, by the Forest Practices Board, much as the audits that were done by the ministry previously through the Tripp audit process. Those audits will help the board and the public understand overall compliance and performance under the code.

The actual enforcement end of the code will be pursued by the ministry through a risk management strategy in which not each and every activity will be monitored and enforced. It will be done on a risk basis. That means in areas where companies have demonstrated a lack of performance in the past, more resources will be targeted. In areas where companies have demonstrated better performance, less resources can be targeted. It's a matter of targeting resources and inspections to correspond with the degree of risk that exists in order to ascertain whether the code is being complied with.

[9:30]

Each district is generating its own plan to conform with that risk management strategy. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I certainly can, by the time we reconvene or through correspondence, give the member additional information on the actual number of expected inspections and how that will play out in the district offices. Yes, we have sought and received additional resources, plus the reorganization I mentioned earlier, which will enable us to increase the number of inspections, and I can provide the member with some of that information. In addition, we are coordinating our efforts with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to ensure that we complement each other's efforts to avoid overlap in respect of enforcement.

In respect of the concerns about staff who may not be as experienced as others, clearly the district offices are dealing with that situation in a number of ways. One is through extensive training, which has taken place internally within the ministry under the code. The training modules that have been developed by the ministry in cooperation with industry and others are, I think, going to assist tremendously in ensuring that we do have a common understanding with those in industry around what is expected under the code. Obviously new staff are going to have to work with more experienced staff on a sort of mentor basis to ensure that they understand and quickly gain the experience they need to ensure that compliance is being carried out effectively under the code. All of those concerns have been communicated and registered within the ministry, and the ministry is certainly determined to ensure that the enforcement process involved in all of this is carried out effectively.

W. Hurd: Seeing the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:32 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1995: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada