1994 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 8

[ Page 10795 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. B. Barlee: On behalf of the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture, I would like the House to welcome the following individuals who represent the major wineries in British Columbia. I believe that some members can attest to the quality of their products. They are: Bruce McDonald, vice-president and general manager of Andres Wines Ltd.; Rick Thorpe of the Brights-Cartier Group; Ian Tostenson, president of Calona Wines; and Anthony von Mandl, president and CEO of the Mark Anthony Group.

R. Neufeld: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House a councillor from the city of Fort St. John and a very good friend, Jean Pryndik. Would the House make her welcome.

H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today Rod Brookes and Darcy Dueck from the constituency of Abbotsford. Please give them a hearty welcome.

D. Jarvis: I'd like members to welcome two constituents who are in the precincts today from the Sherwood Park area of my riding of North Vancouver-Seymour: Mrs. Perry Vincent and Mr. Roy Vincent.

Deputy Speaker: The Government House Leader rises on a point of order?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes. Yesterday the member for Richmond East made certain allegations in the House regarding highway kickbacks. She refused to repeat those unfounded allegations outside the House, which is clear evidence that they are in fact unfounded. I rise now to give the member an opportunity to set the record straight and withdraw those unparliamentary and unfounded remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Mr. Minister, the point of order was raised in the House yesterday and was dealt with by the House. You will recall that the member was asked to withdraw from the premises. It seems to me that the principle embraced is that the crime, if you will, was committed and the punishment was meted out, and therefore the matter is over and done with. I don't think there is a point of order beyond that.

Oral Questions

EFFECT ON INVESTMENT OF CORPORATE CAPITAL TAX

F. Gingell: This government has been accused by a newly arrived business in Delta of selling would-be foreign investors a bill of goods when politicians and officials travel abroad on trade missions and are not up front about the government's tax on investment. My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. Will he tell the House why on their promotional trips overseas government staff forget to explain his capital tax to potential investors?

Hon. G. Clark: It's interesting, because when it comes to the economy, it seems to me the proof is in the pudding. We have the strongest economy in North America. We have the strongest investment coming into British Columbia. People are voting with their feet. Housing starts are up 8 percent in British Columbia; exports are up 16 percent. This province is doing better than anywhere else in Canada or North America, and that's proof that people are investing in British Columbia and that we have a very good investment climate for investors.

Deputy Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member for Delta South.

F. Gingell: In no way would I suggest to the minister that he's not being exactly accurate about all of these statements, but I do suggest that he really does need to look at statistics with a great deal of care. I don't personally accept that all of North America, as he claims, runs behind British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

F. Gingell: This government has adopted a number of policies that penalize businesses for operating in this province and force them to move to other jurisdictions. The tax on capital is just one more barrier to this investment.

Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. member please pose the question.

F. Gingell: Will the minister please tell this House how many more businesses -- just like this one -- will leave British Columbia before he finally repeals the corporate capital tax?

Hon. G. Clark: In the last year, 16,000 new businesses were created in British Columbia. British Columbia created 65 percent of the full-time jobs in Canada last year. Only a Liberal opposition member would say that that record is something other than spectacular. Thousands of jobs and thousands of businesses are being created in British Columbia. That member would have us eliminate the $350 million corporate capital tax from business and put it on working people and poor people in British Columbia.

Some Hon. Members: Shame!

Deputy Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member for Delta South.

F. Gingell: The truth is that other countries, jurisdictions and provinces bend over backwards to attract investment by creating an environment where it is easy for them to do business. This government continues to tax heavily, even when companies are losing money. We all know that the total

[ Page 10796 ]

number of people unemployed in British Columbia is up. Will this minister admit that these policies damage economic growth in British Columbia, and will he tell us when he is going to do something about it?

Hon. G. Clark: As I said at the outset, the proof is very clear. Thousands of people are moving to British Columbia because this is the place to be. This is where the jobs are being created. Thousands of businesses are opening every day. And yes, every other province is bending over backwards, but our policy of not slashing government services, of high-quality services, of investment in infrastructure in this province, of quality of life, of making sure that services like education, skills training and job creation are high priorities for the government, is working.

The failed policies of neoconservatism and your policies have not worked in other parts of the country. Our policies are working in B.C.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD CLAIMS

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Employment -- because that's his interest, obviously. Earlier this week, we learned that the Workers' Compensation Board decided to stop processing all claims under

section 39(1)(

e) of the act, which encourages employers to hire previously injured workers. Yet the WCB did not change the act, the regulations or the policies of the board. The applications were simply removed from the adjudicators' workload. Will the minister please explain on what grounds the board has decided not to enforce the act?

[2:15]

Hon. G. Clark: I'll take the question on notice for the minister responsible. But if they have run out of questions.... If they ask it again, I'll take the opportunity to answer.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, you cannot answer and take the question on notice.

A new question from the member for Richmond-Steveston?

A. Warnke: It's a new question. When we take a look over there, the decimation of the government is just terrific. Look -- half of you guys over there.

Right now, 1,628 such claims are piling up on some desk at the WCB. This is another example of the backlog and frustration that injured workers and employers are experiencing. This minister, the Minister of Employment, is supposed to be interested in employing people.

Deputy Speaker: Member, do you have a question?

A. Warnke: When will this minister understand that the government is headed in the wrong direction? When will this minister, along with the other minister, end the chaos at WCB?

Deputy Speaker: The question was taken on notice.

REPAYMENT OF INCOME ASSISTANCE BY HOMEOWNER RECIPIENTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Social Services.

Some Hon. Members: She's not here.

J. Weisgerber: Over 7,000....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: I know the member for Peace River South is patient, and I would encourage him to wait until the House is listening.

J. Weisgerber: Over 7,000 welfare recipients in British Columbia today own their own homes. That doesn't include seniors or disabled persons. All of them are entitled to receive GAIN plus shelter assistance, which can be applied to mortgages and taxes. Can the minister explain why taxpayers should be forced to pay for these welfare recipients' mortgages and taxes, and why repayment is not required when the property is sold? Will the minister agree that welfare should be amended so as to be considered a loan against property rather than a simple payment?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll take the question on notice on behalf of the Minister of Social Services.

Deputy Speaker: A new question from the Leader of the Third Party?

REPAYMENT OF DEFERRED PROPERTY TAXES BY SENIORS

J. Weisgerber: Yes, this is a question for the Minister Responsible for Seniors -- and surely somewhere over there there must be a minister responsible for something in the House today.

Can the minister explain why, on the one hand, seniors are required to pay property taxes deferred under the property tax deferment plan and, on the other hand, welfare recipients are not required to repay welfare payments received, when indeed those welfare recipients own property, as do the seniors? Can the minister explain why seniors should be forced to repay property taxes but welfare recipients are not required to repay payments made under that system?

Hon. G. Clark: I know there are eight cabinet ministers here. You'd think there would be some questions about the important areas that those members are responsible for. Unfortunately....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I'm sorry, but I can't hear the answer to the question.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a puzzling line of questioning, hon. Speaker. But I'll take it on notice on behalf of the Minister Responsible for Seniors.

Deputy Speaker: I will take a question from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Guilty as charged. I am sure the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi will allow me that oversight, and I acknowledge the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

[ Page 10797 ]

G. Wilson: With all the changes that happen in this House, it's no wonder people are confused. But it's nice to follow the Leader of the Third Party, which just adds to the adage that the more things change, the more they stay the same -- or, who said the Socreds were dead?

VANCOUVER LAWYER'S ALLEGATIONS ABOUT JUSTICE SYSTEM

G. Wilson: My question is to the Attorney General. Over the last number of months there have been very serious allegations made with respect to the justice system by a Vancouver lawyer by the name of Mr. Cram. Mr. Cram has consistently decided, or let us believe, that there are indeed some serious instances of corruption in the justice system that need to be reviewed. Can the Attorney General tell us today what action his ministry has taken with respect to the allegations that have consistently come forward and are being repeated even today by Mr. Cram?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I see no reason to initiate any action as a result of comments made by Mr. Cram.

Deputy Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: Notwithstanding the manner in which these issues have been raised or the general commentary that we may have seen in the popular press about Mr. Cram, the fact is that the comments that have been made are extremely serious in nature. Will the Attorney General tell us whether he is prepared to take action with respect to the comments made by Mr. Cram -- and the Law Society of British Columbia -- so that the people of British Columbia can be convinced that those allegations, if they are unfounded, are indeed only allegations? Will the Attorney General commit today to a full independent inquiry into the comments and allegations made?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I won't commit to do that.

ASSESSMENTS OF BAMFIELD FORESHORE LAND

W. Hurd: The opposition threw their questions into a hat today and tried to pull a minister out, and they didn't match up.

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs that relates to the navigable waters in the residential community of Bamfield. How can the Minister of Municipal Affairs explain the sudden decision to assess Crown foreshore land in Bamfield? That policy penalizes residents who have no alternative mode of access to their residential property but the water that they now have to pay an assessment on.

Hon. D. Marzari: I will take that question on notice.

Deputy Speaker: A supplemental, member?

W. Hurd: It is a new question, but it could be a supplemental if you so.... [Laughter.]

We have an example of one family in Bamfield whose assessment bill increased by $200. A 70-year-old pensioner was hit with a $600 hike in her bill for the water assessed under her dock. Can the minister explain such an unfair tax grab at the expense of hard-working people in Bamfield? Can British Columbians expect to be targeted by the Assessment Authority in the future for water that just happens to go out and come in by the normal tidal action?

Hon. D. Marzari: It is my understanding that the individuals in Bamfield chose to go for Crown leases along their waterfront, rather than applying for simple licences to put simple docks out in front of their homes, which would not have come under the same assessment procedures. Once an individual or a corporation is involved with leasing Crown land or a Crown water lot, they are susceptible to being assessed on that. There is a market value on that, which should be assessed -- and properly so. I have made some suggestions to the member for the region, but I will pursue this further with that member. And I will report back to the member who asked the question.

Deputy Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order which the member raised earlier, the Speaker made a comment about a crime having been committed and punishment having been given. I know that was meant as an analogy, but perhaps the Speaker could clarify those comments for us.

Deputy Speaker: I think if the member were to check the record, he would discover that I did indeed make it very clear that I was speaking in analogous terminology -- yes indeed.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. In the House, I call committee stage of Bill 21.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 21; L. Fox in the chair.

section 1.

Hon. B. Barlee: This legislation has been in the works for about seven years. Some of the members who introduced this legislation some years ago are quite aware of it. It impacts upon the community of conservation and heritage resources, and it is very important. All three major parties in the House have been represented in this. The member for Okanagan-Vernon was one of the authors of this legislation some years ago, the present Leader of the Opposition agreed to it when he was mayor of Vancouver and the original Social Credit Party was also interested in this bill. This bill should receive unanimous consent.

There will be some questions, and I will endeavour to answer them as best I am able.

[2:30]

G. Farrell-Collins: There seems to be some confusion as to the business that is taking place in Committee A and Committee B, and our critic has been appointed to be in two places at the same time. We're trying to work that out, and I would ask that the House recess for five minutes until we have a chance to straighten that out with the Government House Leader.

