1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(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.
A. Warnke: It's my pleasure today, on behalf of my colleague from Richmond Centre, to introduce to the House students from Richmond Senior Secondary School in the riding of Richmond Centre, who will be visiting the precincts this afternoon. They are in grades 11 and 12 and are studying English as a second language. They will be accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Gwena Schuck. Would the House please join in welcoming them this afternoon.
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.
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.
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.
On 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.
G. Wilson: The minister might want to clarify what is meant specifically by the words "determined by taking into consideration the terms and conditions of the heritage protection of the property." Obviously we're dealing with a question on section 1 with respect to the date of October 31. We're talking about a "valuation date under section 25.1, land and improvements, or a portion of the land and improvements," and then it gives the categorization of what we're dealing with. Maybe the minister can tell us what is specifically meant by "taking into consideration."
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.
G. Wilson: Some of the difficulties that members of the Alliance have with this bill are: who foots the bill, where are the costs are coming from and how are those costs determined? It's all very well to talk about the protection of heritage properties, but when those are private properties, clearly there is a consideration in terms of compensation and future taxation or relief from taxation -- or whatever the conditions may be. Under subsection (4.2) it says: "Notwithstanding any requirement of this section respecting actual value, if, on October 31 following the valuation date under section 25.1...taking into consideration the terms and conditions...." Does that imply, then, that by October 31 -- I'm assuming we're talking about 1994 -- the three designations set out in section 1 will be the criteria by which those heritage sites will be determined? Will they have to be evaluated on that date?
Hon. B. Barlee: This is basically related to the Assessment Act, to make sure there's a fair evaluation of those particular properties.
G. Wilson: That's what I'm getting at. I'm glad we're now on to that. Maybe I was a little obtuse in my question. I apologize if that was so. It says that there are terms and conditions in the consideration of heritage protection. That presumably is going to have an effect on value, because there will be terms in consideration of acquisition. So there's going to be something there -- market value, comparative values or whatever the assessment authority might have used. Then it refers to the date of October 31. My question is: for properties designated under this act, are we dealing with October 31, 1994, as the cutoff period, or the point at which we take the snapshot of this heritage site, in order to evaluate the terms and conditions plus assessment? Does that establish the value?
[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.
G. Wilson: I thank the Clerk for assistance with respect to section 26 of the Assessment Act, which talks about the cutoff date of October 31. That's what I was driving at. If by that time those three designations are included, then "taking into consideration the terms and conditions of the heritage protection of the property" will be tacked onto that assessed value in determining total value of the site. Is that correct?
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.
In 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.
On 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.
On 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.
On 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.
On 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.
On 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, into another classification that would alienate them from that.
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I should comment very briefly that almost all of the concerns the member has would certainly have been concerns 17 years ago under the old act. Under section 13(c), it says that: "'conservation' includes any activity undertaken to protect, preserve or enhance the heritage value of heritage property." That's true, but all that has been taken into consideration under the act. Some of this property may not be designated heritage property, because we have to exercise due diligence with all of players in the game, including first nations, third parties, government and the people of British Columbia.
Sometimes local government, for instance, cannot adequately protect certain areas; we know that. The province could do that, and sometimes it does. The view corridors, which the member mentioned before, are essentially protected under the Park Act. The Park Act protects view corridors, which we've alluded to in a wide-ranging discussion on this bill. So I think it's adequately protected.
C. Tanner: I had anticipated when I first read this act, both when it was introduced last year and this year, that we were going to have some troubles in this section. I've come to the conclusion that I only have three specific problems with this area. I would say that most of the words the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was asking about are defined in the Constitution Act. I think that would resolve some of his problems. Let me just ask my three questions, and then he can carry on if he wishes.
First of all -- and it's a fairly basic one -- is the definition of first nation. With every new piece of legislation and rewrite of old legislation, we get different definitions, and it is difficult. I know it's new legislation. And I know the government hires different firms besides their own legislative writers to write different pieces of legislation. But it seems to me that somewhere down the road somebody should be looking at all these definitions.
I'll give you an example. I have another bill coming up later in this session, the Library Act, and there's a very short definition for aboriginal government. It means "an aboriginal organization exercising governmental functions." That's the definition. We have another one here in yours, which says that: "'first nation' means, as the context requires, an aboriginal people sharing a common traditional territory...." -- and it goes on and on and on.
There needs to be, Mr. Minister, someone in your government -- and I would assume it's the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- ensuring that there is a common definition all the way through the legislation. You're writing it for the first time on many occasions, and maybe you're getting different people writing it. It's time to bring some commonality to it.
As far as the first nations are concerned, and I don't remember ever seeing this before, "'first nation' means, as the context requires...." Does that mean that you've got a fluctuating definition, and you can change it as the context requires? I've never seen that in legislation before that I can recall. Is it unique to this, or is there some reason that you've used that expression in this particular definition?
Hon. B. Barlee: I can see what the member is alluding to, but the first nations don't agree on the definition, so it's rather difficult for me to give you a correct response. I'm quite willing to discuss this and ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I think he might have a better idea than I do. I do know that that definition varies from area to area in British Columbia, from nation to nation and sometimes from band to band. For me to give you a definition of exactly what an aboriginal is and whether it's first nation or aboriginal or Indian, as we spoke about before, is almost impossible.
C. Tanner: I was afraid that was what was going to happen. Could the minister please answer the second part of my question? It's this definition in 13(c): "...'first nation' means, as the context requires...." Why is that sort of definition used? I don't recall seeing it before. Why would you use that particular way of expressing it?
Hon. B. Barlee: "As the context requires" is used for one of two things: "an aboriginal people sharing a common traditional territory and having a common traditional language, culture and laws, or the duly mandated governing body of one or more such people." That's why that phrase is there. So it's either/or.
C. Tanner: I would suggest that it would have been more clearly written as two separate definitions.
My second question