The House recessed at 2:32 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:47 p.m.

[ Page 10798 ]

L. Krog: I ask leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Krog: In gallery with us today is Mr. Ron Boulding, a teacher from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School, with 50 grade 11 students. I'd like the House to make them welcome on behalf of my colleague the member for Vancouver-Kensington.

J. Dalton: Do I understand that the vote has been called?

The Chair: No. With the understanding that the official opposition critic may be in the other committee, we could go on.

C. Tanner: I was given the assurance that we could talk to any section, at least initially. Is that agreeable? I want to make a general comment on

section 1.

Interjection.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, the member wishes to make a comment on

section 1.

C. Tanner: I want to say to the minister and to the minister's predecessor that this side of the House supports this bill in general. I know other members have some criticisms about the way it has been written, particularly in the

definitions section.

I have one major overall criticism, that I didn't make when we were on second reading for the simple reason that I didn't think it was appropriate to speak to it then, but it is appropriate now. It is this: we have 150-odd municipalities of varying size around the province, from the city of Vancouver to a small village of 200 or 300 people, and all of them are bound by this piece of legislation. I find it unreasonable to expect small towns and villages in this province to have the expertise in their offices and administrations to cope with a bill of this size and complexity.

As a consequence, I suspect we're going to have problems all around the province. The minister should be aware of the fact that he is going to need something to cope with those problems.

This is not a straightforward and easy piece of legislation; it's a very complicated piece of legislation and, as is quite often the case in British Columbia, it is a unique piece of legislation. Coincidentally, it started in the Yukon, came to B.C. and has gradually evolved in B.C. We've gone from the last act, with about seven pages, to something like 200 pages here.

An Hon. Member: It's 107.

C. Tanner: It's still way too much; and it's not the way to write legislation.

I wanted to make the point right from the word go that this legislation is necessary. It is important to protect the artifacts of this province, and it is vital to look after our heritage so our children and grandchildren can enjoy the things that we take for granted now, because they will be exploited, they will be exported and they will disappear unless we protect them.

Having said that, I'm not convinced that such a heavy-duty piece of legislation is the way to go. I'll bring up my particular objections as we go through. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for obliging me in this.

Hon. B. Barlee: We will be working with all of the local communities. Some of these communities, by the way, belong to the UBCM. The mayor of Vancouver, who was the chairman of UBCM, commended the intent of this legislation in the spring of 1993. We have small cities in British Columbia -- bona fide cities -- like Greenwood: population, 916.

[A. Warnke in the chair.]

On balance, this is good legislation. I think the critic will agree with me that it is good legislation. I'm not saying that everything is drafted perfectly. When you have a bill of 107 pages, everything isn't.

When I look at what has happened in British Columbia in the last three or four decades, we have lost some magnificent heritage structures and areas that have not been protected by the Crown. I think this is the Crown's responsibility, and I believe the member will agree with me. Once those resources are lost, they are almost never regained. I'm talking about all sorts of resources and specific areas: perhaps the Gulch in Trail; specific vessels, like the SS Sicamous in Penticton; old railroad beds, like the KVR or the K&S; magnificent buildings in little places like Kaslo, Greenwood and Fernie -- the list goes on and on.

When I balance this legislation.... We're attempting to save some of these structures that could disappear. Some have disappeared before my very eyes, and yours too, in the last 20 or 25 years. That happened in the Yukon. You alluded to the Yukon. That happened in Dawson over the years, as you well know. Legislation like this tends to protect it rather than destroy it. There are some points that you will probably make that we will probably concur with to a degree. Generally the intent of this bill is effective. It's been on the books for seven years; I think it's long overdue.

C. Tanner: I agree with what the member said. It's interesting that he should bring up the town of Greenwood. I was in Greenwood two weeks ago and I noted in that pretty little town some magnificent buildings, some greatly historical buildings -- the same thing in Rossland, further down the road. But the fact is that sometimes historical value and heritage are in the eyes of the beholder. In the town of Sidney, where I live, the oldest building in the town was built in 1935, and those people consider that a heritage building. I don't, but they do. The buildings that I saw in Rossland and Greenwood definitely are heritage buildings, in my view, and they should be preserved.

[A. Hagen in the chair.]

The point I'm making is that that

interpretation is going to come from the population at large. They are going to have to make those determinations, and the municipality is going to have to deal with somebody who is absolutely convinced that this building, that property, that group of trees or that railbed have got to be saved. Then the municipality has to refer to the 107 pages of this legislation and interpret it, and that's where the difficulty is going to arise. The minister should be aware that it's going to happen and that he needs to have people on his staff, or at least people he can call on, to help him implement this legislation in the smaller municipalities.

G. Wilson: On a point of order, I find it very hard to follow committee stage of this bill. I'm at a loss to know what

[ Page 10799 ]

section of the bill we're dealing with. My understanding is that we are on

section 1. Is that what we're dealing with?

The Chair: We are on

section 1. Because we have been awaiting the critic from the opposition, there has been some latitude in the debate. But we are dealing with

section 1 at this time.

G. Wilson: Would the hon. Chair then confirm that

section 1 has not passed? When I first came in, there was discussion that we were on

section 2 but that we were going back to

section 1.

The Chair: It's my understanding that we have delayed the passing of

section 1 until those people who want to participate in the debate are in the House. Everyone is here now, so we are dealing with

section 1, and it has not yet passed.

Hon. B. Barlee: A local government does not have to refer to all 107 sections; they have to refer to the Municipal Act. That clarifies it significantly and simplifies their job quite dramatically.

C. Tanner: We're winding this down a little bit, but to refer 107 pages to 554 pages is still a difficulty. Smaller municipalities have trouble with the legislation that we draft in this House. We should always attempt to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. In certain areas this doesn't appear to be that way. Certainly the Municipal Act isn't that way.

Madam Chairman, if you would like to put the question on

section 1, I'm happy to go now.

Hon. B. Barlee: They are required to look at the specific designation under

section 4.2. That's why we have: "designated under

section 4 of the Heritage Conservation Act" or "designated under

section 1022 of the Municipal Act...." I don't see a lot of difficulties there.

Hon. B. Barlee: This is basically related to the Assessment Act, to make sure there's a fair evaluation of those particular properties.

[3:00]

Hon. B. Barlee: As the member well knows, that assessment could change from year to year. If the member is concerned about specific evaluation, most buildings -- according to information I was looking at this morning -- that are designated heritage structures do not lose their value; they go up in value. That may be what you're alluding to.

G. Wilson: I am alluding to that. If you put a date in a piece of legislation, presumably that has effect and will also affect what comes about. So it takes effect and it has an effect, or impact, on the property. I come back to the question about October 31. If on that date following evaluations and so on, a portion of land or improvements is designated under one of the three sections cited, what are the determinants? Let me put it this way: what will be the determining factor as to the actual values assigned to that property? Will it be strictly the assessment on that date? Or will it be the assessment plus whatever considerations may be entered into after that date?

Hon. B. Barlee: A number of factors come into that equation, of course -- are they protecting the whole property, the house or some of the outbuildings? -- and they will probably vary from property to property. There's not much doubt about that at all. If I look at some city structures, it would be mainly the building. If it were in more rural areas, it might be much more than that; it might be the landscape, the building or some of the outbuildings. I think that's a difficult question to pin down exactly, and it's a difficult question to answer, to be quite candid.

G. Wilson: The next logical question is: why have the October 31 date stipulated in the legislation?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. B. Barlee: That is simply the evaluation date, which can vary from year to year.

G. Wilson: I didn't see anything in the act that would vary that date. It says, "Notwithstanding any requirement of this section", and it states a date.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'm really not trying to be difficult with this. I'm trying to understand it, and maybe I haven't quite got my head around this question.

[ Page 10800 ]

It strikes me that

section 1 has a cost implication to both those municipalities or entities seeking to designate heritage and those who may find that they have heritage sites that are designated. So my question is: is the October 31 date the cutoff date at which the assessed value is the determining factor? Is something after that date different? Does it constitute a different cost effect after October 31? Is there some magical reason that that date is in the legislation?

Hon. B. Barlee: It is primarily, I believe, because of the Assessment Act.

G. Wilson: I'm reluctant to let this go until I've had a chance to look at the Assessment Act. Is the minister saying that October 31 is there to bring it in line with the assessments? If so, what

section of the act are we talking about?

Hon. B. Barlee: There will be a value assessed at that date. Then the valuations can vary from year to year, according to market prices in many instances. In some areas you'd have a very high value for a heritage house, and that may vary from year to year.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's basically correct.

G. Wilson: I'd like to just correct the record, because I was talking about October 31, 1994. We're talking about October 31 of every year. That's understood now, given that reference to

section 26 in the Assessment Act. Okay.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The minister's saying that that's what he said, and if he did that's great.

My next question is: will that be a determinant of property taxes on properties that are in the designation and review process as spelled out in this act? If one is identified and deemed to be under that designation review, then is that necessarily going to affect the property tax on those private property holders who hold those potentially designated properties?

Hon. B. Barlee: If there's no property tax exemption, that property tax will simply illustrate the value of the property.

G. Wilson: I have to raise this under

section 1, though it's dealt with later on; it talks about tax liability way down the road. I raise it now because it talks about the tax liability of designated properties. Does the minister anticipate that inclusion under

section 945(7)(

b) of the Municipal Act and inclusion within the official community plan will increase taxes on such private properties?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think that's illustrated by my previous comment that the value of most buildings designated heritage buildings or properties tends to go up; therefore their assessment would go up. On the other hand, occasionally the value goes down, depending upon the area, so their assessment would go down as well. The assessment essentially reflects the immediate value of the property.

F. Randall: I request leave for an introduction on behalf of the Speaker.

Leave granted.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have 115 grade 6 students from Riverview Elementary School in Snohomish, Washington, U.S.A. They're accompanied by Ms. J. Lawless, who is their teacher. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Tyabji: If the minister has covered this, I'll apologize, but I had something else to attend to.

Later on in the act we see that heritage designation can be imposed on private property, and there are several qualifications for that. When we're talking about property taxes and exemptions from property tax, it would appear from this act and from the Assessment Act that heritage value becomes part of the assessment and could increase that property tax even though the heritage value was imposed on that private property by another body. Does the minister have a comment on that?

Hon. B. Barlee: If property values go down, they may get compensation. If property values go up on that particular house -- I don't care where it would be; maybe the old Lyonais house in Nelson, B.C. -- of course they wouldn't get compensation, because that means that their asset's value goes up. I think of a number of buildings all around the province -- the Liberal member alluded to some of them -- and there are some marvellous buildings that have not been well taken care of. I just mentioned the Lyonais house, which once belonged to the mayor of Nelson -- a marvellous house.

Unfortunately, we didn't have this act in effect. It had a tower, marvellous brass on all the doors, stained-glass windows and chandeliers, but the house was destroyed. Hopefully this bill will protect some of those heritage buildings in the older towns in British Columbia. To give you an example, the value of the Lyonais house was probably only $15,000. So declaring it a heritage house wouldn't have made much difference, unless the owner who had purchased it decided to renovate the house which he did not -- he destroyed it.

J. Tyabji: It would appear from the minister's answer that it would be possible.... Now we're getting into other sections of the bill. We know right now that one of the greatest difficulties facing homeowners is rising property taxes, in large part because of increasing assessments. So you could have someone, especially a senior citizen, who could have been born and grown up in a house. Maybe their parents and their parents' parents were born there. You could have a third generation. The Okanagan Valley is full of that. The house and property could be heritage.

You could have a block of houses that were heritage houses. If a developer or a business person, whomever it was, came in and applied to the city for heritage designation, it would certainly fit the bill of heritage designation. The value of that property could then go up, the assessment and the property tax would go up, and the people would have to move. Perhaps then they would become commercial heritage properties, which are eligible under this act. That's the concern I have. What does the minister have to reassure those people that that wouldn't happen?

[ Page 10801 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: I can answer that with several illustrations. The member for Okanagan East mentioned that there are a lot of heritage houses in the Okanagan. Essentially, that is not correct; there are very few heritage houses left in the Okanagan. Certainly Kelowna, where the member comes from, is a classic example. There were marvellous houses in many sectors of Kelowna. They're all gone; they have virtually all hit the road on that. This is designed.... But there is some relief in here. We'll take three or four classic examples.

[3:15]

In Fernie, which has a marvellous main street, they are allowed to offer tax relief to any building designated heritage. The local government says: "Do we place a value on this heritage street and on the buildings that line this heritage street?" The same thing could be done in Greenwood, Kaslo or any of those old towns where developers have not made a significant impact on old buildings. The local government has that provision. Local governments have taken advantage of this in other areas -- for instance, on Nelson's Baker Street. Many buildings in Nelson still stand.

They have done very well by their heritage legislation. George Coletti, who has an 1890s store on the main street, could be given tax relief by the local government. I don't know whether he is or not. Indeed, I think some of them will do this. It's usually to their advantage to give tax relief to heritage structures.

The Chair: Could I just say to the member and the minister that I think both of you are involved in what sounds suspiciously like second reading debate.

Section 1 is pretty specific. It talks about clarifying the basis for evaluation of properties under heritage designation and not much more. Please be guided by that.

J. Tyabji: I find it hard to believe that questions on a specific

section could be taken as second reading, but I'll defer to the Chair.

section 1 we're talking about assessments and property tax, and the minister is saying that it would be up to the discretion of the municipal government to provide the relief. The concern that I have is that because the Assessment Act is a provincial act, the provincial government has the discretion to make sure that people who are, let's say, in a residence.... Kelowna is an excellent example. What happened to the heritage buildings there was really quite heartbreaking.

But if those buildings had been kept in place and preserved through heritage designation, there is a good chance that property taxes wouldn't have been relieved by the municipal government. There has been an ongoing battle. The minister could see the residents' associations that have formed in the last few years to preserve this. Why wouldn't the provincial government exercise their discretion on this

section and provide relief under the amendment to the Assessment Act?

Hon. B. Barlee: An assessment is essentially, hopefully, a fair assessment of the value of a property. I don't think it properly belongs under the aegis of the provincial government to provide benefits for that. That is a decision made by a duly elected council. Kelowna made that decision through a number of councils, probably starting with Mayor Dick Parkinson way back in the 1950s. I knew him well. They said: "These mansions, including some in my family, were simply gutted. They were destroyed." That is fine. That was a decision made by Kelowna.

They said: "We want this land for other purposes." That's a decision that has to be made by the individual municipality. I don't say that they'll always make a wise decision. This is to focus on an area that we think should be focused on. Some of these municipal councils may elect not to protect heritage buildings. That's fine -- no, it isn't fine, but that's what happens.

J. Tyabji: To summarize the question: why did the minister choose to amend the Assessment Act to delegate the authority on the assessment when he could have...? The way I read this is that because the actual value must now take into consideration the heritage protection of the property, that can only increase the property value. I don't understand why the minister would choose to do that and leave it to the municipalities to determine that. If the minister could tell me why he would choose to do that, that's my last question on this section.

Hon. B. Barlee: Assessment values and property relief are under two entirely different areas of government. Assessment values are under the Assessment Authority. Tax relief for that is granted to the municipal governments, should they wish to take advantage of it. I would certainly take advantage of it. But that's a personal preference. They may or may not take advantage of that.

G. Wilson: I can assure the Chair and the minister that we are not trying to be obstructionist on this; we're just trying to understand. How does the municipality benefit through tax relief on this question? In fact it won't. The municipality will be the agency that will carry the can on this question.

Hon. B. Barlee: I disagree. If the member would take a trip into areas that have protected their historic resources, he would see that it has usually proven to be extremely beneficial to the city. In a number of cases -- Port Townsend and Winthrop in Washington State, for example -- they have done extremely well by protecting their historic resources. It gives them a better tax base all the way around. First of all, the businesses in those communities usually do much better. Winthrop, Washington, is a classic example.

Nelson is a fine example, where they attract all sorts of movies -- Roxanne, and the list goes on. I think that any farsighted municipal council will look at the benefits of keeping their heritage structures and extend that tax relief to those individuals who are willing to comply with that aim.

G. Wilson: That point is not in dispute. I'm not disputing that we should protect it or that we should encourage municipalities to protect it. All I'm trying to get the minister to acknowledge.... I wanted to pin down subsections (a), (

b) and (

c) with respect to the designation of these sites, because there's a cost to preserving heritage sites. It's not just a question of preservation; there's an ongoing cost and therefore a liability to somebody to maintain, upkeep, upgrade or do whatever it is you're going to do with them. That cost is going to be borne by the municipalities. Therefore it would seem that if there is to be any relief with respect to property taxation and right, there should be some relief from the provincial government with respect to the municipalities so that those costs are not downloaded. That's what we're talking about.

We're not talking about the benefit of preserving those properties; we acknowledge that there's a benefit.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think they're linked. But it is simply a discretionary extension which the municipal governments can take advantage of. They don't have to. Values change from year to year, whether it's a heritage property or not. If I

[ Page 10802 ]

were in a small town, I would look very carefully. Take Kaslo, for example. The city hall was built in 1898. It could have been ripped down; it wasn't. It's a marvellous building. It draws all sorts of people to Front Street in Kaslo. They have other advantages, of course; the SS Moyie is there. They have elected to say: "We will not give tax relief." And I don't think they do in those buildings in Kaslo. I'm quite sure of that. But it has benefited Kaslo significantly over the years. It's a town of 1,100 people, I think. That's up to the discretion of the duly elected city council.

G. Wilson: This is my last comment on this section. I want the record to show that the members of the Alliance party believe that this is going to be a cost to municipalities. It may be an imposed cost; it may affect small municipalities in particular that do not or will not have the discretionary ability to allow the waiving of taxation, because they can't afford it. There may be an allocation or determination on the basis of this bill under the terms by which you can designate heritage sites that will impose costs upon municipalities, which they will have to absorb.

The minister is shaking his head in disagreement. We may agree to disagree, but that clearly is what the language in this bill says to me and other members in the Alliance. We wish to be on record as stating that that is so.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

C. Tanner: My question on

section 2 really applies to

section 3, but I need to refer to

section 2. Why do we request the B.C. Buildings Corporation to only conserve heritage property in that act,

whereas in the Capital Commission Act, the succeeding act, we say that we can acquire and conserve heritage property? Surely there will be occasions when the B.C. Buildings Corporation will want to acquire heritage property as well.

Hon. B. Barlee: BCBC already can acquire property and various buildings. This is enabling legislation to conserve, if they so wish.

C. Tanner: In that case, could the minister or his staff not take the words in (c.1) under

section 3 and put them in

section 2 as well? In other words, could we have "acquire and conserve heritage property and cooperate with any local government in the conservation of heritage property" in

section 2? Would it not make sense to put that in

section 2 as well as in

section 3?

Hon. B. Barlee: Under the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, that is really not required or needed.

C. Tanner: I thought that was the case. I suspect that there are occasions when B.C. Buildings Corporation, acting as the agent of the government, will want to acquire heritage property, but I would have thought that for simplicity and consistency in legislative writing you would use the same expression to direct all those corporations that are going to act in this way, in the same manner.

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, it is redundant and not necessary.

The Chair: Hon. minister, would you repeat the point you made? I understand that the member didn't hear what you said.

Hon. B. Barlee: I will clarify, if you so wish. Under the BCBC act,

chapter 35,

section 4(2) says:

"In addition to its powers under this or any other Act the corporation, for the purposes of this Act, may, in its own name, (

a) acquire land and buildings; (

b) construct and maintain buildings; (

c) dispose of the whole or any part of its land or buildings; (

d) make studies, investigations and surveys and do research with regard to future accommodation requirements; (

e) acquire or construct land and buildings."

That doesn't really come under this particular point that you were referring to.

C. Tanner: I had looked at that section, and it doesn't say what

section 3 says.

Hon. B. Barlee: Then what does it say?

C. Tanner: It does something else in

section 3 that it doesn't do in

section 2. It says: "acquire and conserve heritage property..." -- that's what it says there; there's an assumption in the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act -- "...and cooperate with any local government in the conservation of heritage property." I think it's important that B.C. Buildings Corporation should behave in that way too. If you require the Capital Commission to do so, why wouldn't you require B.C. Buildings Corporation to do so?

Hon. B. Barlee: Under

section 4(2), it says this: "In addition to its powers under this or any other Act the corporation, for the purposes of this Act, may, in its own name...." I think the operative word there is "may."

C. Tanner: I had some dealings with BCBC before I was in this House, and while as individuals they're very fine people, the fact of the matter is that they sometimes do not act in exactly the same way that we want them to. I would like to see them under the same obligation as the Capital Commission.

As a suggestion to the minister, if he'd let this

section go, I'd be happy to bring in an amendment in the next couple of days. It wouldn't hurt the legislation at all; it would merely make (d.1) under

section 2 exactly the same as (c.1) under

section 3. I think it will in fact help the minister in what he's trying to attempt here, and it won't hurt him. So if the minister wants to go over

section 2 and into

section 3 and let me make an amendment.... Or he can even bring in an amendment himself. It seems to me that it would strengthen his legislation.

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, we think an amendment is not necessary. We think both those sections cover it adequately. I frankly think it does cover it adequately.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister please put on the record the definition of conserve?

Hon. B. Barlee: Conserve, or conservation, includes any activity undertaken to protect, preserve or enhance the heritage value of a heritage property. You could read a lot into that. So that's a general term, which may or may not be precise. In fact, it isn't precise; it gives you a general guideline. What is preservation? Is preservation 90 percent of the object? Does that devalue the object? It goes on and on.

[ Page 10803 ]

You're looking at providence of artifacts, and that goes on and on.

[3:30]

The Chair: Perhaps the Chair can assist by referring members to

section 13, where we have

definitions. There is a definition for the noun "conservation," and we can simply extrapolate for the definition of the verb. That may help.

J. Tyabji: The questioning from the Liberals brought me to the next question. Would BCBC have a budget for acquiring heritage property?

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm quite sure they do not.

J. Tyabji: I'd just like to say that that's a good answer, and I would not recommend that BCBC be acquiring any more property.

L. Fox: Before I ask the question, perhaps I could ask the minister for some information. Is it the government or BCBC that owns St. Ann's Academy?

Hon. B. Barlee: I have to have an extensive knowledge. It's owned by the province, as we both know. I believe that BCBC is the agent.

The Chair: I hope we're not going to debate that; it's rather beyond the purview. However, the member for Prince

George-Omineca continues.

L. Fox: I just wanted the clarification, because I guess when we look at preserving heritage, one of the things we have to look at is the affordability of doing that. That particular building is an example of some of the problems in trying to preserve our heritage, because it sits there as a vacant eyesore, almost, under the control.... That's one of the problems that I have with it. There is no question in my mind that it has a valuable history; the building has a lot of heritage. But the fact that it has been declared as such has really prevented it from being maintained, knocked down or whatever.

If BCBC has control of that, then the word "may" that the minister said earlier plays a large role in terms of that particular complex. Perhaps the minister might just enlighten me a bit.

Hon. B. Barlee: I hesitate to, but I'd be delighted to enlighten the member. That was designated under the former Social Credit government, under the Premier at the time, who, I believe, was Rita Johnston. I think she was right, actually, to designate that building. Indeed, it's a subject of some concern and debate in Victoria. I'm quite aware of that. But when I look at the structure, I think it's certainly worthy of the heritage designation.

L. Fox: In some respects, hon. Chair, I need your indulgence with this, because it almost goes back to some of the arguments that were made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast when we talked about affordability in

section 1. As well-intentioned as this legislation may be, it can come down to that affordability. I walk by it every morning to come to this assembly, and I can assure you that I and other people who are aware of that structure look at it and say: "My, my, what a waste." I guess that's the aspect that I'm looking at, and I'm looking for some guidance from the minister, saying: "Hey, we're not going to be irresponsible.

Perhaps with past designations there wasn't enough consideration given to the affordability of those designations." I guess I'm looking for some clarification and assurance from the minister that we're going to balance heritage with the affordability factor and that we're going to make sure that we don't create another St. Ann's Academy.

Hon. B. Barlee: There are only, I think, 73 provincial designations of heritage buildings. St. Ann's Academy is one of them. Some of those are privately owned, so the onus is not on the public purse. Frankly, I think St. Ann's preserves some of the character of Victoria. I see you walking by it when I drive down that way occasionally.

Many of the heritage designations are for private buildings, and that, again, is the decision of the individual concerned. If I had a heritage house, I would be very pleased to have it. Unfortunately, most of the grand houses and great mansions of Victoria have long gone. Those houses that were built in the late 1880s and 1890s have vanished. I think Victoria is much the poorer without them. So we're talking about individual cases, but I'm talking about the general vision of this act, which I think is fairly sound.

The Chair: May I just remind members that we're on

section 2, which is very specific indeed. We seem to be straying much beyond that.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

J. Tyabji: When we were canvassing

section 1 -- and I'm not going back to

section 1, where the Chair starts to do that routine of his -- we were talking about the property values and assessments that might increase with the heritage designation. Under

section 3, we've got "acquire and conserve." As I read this, the capital district can acquire this property -- I'm assuming for the purpose of conservation -- to "cooperate...in the conservation of." By what manner would they be acquiring it? Would they acquire it in the event of this residential property increasing in value and the residents then having to leave? Or if there are unpaid property taxes, is that how they acquire it? What do they do with it once they've acquired it? Is it meant to be capital government property? Or is it then meant to be sold, whether commercially or privately, and maintained as heritage?

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, that

section 9(1) has nothing to do with St. Ann's Academy or anything like that. This is simply with the Capital Commission Act; that's what it's under. It does not impact on St. Ann's Academy.

J. Tyabji: Then could the minister answer the question in this way: what would the Capital Commission do after the acquisition of property once they've conserved it as a heritage site or heritage property? It could be a house, a building, Royal Roads or anything.

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, certainly. The member mentions Royal Roads, or Hatley Park. That could be leased out to various businesses on a long-term lease. A number of measures could be taken to protect the economic viability of that particular heritage structure.

C. Tanner: I think this

section is designed to imitate in Canada the trust properties in Britain, whereby quite frequently people donate property to the state or the city -- or, in this case, to the Capital Commission. That then

[ Page 10804 ]

becomes an asset of the Capital Commission. They do whatever they have to do to preserve it, whether it means putting people in there on a

part-time basis or permanently, having it open to the public as a museum -- whatever. But there should not be an assumption that this is an acquisition by buying. It can be an acquisition by gift and frequently is.

Hon. B. Barlee: Well, certainly. The member illustrates some good examples in Britain where this has been done with some of the great houses of Britain -- and I say houses: castles and mansions and so on. Britain has followed that in other respects with their AONB, areas of outstanding natural beauty, which was passed in 1949. They have preserved those admirably, because they look at the long term. The member is correct in that statement.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

G. Wilson: I have some specific questions under

section 4 on the Coal Act, in terms of "cultural heritage resource" under the Mineral Tenure Act. I wonder why -- in terms of both the cultural heritage resource and protected heritage property -- it was felt that those sections should be included in this particular act, and why they wouldn't have looked at that in the overall definition

section which comes later, which maybe I can't speak to now.

Hon. B. Barlee: This simply means that those resources should be considered under that Mineral Tenure Act. I think it's pretty well self-explanatory. This

section provides

definitions for cultural heritage resources and protected heritage property, as stated in the Mineral Tenure Act. I don't know whether that would refer to all those buildings standing at Perry Creek, in the East Kootenays, but certainly this is simply to protect possible heritage resources under the Mineral Tenure Act.

Sections 4 through 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

C. Tanner: I must preface what I'm going to say by making my position clear: this is not my point of view; it's a point of view that's been expressed to me particularly from the northern part of the province by a number of people who are extremely nervous -- and this came as a surprise to me -- about Bill 21. They are operating in the forests, and they think that with "cultural heritage resource" in the Forest Act and in sections 10, 11 and 12, they are going to lose their livelihood. Both companies and employees think that this bill is going to be used by certain sections of our population -- and particularly the aboriginal people -- to take advantage of that

section of the act to inhibit the ability of people to make a living in the forests and of companies to harvest. Would the minister give me his public assurance that sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 -- other than in some specific, individual and probably quite small sites -- will not inhibit the forest industry and forest workers from doing their job in the forests of this province?

Hon. B. Barlee: I believe that with the consolidated process this has gone through for about seven years -- and we have books, literally, on it -- most of the users have been part of that process. If they haven't, they should have been. For the first time, cultural heritage values are being effectively integrated in land use decisions. That, perhaps, is overdue. I don't think it will have.... I've talked to COFI and some of the other forest concerns that have some problems with various parts of the act. I think it's been covered relatively adequately by both the previous government and this government.

Frankly, there is a certain discretionary power left up to the minister, as well, in some of these decisions.

C. Tanner: I suspect that the people who I've been hearing from over the past couple of weeks are watching this program. I think they need to hear from the minister that if the minister is going to exercise discretionary power, he will not exercise it to the disadvantage of those companies and employees who make a living in the forests, and that this is not designed to take away their livelihood; it is designed to protect those heritages that appear in the forest.

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly. I can give some assurance that it's certainly not designed to impact significantly on those people who make their livelihood from the forests of British Columbia. There may indeed be specific, very small areas; that, again, is up to the discretion of the minister. I think this is generally a balanced act, and I think I can give them some solace by saying that it's certainly not designed to impact them economically.

[3:45]

G. Wilson: I have a much more specific concern, but it's along the same lines as the previous questions. The difficulty that I have with respect to the cultural heritage resource, as it's being proposed, is that it talks about "an object, a site or the location of a traditional societal practice that is of historical, cultural or archaeological significance to the Province, a community or an aboriginal people." It's the question of the societal practice that causes some concern. If we're talking about a specific, tangible object that needs to be protected, then I'd have less concern.

If we're talking about sites that might be deemed in non-aboriginal culture as having some sort of mythological or spiritual connectedness but may not have tangible physical evidence, then I have some very serious concerns. Because I think it might be unwise -- in fact, I would suggest it is unwise, given the current status of land claims negotiations -- to put into legislation language that would suggest that something other than a physical object can be given heritage designation. I wonder if the minister might comment on that, because this is a point of serious concern for us.

Hon. B. Barlee: Delgamuukw 2 requires consideration of these sites. Some of these sites don't impact at all. A couple of them come to mind. Right in the desert country in the South Similkameen there's a huge rock that has pictographs on it. It's called Standing Rock. This would not impact anybody; it would probably be designated. Go up the valley a little bit, and you come to another huge stone that's right by the side of the highway. A pictograph is on that stone; that would probably be designated. No trees are around it at all. There's a marvellous history to it.

Go farther up the valley, and you come to the Rain Stone. That would be designated as well. So these really have to be considered.

It is also covered under

section 3.1. But basically the Crown decides that -- so cabinet, and eventually the

Lieutenant-Governor, would decide that.

G. Wilson: I don't have a problem with physical sites that are evidenced, measured and can be studied and tangibly seen or even photographed. Although I would say that

[ Page 10805 ]

pictographs clearly have historical significance, I wouldn't think that "Grad '32," even though that was maybe the first graduating class, would have the same significance. But some might argue that we're dealing with something that's a lot different and far more nebulous than that. Given the current climate in the province with respect to putting on resource development moratoriums, which we are seeing more and more by forestry staff....

Section 9 deals with an amendment to the Forest Act, so what I'm saying is very specific and germane to this

section of the act, or I certainly wouldn't be raising it. Given the language that's here, there is not much to give us comfort that this is limited to physical evidence that can be measured, studied and defined. If the minister might give us some assurance that it is, then perhaps we could look at language that would reflect that.

Hon. B. Barlee: First nations may have a claim that a certain area requires protection, but under the agreements with the Crown -- that is, the Province of British Columbia -- the mechanism ultimately passes that power on to cabinet. It is the ultimate decision-maker, and I think that it's very important to recognize that. For instance, there may be scattered flint chips in a certain area. First nations may state that this is a traditional area; we may disagree. And if we disagree, essentially that's a decision by cabinet.

G. Wilson: We're getting right down to the exact issue that I'm concerned about. If this act is passed with its current legal language, I think it could be argued -- and I would in fact be on the side of those who would argue; not that I would agree -- that a traditional societal practice may be the practice of shamanism or a practice with respect to all kinds of interpretative social factors that don't have any particular physical evidence. Nevertheless, it occurred in that location; therefore it may be set aside. It may used as an argument to remove land that is currently now under tenure, under a harvest licence or within the Crown's purview generally.

My real concern here is that the language is wide open enough that it is going to cause further ambiguity in what is already a rather difficult area to define with respect to the native land issue. I would hope that the minister will concede that it's not going to give anybody any comfort that this is somehow going to be decided in cabinet.

Hon. B. Barlee: On the contrary, I think it probably should be decided in cabinet. That's where the ultimate authority rests, regardless of which cabinet decides this. For instance, Hatzic Rock would definitely be a spiritual site as well as an archaeological site. When you get into a more nebulous area, I think that has to be decided by cabinet, and cabinet is empowered to do that. I don't see that any other body can make that decision.

G. Wilson: By what criteria will the cabinet make its decision? The wording of this bill is not specific to any physical evidence that is there. You talked about Hatzic Rock; that's something we can see. If you look at pictographs, we know those are there. If you look at middens, we know that they're there. If there are old village sites on which we can see tangible, measurable evidence, I'd be the first to say that you'd take that into consideration and deal with it.

But in areas where there is simply a claim made with no evidence, in light of the treaty negotiation process underway with the Treaty Commission and in light of the already complex situation we have with respect to lands being reviewed under that claims process, how on earth does the cabinet make an objective decision unless there's some language here that refers them to some physical object?

The concern I'm hearing from a lot of people in the forest sector is that this language is not specific enough. It's likely to open the door to all kinds of areas coming under a designation request, without any physical or tangible evidence to measure whether or not they should be designated.

Hon. B. Barlee: There's essentially nothing in Bill 21 that can be used to justify aboriginal interference with economic development. We have been very careful about that. The

non-derogation clause indicates that activities to conserve cultural heritage resources of aboriginal people in no way detract from or compromise aboriginal rights or treaty rights. The intent of Bill 21 is to enable government-to-government agreements with first nations in the province with regard to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. I think that's fairly plain.

G. Wilson: That makes it even more complicated. The minister is saying that it doesn't. If the non-derogation clause says that nothing in this bill will essentially compromise

government-to-government negotiations, presumably this is going to provide an enormous bargaining chip to those first nations that decide that areas they deem to have spiritual significance should not only be included in their claim, and provided for in that comprehensive claim, but also be applied for and designated under the Heritage Act. It would seem to me that that provides an avenue for lands currently under harvest potential to be removed or to undergo a resource-harvesting moratorium -- which I think is the correct terminology -- pending resolution of this kind of dispute.

I don't know what objective criteria cabinet is going to have -- either this cabinet or a future cabinet. It's going to have to measure whether the government-to-government negotiation -- and the legality of that process is another issue.... How is the cabinet going to make that objective decision? The minister is saying that on the basis of each claim they're going to decide whether they like it or not. Well, presumably that's going to be subject to some form of appeal or litigation.

And if it is, then this act puts an enormous bargaining chip into the hands of first nations negotiators that I don't think is wise at this time, in order to protect the forest industry. Surely the minister would concede that that's so.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member knows that any agreement between the province and the first nations has to consider any and all third parties. That's very obvious, and we'll be doing that, with due diligence. I fail to see that this would impact on it. Provisions in this take care of that.

The Chair: The member continues. And then I'm going to go to the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

G. Wilson: I don't buy what the minister is saying, because there is no proviso in here to protect against that. Looking at the language, as vague and as wide as it is, one would argue that it opens up enormous avenue for

interpretation as to what constitutes this societal practice and what constitutes the location of a traditional societal practice. If the government is to really reflect the interest of what is being proposed here, it needs to tighten up the language. It needs to stipulate that there must be some measurable, tangible, physical evidence. Otherwise there's

[ Page 10806 ]

nothing to prevent any of the "first nations" from simply arguing that that was a site where some form of spiritual or traditional practice occurred and therefore it should be designated heritage under this act and/or potentially under any claim that may be made. I would ask the minister if he's prepared to entertain some change in language.

Hon. B. Barlee: I realize that Delgamuukw 2 indicates that we would have to consider a number of different things. I also realize that enough protection is written into the 107 pages of this bill for third parties, for the first nations and certainly for the province. The member may be alluding to the possibility of someone claiming a vast tract of land under the guise of spiritual values or something. I don't think that will take place. There are enough examples and enough legislation written into this act to prevent that.

C. Tanner: I was quite satisfied with the minister's statement, but under the questioning of the member from Powell River I'm starting to get nervous again. The minister used three or four examples. He used the rocks and pictographs, fields of flints and old village sites, all of which are described under "object" or "site." If those are the only examples the minister has, you don't need location and traditional societal practice.

If those words mean such things as old village sites, meeting places or, for example, sacred mountains, we're in a different area -- and those fears from the north part of this province that I talked to you about earlier are real. I think you've got to do one of three things, Mr. Minister: you've got to take that phrase out, you've got to give us some better specific examples or you've got to show us where that defence is in the rest of the act.

[4:00]

Hon. B. Barlee: I thought I made that fairly plain; maybe I wasn't as plain as I thought.

Ultimately that decision lies with cabinet, and cabinet has stated time and time again that we are very aware of third-party interests, economic interests and other interests. If you do not narrow your focus on this bill, I think you'll agree that that's necessary. There is provision in there that cabinet has to answer those questions.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I've got to tell you, it's getting worse; every time the minister gets up, it gets worse. This is the minister who, when he was in his previous role as a Minister of Agriculture, thoroughly convinced this House that cabinet should not have the authority to make exceptions to the agricultural land reserve. I have talked to him publicly and privately, and he convinced me that it was right that cabinet shouldn't have that -- and he is right in that. There should be some form of appeal for the agricultural land reserve, but the cabinet shouldn't have that authority.

In this case, to say that cabinet can make that decision makes us all nervous on this side of the House, because we've seen some of the decisions that cabinet makes.

But politics aside, he hasn't yet given this House any illustration other than the three I've mentioned: pictographs, rocks or fields of flints. He hasn't given us one example of why he needs the expression "location of a traditional societal practice" or where he's going to use it. If the minister would give us a couple of illustrations, maybe we could be reassured. But just to stand up and tell us that cabinet is going to look after it is not very much assurance to this member or, I think, to other members of the House.

Hon. B. Barlee: I will give the member an example. Say that you travel up the Fraser River past the old village of Lillooet -- and I've been up there many times. You go to the mouth of the Bridge River, and there you see the Indians fishing off the rocks. One false step and they're consigned to eternity. That's not an exaggeration; it makes Hell's Gate look like an easy run. I think some of the members know what I'm alluding to. This was called N'xwisten, which means "foam water place." This is an example. This was traditional territory for thousands of years; archaeological evidence has indicated that. This bill takes into consideration all of those, so it's not just that.

The Indians used the rivers as their highways. You can find sites all along the rivers, whether it's the South Thompson, the main Thompson, the Fraser, the Okanagan or the Similkameen. I can point out site after site, because I've looked at hundreds of them. So this is a far-reaching bill. Essentially, we have to take into consideration the three players: the people of British Columbia, the first nations and those third parties that are directly involved economically.

G. Wilson: I know the area of which the minister speaks, and eternity is just about it if you step off those rocks. But surely the minister is not suggesting that every river be designated a heritage river -- or maybe he is, in which case we could shut down Kemano 2 in an instant.

I have a practical amendment to make, which I believe is a friendly amendment. I think it addresses the concerns that I and the member for Saanich North and the Islands have been speaking to. It reads as follows:

"...'cultural heritage resource' means an object, a site, or the location of a traditional societal practice that is of historical, cultural or archaeological significance to the province, community, or an aboriginal people and has sufficient historical and physical evidence to enable it to be identified, substantiated, measured, and judged for authenticity."

That's all we're arguing for. If the minister will except that amendment, we can move forward.

On the amendment.

The Chair: I'm going to ask for the minister's response to that amendment before I say whether it's in order. I'd just like to look at it and hear the argument.

Hon. B. Barlee: The amendment proposed by the member may be acceptable to the member, but I rather doubt that it would acceptable to first nations, some of whom have been in those areas for up to 10,000 years. In certain sites, as you know, like the Milliken site in the Fraser Canyon, it has been something like 8,000 years. I knew old Gus Milliken quite well. This would not be acceptable to first nations.

Our responsibility as government is, as I say -- and I will repeat it -- to protect the interests of the third parties who have a direct interest in this area, to bear in mind that there are some hereditary interests from first nations -- it's a balancing act -- and to protect the province both economically and otherwise. We could pick this apart piece by piece, and certainly there are arguments to be made, but we have to bear in mind those three parts of the equation.

D. Mitchell: I listened carefully to the minister's response to the request for the consideration of an amendment. I don't understand how the proposed amendment from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast could adversely affect the claims of first nations in British Columbia. In fact, my understanding of that amendment is that it simply makes the definition of a "cultural heritage resource" in this bill more specific.

[ Page 10807 ]

Mr. Chairman, could I ask for the leave of this committee to ask the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to explain the purpose of the amendment? I think that would be useful, and it might expedite this.

The Chair: I don't think the member requires leave. I think we will simply accept that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast can explain the amendment.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Chair. With my record I probably wouldn't get leave.

The amendment effectively addresses the concerns that have been expressed by a number of people in the forest sector -- because this is an amendment to the Forest Act -- and identifies some objective criteria by which measurement can be made as to whether or not there is going to be some form of heritage designated to a particular site or object. The concern that we have is that if we don't define that, if we don't put that in place and if we simply allow the language to sit as it is now, there is no objective measure by which there can be any decision taken. It will be a purely subjective decision taken by cabinet.

Further, it is going to provide, I believe -- and those members on this side who have spoken believe -- aboriginal people with an enormous bargaining chip with respect to negotiations over lands that are currently either under harvestable licence or are Crown lands which licensed tenure holders and lessees who have resource rights and have some involvement in have an interest in. To simply say that we'll look after their interests just doesn't cut it.

Here we have an opportunity to do exactly what the minister wants to do. It will still preserve those aboriginal heritage sites, given that there is some tangible evidence so that it can be "substantiated, measured, and judged for authenticity" at that site. It still allows for that to happen, but it does not provide for the kind of wide-open explanation that the minister just gave with respect to designating a mountain as a mountain with spiritual significance and therefore having to take it out of what may be a harvestable timber area. That's what it's about.

If the minister means what he said earlier -- and I trust that he does -- then this amendment effectively gives an opportunity for the minister to enact that in the language of the bill.

Hon. B. Barlee: The member mentioned physical evidence. Sometimes physical evidence is too narrow a definition. Prior to that I mentioned the old Indian site on the north side of the Bridge River as it flows into the Fraser. They use the terms Indian and first nations interchangeably; they do not always refer to themselves as aboriginals. Many of the first nations in my area still call themselves Indians, some call themselves first nations and some call themselves aboriginals. So I will use the more generous term -- the one that I prefer. You would find virtually nothing on that site.

I have been over that site a number of times; there is nothing there. It was swept clean by the high water of the Fraser, as you well know.

Talking about mountains, I can think of a number that probably have some spiritual value. The Okanagan River flows right under McIntyre Bluff. A battle allegedly took place in the McIntyre area between the Shuswaps and the Okanagans. The Shuswaps were utterly defeated and only one survived to carry the message back to the Shuswap nation. That may have some spiritual or historic value, but there's nothing there to mark it.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Barlee: In this case you determine it from the newspapers of the 1890s. This was well known to the Indian nations of the area, whether it was the Inkameeps or the Okanagans. You have to take some historical evidence; that's part of it. And that's part of the responsibility of government. Again, we're talking about

definitions. It is government's responsibility to take care of the problems that the third parties are concerned with, and the third parties have some concern; I accept that.

D. Mitchell: I'm a little bit puzzled by the minister's response. I know the minister is an historian, and historians make decisions about the past based upon evidence and documentation. There has to be some evidence. The minister is essentially telling us that under the terms of the Forest Act, the definition of "cultural heritage resource" is going to be subjective. He doesn't want it to be based upon evidence, which is the purpose of the amendment moved by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

The amendment says that it should have sufficient historical and physical evidence to identify it as a cultural heritage resource. As a well-regarded historian in British Columbia, the minister must know that the evidence and documentation required to determine whether it is a cultural heritage resource.... That principle should be enshrined in this legislation. Otherwise he is basically asking us to trust him. While we may trust this minister, we don't know if we'll be able to trust his successors; we don't know if we'll be able to trust future governments.

While we'd like to trust this minister -- and he is an honourable minister -- why would he have any reservations about allowing criteria based upon documentable historical evidence to be included in a definition that is this important? The minister has admitted that this is an extremely important

section of this bill.

Hon. B. Barlee: In some instances there is no documented physical evidence. I can think of places in the South Thompson where there is no documented physical or historical evidence. Bridge River is an example where there is no physical evidence.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I know that. That's why this must take all of that into consideration. And that's precisely what this bill does. In some cases there is not the hard evidence that you require. I'll give you an illustration: there's no hard evidence with McIntyre Bluff. Yes, there are rumours, there were skeletons found at the bottom of the bluff and all of the rest of it, but there is no hard evidence. There is some hereditary evidence from the Indian nations of the area. You get into a very problematic and broad area. I'm saying that somebody must make the decision.

I think that cabinet has to consider all the problems and concerns and everybody who's involved in this puzzle: first nations, certainly; third parties, certainly; and the populace at large.

[4:15]

C. Tanner: I'm speaking to the amendment, and maybe the Chair could guide me. If I could, I would make a friendly amendment to the amendment and change one word. Where it says "sufficient historical and physical evidence," I would change the "and" to "or," which covers the member's problem. That's speaking to that amendment -- if I could make it, Mr. Chair. If not, I'll continue to talk to the amendment.

[ Page 10808 ]

The Chair: We'll accept that as a subamendment if that's agreeable to the mover.... Okay, consider it done.

Interjection.

The Chair: No, I mean consider that subamendment done.

Interjection.

The Chair: We have to have a question on the subamendment, then. The motion is to amend by changing the word "and" to "or" in the third line.

C. Tanner: Between "historical" and "physical."

The Chair: Between "historical" and "physical."

Subamendment approved.

On the amendment as amended.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, first of all, may I congratulate you. I think it's some time since we've had a little of that sort of convenience in this committee of this House, and if that's a taste of what's to come, then things are looking up around here.

Mr. Minister, you have a 107-page act here where you've defined everything. You've worked hard to cover every aspect of the heritage business that you can think of. You've amended a dozen acts; you've been very careful; you've worked on it for seven years. The previous government worked on it; everybody's had input into this. But you've left this particular

section hanging out there. You're telling us: "Trust us. The cabinet can make the decision."

I don't think it's fair to ask us to do that, Mr. Minister. I think the amendment covers our problem, and it solves the problem of those people in the forest who are concerned about your amendment to the Forest Act. I don't see how it limits the cabinet in making that decision. All it does is define the decision that they have to make. I think it's a reasonable amendment, and I would ask the minister to very seriously consider it -- or to ask his assistants to consider it.

Hon. B. Barlee: This is intentionally broad so that those areas can be considered. The optimum word there is "considered," and considered only, bearing in mind, as I said before -- I sound like a broken record -- that we have to take into consideration the concerns of third parties, of first nations and of the government at large.

G. Wilson: It doesn't say considered; at least it doesn't in my bill. Maybe mine's not the same as the minister's, but it clearly doesn't say that in my bill. It would be surprising if we weren't working off the same....

Let me say that there is a process by which these sites -- these areas that the minister alludes to where there is no physical or even historical reference outside of the oral tradition of the aboriginal people -- are considered. It's called the Treaty Commission. It's a process by which first nations can put together both specific claims and comprehensive claims. Specific claims identify exactly the kind of areas that this minister is alluding to right now. In fact, some first nations or aboriginal communities....

In the Sechelt case, it's been a successful negotiating process, and specific claims have been identified. The comprehensive claim is now documented. If this government would only acquiesce to their request, we might even get it solved.

There is a process for exactly the kind of thing this minister is concerned about. It's called the Treaty Commission process. There is no reason whatsoever to have a duplicate process in this heritage bill whereby exactly the same kind of argument can be mounted under a statute that is not specific to aboriginal people -- a statute that provides additional opportunity for aboriginal people to have an argument against the government. It will provide an enormous bargaining chip on these questions and will potentially hamstring government with respect to the allocation of tenure lands currently being cut.

It seems to me that the amendment that is proposed, with the subamendment provided by the member for Saanich North and the Islands, addresses our concerns. It does not in any way change the intent of what's being put forward. It simply recognizes that there has to be some kind of historical or physical evidence to provide authenticity. If that can't be done with land negotiations currently underway through the Treaty Commission.... That's the legitimate process through which the larger questions on specific and comprehensive claims are settled.

Otherwise it provides an opportunity for them to be done through the back door, with cabinet making the decision. I can tell you that that's totally unacceptable to members of the Alliance.

T. Perry: Very briefly -- am I speaking on the amendment or on

section 9?

The Chair: On the amendment.

T. Perry: I'm going to be neutral on the amendment. What I really want to say is that I think it's a wonderful section. It's wonderful that culturally modified trees and other cultural values will be considered before a road is built. There have been episodes where such trees have just been knocked over and bulldozed before anybody even knew what they were -- or when they knew what they were, didn't care less and knocked them over to the ground. It's a kind of motherhood that we consider these things while we've got a chance to save them.

While I'm speaking to this amendment, I'd like to say that I thought that

section 8 was wonderful too. The action last summer of the Kwantlen College campus in Langley -- in preserving such a resource on property that they hold -- was terrific.

I'm going to reserve my judgment on whether I'll vote for or against this amendment, but I really like the section.

Hon. B. Barlee: We seem to be getting bogged down. Delgamuukw 1 and Delgamuukw 2 essentially create obligations for the Crown. I think members will accept that statement. They do create obligations for the Crown. There's not a mandatory phrase in the Forest Act. It says that it is only considered, which is one of many considerations under the Forest Act.

I'll give an example. A former member was talking about some problems in various areas, and I will illustrate one of these. For instance, 20 or maybe 25 years ago, one of the gas line companies came through the Similkameen and went straight down the pictograph stretch without a by-your-leave from government. It destroyed many marvellous pictographs, or Indian paintings, in that stretch. I finally stopped them in one spot and said that I'd take them to court. I wasn't going to take the gas company to court, but they did stop. That's an example. You can't even see....

[ Page 10809 ]

Interjection.

Hon. B. Barlee: No, it's still there. That pictograph is still there. I checked it about a month and a half ago. But you couldn't see any evidence of where they'd gone through, because they turned the rocks over and destroyed everything. So, essentially, this is consideration. I think it's the responsibility of the Crown to consider these things. You can't define it so narrowly.

The Chair: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on the amendment.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence on this. We obviously feel strongly about it.

Let me just point out to the minister that we're not even asking him to amend his act; we're asking him to amend the act that is going to amend the Forest Act. It's not even going to affect his heritage legislation; it's only going to affect an associated piece of legislation which we say is of concern to a lot of people in this province. I think it's a genuine concern. I don't think it's fair of the minister to keep standing up and giving little pictorial tours of things he has seen around he province.

We're asking the minister to amend the Forest Act in this bill, with a very minor amendment which would give us some comfort. I think the minister should seriously consider it. I personally am going to call for division on it if he doesn't.

G. Wilson: Let me take one last crack at the minister. By way of a very minor digression on pictographs, when travelling up Sechelt Inlet I saw a most remarkable pictograph with an unfortunate sign across it that said: "Bill was here." I really hope that this minister wasn't up there.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain says it might have been Bill Vander Zalm. That's possible, too.

Let me come back to this amendment, because it really is important. It does not in any way detract from what the minister is trying to accomplish here. I think the point made by the member for Saanich North and the Islands is absolutely right on. It amends legislation in the Forest Act; it doesn't affect the bill to that extent. But what it does do is what we're going to have to deal with in sections 10, 11 and 12. So if the minister thinks we're bogged down on

section 9, he should consider that we're going to get even more bogged down when we look at substituting "fisheries, wildlife and cultural heritage" in various sections; when we talk about substituting "fisheries, wildlife and cultural heritage" under

section 28; and when we add "cultural heritage resources" after "the natural environment" in a subsequent

section of the act. The minister can greatly expedite this debate and take care of the concerns of a huge segment of the population in British Columbia by simply allowing an amendment that says that there has to be some kind of sufficient evidence. Historical? It could be oral; it could be written.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: If the minister is saying that that's what he said, then he'll accept the amendment. It could be physical. It could be a midden, a pictograph or flints, or whatever else the minister was referring to.

I hope the minister recognizes that it isn't just

section 9 that's at stake. The amendment to 9 affects sections 10, 11 and 12. These are very real and legitimate concerns. There is another legitimate process underway through which the issues raised by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain can be addressed and heard: the land claims process.

The minister will know that with respect to the maintenance and protection of the heritage site, when economic activity is currently being determined.... I am thinking, for example, that the sinking of the Chaudiere in Sechelt Inlet would be a classic example. That body of water, which has had spiritual significance to the Sechelt people, would immediately fall under this act -- or it could with a decision of cabinet -- and would preclude any further economic activity in the Sechelt Inlet area. That's just not on.

L. Hanson: I support the amendment, but not because I'm terribly dedicated to the fact that it is going to change the process. I'd like the minister to give us some evidence or his opinion of why the amendment would take away from the flexibility of cabinet in making those designations. It says in

section 9 that it is "of historical, cultural or archaeological significance." Surely the cabinet wouldn't make a decision that it has that significance without some kind of evidence. Could the minister tell us why the adoption of this amendment would severely curtail the flexibility of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in making that kind of decision?

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll mention two things. First of all, evidence does not necessarily have to be physical. Second, the Ministry of Forests -- including some experts who have been in forestry and that ministry for many, many years -- scrutinized this

section very closely. They didn't find any significant flaws in this, and that's why it was allowed to go through as worded. Again, the operative word is "may."

L. Hanson: I appreciate that explanation, but I didn't hear from the minister why the amendment would curtail that flexibility that he's trying to guard on behalf of cabinet. If it's the minister's concern that other evidence should be considered that's not in the amendment, why not let us know what other evidence they may base that decision on?

[4:30]

Hon. B. Barlee: On rereading the proposed amendment, frankly, I think it's too narrowly defined. It says: "sufficient" -- whatever sufficient is -- "historical or physical evidence to enable it to be identified, substantiated, measured, and judged for authenticity." Again, that comes down essentially to a little bit of guesswork, and it does narrow that definition. Frankly, in certain areas that are claimed by the first nations, that narrow definition would not suit them. Delgamuukw is an example there, which does place certain obligations upon the Crown. I think we've taken those obligations into consideration, but some members opposite think we have not.

It's not very divisive wording. It does say "may be considered." I think that's a very important phrase.

The Chair: Can I suggest to members that I think we have indeed canvassed the amendment at sufficient length, and perhaps the time for the question has arrived? I'm certainly not going to restrict anybody.

C. Tanner: One last suggestion. Would the minister consider setting this

section 9 aside to give it some more consideration, so that we can proceed and then come back to

[ Page 10810 ]

it? Say, the next time we come to the debate, we can look at it again. By that time the minister could consider our arguments. I don't think our arguments have been unreasonable, and I think we do deserve some consideration. Rather than making a decision in the heat of the debate right now at 4:30, could we look at it again later on?

Hon. B. Barlee: We'll agree to stand down on that.

The Chair: Then we shall stand down

section 9 and the amendment to

section 9 for the moment, and we'll go directly to

section 10. Is that agreeable?

G. Wilson: If we're to agree to that, then it would seem to me that there's a whole lot of the rest of this bill that's purely subject to the definition of "cultural heritage resource" -- like sections 10, 11 and 12. Then there are other sections all through this bill that have reference back to this definition. If we stand this down, maybe we need to stand down the whole bill.

The Chair: I can understand the immediate reference to sections 9 through 12, all being obviously contingent on that definitional question. I'm wondering, however, if we might go on to

section 13. Would that be acceptable? I see the minister is conferring with his staff, so perhaps I'll give him a moment to do that.

Interjection.

The Chair: Sorry, member; I haven't acknowledged you yet, so we're not picking up your suggestion.

Interjection.

An Hon. Member: Sections 9 to 12 make sense.

The Chair: I have suggested that perhaps we could stand down sections 9 to 12, given that they are all of a piece. But I'll refer to the minister first.

Hon. B. Barlee: Frankly, I don't think that's necessary. If we're standing down

section 9, we don't have to stand down sections 10, 11 and 12.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Barlee: No, because we are standing down

section 9.

The Chair: Obviously there's some dispute regarding whether that is indeed workable or practicable. I'm going to take the member for Saanich North and the Islands first and then Okanagan East.

C. Tanner: I find myself in the embarrassing position of having made what I thought was a reasonable suggestion, and I appreciate that the minister accepted it. I frankly do agree that it also applies to sections 10, 11 and 12.

But there's an awful lot of bill to do, Mr. Minister. Why can't we start with this

section 13 and start on the

definitions? I can assure the minister that we've got some hang-ups when we get down there too, so we might as well start on those now. They're not the same as these. If we do stand down

section 9 -- and I appreciate it -- we can't go to sections 10, 11 and 12, because

section 9 affects 10, 11 and 12. It's not an unreasonable request. The minister has obliged us once. Surely he can go just this little further, and let's start on

section 13.

Hon. B. Barlee: The amendment would affect 10, 11 and 12. We don't have to stand down sections 10, 11 and 12 because we stood down on

section 9.

The Chair: Members, the Chair is in a bit of a quandary as to where we ought to go at this point. I will take a little guidance, and then I think I will be arbitrary.

J. Tyabji: In sections 10, 11 and 12, quite clearly we need the definition of "cultural heritage" in order to understand sections 10, 11 and 12. If we haven't finished debating the definition of that, I don't know how we can debate those sections. So I would be opposed to it, unless we stand them down. They obviously belong together.

Hon. B. Barlee: Frankly, it is not necessary to stand down on sections 10, 11 and 12. But to preserve the good feelings in the House we will stand down on sections 10, 11 and 12.

The Chair: Agreed, and so ordered.

section 13.

D. Mitchell: I don't know if I should stand down or stand up; I'm getting a little confused myself. I appreciate the minister's forbearance on this. Frankly, I'm not sure why we didn't just deal with the amendment. I thought we were getting to the point of doing that. We will have to come back to this, and I hope we don't have to revisit the whole debate at that time.

Section 13 deals with some important

definitions which will affect the remainder of this very weighty piece of legislation. Most of the

definitions in

section 13 deal with heritage objects, which are personal property; heritage sites, which again includes land and heritage values on that land; and provincial heritage sites.

[R. Neufeld in the chair.]

My question to the minister is: why does this bill focus so much on heritage as real property that is constructed or built? The reason I'm raising that is that so many aspects of the initial act that Bill 21 is amending, as well as this significant body of amendments, deal with conserving built heritage rather than other equally important parts of the province's heritage. The act is focused on -- you might even say it deals obsessively with -- building conservation, which ought to be only one part of a heritage awareness strategy that the minister has talked about.

The minister has talked at length about a strategy for increasing heritage awareness, but we're really only talking about heritage that is built or constructed, particularly with the

definitions in this

section and with most of the amendments. Why aren't we including attention to heritage awareness and education, for instance?

Nowhere in the original act or in the amendments that are being brought forward, as far as I can tell, is B.C. Heritage Trust empowered to encourage awareness, education or promotion of British Columbia's heritage except as they relate to buildings. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on whether or not the Heritage Trust and the provincial government don't have a mandate to promote and support heritage education as well. Why is it that we are obsessed only with heritage buildings? That's the question I have for the minister.

[ Page 10811 ]

Hon. B. Barlee:

Section 17 covers that later on. I think it covers it very adequately.

G. Wilson:

Section 13 is obviously a very important section, because it's in this

section that we can understand what the meaning of a lot of the terms are. I notice that there is a designation called "heritage object." According to this bill, "'heritage object' means, whether designated or not, personal property that has heritage value to British Columbia, a community or an aboriginal people." I ask the committee to think about the wording of this. It says that a heritage object means "whether designated or not," any "personal property" that the province or a community or an aboriginal people deems has heritage value.

Keep that in mind, hon. Chair, because then we move to heritage site. "'Heritage site' means, whether designated or not, land, including land covered by water, that has heritage value to British Columbia, a community or an aboriginal people." Later on in this bill -- and I know it's difficult for us to move forward -- we notice that there is something called heritage property, which is not defined. Heritage property is not a heritage site, and it's not a heritage object.

If you look at the intention of the bill, given what we've just gone through with the amendment to

section 9, this opens the door to a massive

interpretation of potential heritage-valued property, land and/or sites in the province that could fall under designation. I have some serious concerns about this. Under these

definitions, we have to recognize that a lot of that land has economic value by virtue of third-party interests through mining, logging, fishing, agricultural development, potential development for hydroelectric power, road construction, quarries, gravel pits -- you name it. I have serious concerns with those two

definitions in light of the fact that there is this heritage property, which seems to be an all-inclusive definition of heritage object and heritage site. I'd like the minister to clarify that, because it causes those of us in the Alliance some serious concern as to what's intended here.

Hon. B. Barlee: Firstly, a heritage property essentially comes under the Municipal Act. The local community or the province must in some way protect those sites themselves. So there is a provision in this -- the wording is relatively good -- that does cover the area you're concerned with.

G. Wilson: I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding what the minister said in his answer.

This bill talks about the setting aside or the development of heritage properties, heritage sites and heritage objects. In the balance of this bill, heritage property is largely looked at with respect to exemptions on taxation. If we look forward to the various sections.... I don't know if we want to get as far ahead in this bill as

section 400, but if we get into

section 400 it talks about eligible heritage properties, those that can be exempted and so on. Here it talks about a heritage object and heritage site, whether designated or not, as a definition of what can effectively be determined as a site or object that will be acquired by the government. If it has no designation, how would you determine that a site or an object is a heritage object? It goes back to exactly what we talked about in

section 9. If there's one problem with this bill, it's that the government is required to define what it means with respect to those two questions. Without that, it leaves wide open to

interpretation what is or is not a potential heritage site.

Hon. B. Barlee: The member usually does his homework, but I don't think he has in this case. Essentially, all of this was defined 17 years ago under the original act, practically word for word. Now we're battling over it 17 years later. Has the sky fallen in those 17 years? I do not think so. In this act of 17 years ago, it says:

"...'board' means the board of directors...; 'council' means a council...; 'heritage' means of historic, architectural, archaeological, paleontological or scenic significance to the Province or a municipality, as the case may be."

That's what we've been talking about for the last half hour.

"...'heritage object' means, whether designated or not, personal property of heritage significance; 'heritage site' means, whether designated or not, land, including land covered by water of heritage significance; 'municipal heritage site'...." --

and it goes on and on.

That's exactly what we've been saying.

[4:45]

This act has been in effect for 17 years. We've been going over and over this. I don't mind going over it, but it must be boring to the people who are looking at it. Frankly, I don't think the members really looked at the original act. We are clarifying areas here. We have eliminated some of those phrasings we found problematic. It's quite obvious that the members did not look at the original act.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

G. Wilson: Given that this is his bill and his act, I would bring to this minister's attention that it says: "Section 1 of the Heritage Conservation Act...is amended (

a) by repealing the

definitions of 'council', 'heritage', 'municipal heritage site' and 'trust'," and "(

b) by repealing the

definitions of 'designate', 'heritage object', 'heritage site' and 'Provincial heritage site' and substituting the following...." And that's what we're talking about.

In light of the repeal of those

definitions the minister just alluded to, and substitution of these new

definitions, we notice that new

definitions are put in place with respect to first nations, with respect to heritage value, in terms of the powers of this government with respect to the assignment of those heritage sites and objects, and with respect to the provision of tax exemption and/or tax collection on heritage properties.

It's totally spurious for this minister to say that we on this side of the House haven't done our homework. We have. The concern is that with the repeal and redefinition here, we are creating an opportunity for large tracts of land that are currently available for harvest to be set aside if they are designated heritage sites, because of the lack of definitude in the definition

section that is alluded to -- albeit not directly in terms of the language, because we couldn't amend it -- under

section 9.

We are not trying to be obstructionist, Mr. Minister. We're trying to recognize that you have

an act here that provides wide latitude with respect to defining heritage sites, properties and objects, and even wider latitude with respect to its cultural component applied to first nations. That's the concern. It's a legitimate concern because, as the minister said, this act is going to have a profound impact on many communities where that heritage designation is going to be made.

Let's not let it degenerate into who has or who has not done homework; we have done it. This is a big bill. Hon. Chair, I can tell you that I've read it from cover to cover a couple of times. I've even had an opportunity to talk to some of the members of his staff to get clarification on some of the language. We have serious objection to some of the vagaries in this bill, because they will allow wide latitude in

[ Page 10812 ]

interpretation. Good legislation does not provide that level of latitude to government. It's the duty of the opposition to make sure that we hold the government accountable when it tries to bring it in in this form.

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly it's the duty of the opposition to bring up concerns. But when you look at the original definition of heritage site, which the member concentrated on, it says: "...whether designated or not, land, including land covered by water, of heritage significance." The addition to that is: "...that has heritage value to British Columbia, a community or an aboriginal people." That seems logical under Delgamuukw 1 and Delgamuukw 2. It's a most logical inclusion, included by law. You can't deny that to the first nations.

G. Wilson: Let's move on from that particular section, even though it gives us considerable concern. I think we also have to consider the question of heritage value -- notwithstanding the definition in the original act, which I have before me; I'm certainly prepared to debate the original act as much as this one if we need to. This new definition talks about "historical, cultural, aesthetic, scientific or educational worth or usefulness of a site or object." We understand that there is a broad, historically defined and generally accepted definition of heritage value.

However, I raise this again in light of the fact that there is now an inclusion with respect to matters that are specific to first nations people, and that there is a component there -- although we attempted an amendment -- that attempts to define those objects which can be specific.

My question is whether or not heritage value, in terms of aesthetic value, can be applied to forests and forest lands. That's a fairly specific question, which I'll repeat for the minister if he didn't hear it. Clearly that has created significant concern in this changing society with respect to

old-growth forests and those forests that may be deemed to have a spiritual and aesthetic value to first nations people.

Hon. B. Barlee: The definition of "heritage value" replaces the term "heritage" that was provided in the old Heritage Conservation Act, as the member well knows. Heritage value includes cultural value as well as historical, aesthetic, scientific or educational worth or usefulness. The inclusion of cultural value thus clarifies that the Heritage Conservation Act can be used in regard to sites and objects of importance to living cultures or communities.

G. Wilson: Let me repeat my question directly. Can aesthetic value be applied to forested lands?

Hon. B. Barlee: This term includes a rather broad definition. It says historical, aesthetic, scientific or educational worth or usefulness, so it's a very broad definition.

G. Wilson: The minister says that this term "aesthetic" can include forest lands. Can heritage value include viewscapes? Would a municipality be able to determine that a certain viewscape has historical value because it's on all of the posters of that municipality? If a mining contractor could, by contract, enter into gravel extraction that might alter that viewscape, could it then be deemed to have an aesthetic value that would be of heritage value to that community, which would therefore prohibit economic activity from being undertaken?

Hon. B. Barlee: We're not talking about the Municipal Act; we're talking about

section 13 under the present act.

G. Wilson: That answer has completely eluded me. I'm not talking about

section 13 of the Municipal Act, either. That's on in Committee A -- the Municipal Affairs estimates. The last I checked, we're in Committee B, and we're talking about the definition of a term in this bill that this minister has brought forward that includes the word "aesthetic."

T. Perry: I couldn't hear -- did you say it "eluded" you?

G. Wilson: I'm going to resist the banter from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain because it would take me off this point, which I want the minister to answer.

"Heritage value" talks about aesthetic qualities of a site or object. It also talks about its usefulness. Can the minister tell us specifically whether or not aesthetic value could refer to viewscapes?

Hon. B. Barlee: The member opposite mentioned a gravel pit. Yes indeed, that could be considered. I have one right behind my place, which I don't like too much. So yes, that's part of the consideration.

G. Wilson: This is a bit like a puzzle. You get a couple of pieces each time you get an answer, and you try to put it together. Sooner or later we might get the picture.

If it is to alter a viewscape, a gravel operation could be considered as altering the heritage value of a community. A community could then argue.... I will use a more recent example: the cruise ships argued that there shouldn't be logging in certain sections of the Inside Passage because it was going to affect the income of their trade. We also know that local forest operators have to take the viewscape into consideration for the potential impact of cuts and cutblocks on communities and societies. I'm not trying to entrap the minister in any way.

I just want to know whether or not that term might be used to designate viewscapes around communities as having heritage value and therefore used to preclude economic activity.

Hon. B. Barlee: The member mentioned cruise ships. In fact, I just met with one of the principals today. The cruise ships go up the Inside Passage, and cabinet is asked to make certain decisions. Do we cut in those areas? Do we cut carefully? Cabinet makes those decisions. There may be very selective cutting. There may be certain areas that are not cut because a panoramic view would be destroyed. That's the decision that cabinet has to make. We made certain decisions in this province in the last few months. Clayoquot is an example.

We preserved part of that in its pristine quality, and some of it will be selectively cut and some harvested in the traditional manner -- I think more carefully. You get into a very interesting area.

In the Near East, there's an old rule: if you buy a plot of land, it is not entirely yours; it is only to a degree. If you have two neighbours or half a dozen neighbours around you, they won't allow you to build a three-storey house, although you do own the land. So there are lots of considerations. The cabinet must be allowed to make some of those decisions. The decisions the government makes are not always right. But essentially that must go to the decision-makers of the current government. We all know that governments change; I'm quite aware of that.

I'm saying that these considerations are there. Eventually cabinet does make the decision, and we have to live with it.

[ Page 10813 ]

Certainly the Clayoquot decision was not popular with every segment of the population in British Columbia. Some of my friends wouldn't speak to me for a while. I said: "That was a collective decision, and it's one cabinet was required to make, like it or not."

An Hon. Member: Who can get a word in edgewise?

G. Wilson: Exactly -- Amen.

I'm not necessarily speaking in opposition to things of aesthetic value being part of the heritage component. I think there are some reasons why those might be seen to be sensible and sound decisions on the basis of communities. However, the definition of heritage value presumably qualifies the terms "heritage object" and "heritage site," because they have to have heritage value. That naturally follows. Right? So it's kind of a qualification of those two.

Does it mean, then, that if there is an aesthetic value with respect to site allocation lands, for example -- whether designated or not -- that are deemed to have heritage value to a community or to an aboriginal people -- and let's underscore "aboriginal people" -- this act would essentially provide for that to be set aside as heritage?

Hon. B. Barlee: I followed the member's argument. It does not require it to be set aside; it only requires consideration, just as the old act required consideration. Essentially the difference is that it does not require it to be set aside. It is considered by everyone at the table, with all sorts of communication and consultation.

[5:00]

The Chair: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain; and then I'll go back to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

T. Perry: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate the member's generosity in yielding briefly to me.

Two weekends ago, I had a chance to ski up to the top of Hollyburn Mountain in Vancouver and look out over the....

An Hon. Member: Ski up?

T. Perry: Skied up, and walked down. We skied part of the way down.

It was gorgeous day and a beautiful view from the summit, and there were no mosquitoes because there was still snow up there. The Minister of Tourism would have been thrilled, but he would have been disappointed to know that there was only one other party at the summit that morning -- and it wasn't a political party, either; it was another person. We have enough political parties here already; we don't need any more meeting in caucus at the top of Hollyburn Mountain.

The view from the summit was marred only slightly by a few clearcuts in the GVRD watershed above Capilano Lake -- what a shame. The logging in that watershed has been done surprisingly sensitively. The former Minister of Environment -- the

now-Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- and I, with some others, had the chance to fly over it a few years ago, and it was remarkably well-done logging for B.C. at that time. Still, they made the cuts in the place where you can see them right from the top of Hollyburn Mountain. That's one of the prime hiking areas in British Columbia, a place one wants to take foreign visitors.

An Hon. Member: One of several thousand.

T. Perry: One of several thousand prime hiking areas in the lower mainland, and one of several million in British Columbia.

The Chair: Member, I always appreciate your insights, but I struggle to discover and discern what this has to do with

section 13 regarding the Heritage Conservation Act. Perhaps you could read on.

T. Perry: Hon. Chair, if I understood correctly, the member opposite was concerned about the possibility that aesthetic value might be considered. Well, I think that would be wonderful. I've stood up in front of the GVRD, talked to their loggers and said that that was the one fatal mistake they made there. They didn't think of the aesthetics of the view from the top of Hollyburn Mountain. If they had only hidden that clearcut around a fold in the hillside, it wouldn't have been quite so bad.

The issue of whether they should log in the watershed is another one, but it certainly would have been better if they had hidden that one out of sight. It wouldn't have been out of mind, but at least it would have been out of sight.

I had one other crucial observation. I was going to raise this as a point of order, but since I'm on my feet I won't waste that time. I've served in this Legislature for five years, and this afternoon has had one of the most jovial atmospheres I've ever observed in this House. I demand to know, hon. Chair: have you put catnip in the water?

The Chair: I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on this continuing matter of high seriousness.

G. Wilson: I was listening very carefully to the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, who I think said that he reached the top of the mountain, looked down and saw only a few clearcuts that marred the landscape and what a shame it was. I assume he meant it was a shame there were a couple of clearcuts -- not that it was a shame there were only two, as there should have been more.

The problem with the use of the word "aesthetic" is that what is aesthetically valuable to one is not to others. It opens it up to a wide range of what have to be fairly subjective evaluations. If I have a problem with this bill, it's that all through it there are those kinds of generalities that open up a wide latitude of discussion. I've read the original bill, and I know that much of the language has been carried forward. I understand what the intent of the bill is, and in principle I support what it's trying to do. I'm not trying to be an obstructionist.

But I also recognize that this bill is going to be used to set aside, protect or diminish land use in many areas of the province because of the wide-open

definitions, which will allow people to apply for much of the land, many of the sites and some of the objects to be designated as heritage. Then we get into -- and later we will discuss -- the whole process as to how this is to happen.

Our concerns are legitimate. For the first time, we are looking at the comprehensiveness of this bill in light of a second process, the Treaty Commission Act. As members of this Legislative Assembly, we cannot and must not allow that point to be lost. We're dealing with a definition of first nation that is talked about in terms of amendments to

section 9. It's dealt with again under

section 16(4.1), the heritage designation procedure section, with respect to first nations within traditional lands. I am very concerned that this bill is going to put legislation in place that will effectively provide

[ Page 10814 ]

an additional opportunity for land designation to be made, if not through the negotiation process, through litigation in court. It's going to impact the forest industry; it's even going to impact small communities; it's potentially going to impact grazing lands. The minister is saying: "Well, these are not necessarily going to come about. These are only going to be considered." I hear the minister saying that it's only going be considered, but it will be considered on the basis of the language of this act.

If cabinet decides not to move forward with it, I suggest that we look at the process and the appeal process to see how that definition can occur. It doesn't give me a great deal of comfort, quite frankly. We have to raise it now, because this is in the definition stage.

I have only one other comment, and then I would yield to other members who I know want to get into the debate. It has to do with the definition of conservation. The bill suggests that it "...includes any activity undertaken to protect, preserve or enhance the heritage value of heritage property." I raise that by virtue of what we know to be coming forward with respect to the Forest Practices Code, what we know to have been put in place by the Forest Renewal Act and in light of the CORE report. You can't look at them in isolation, because they are consistent in the language.

I ask the minister to give us a clear definition of what he means by the language: "includes any activity undertaken to protect, preserve or enhance...." It's the "enhance" component that I am particularly concerned about, because the enhancement of heritage property -- in light of the heritage value definition we've just been dealing with -- once again provides wide latitude to put lands, which currently have a land use economically determined through licence or tenure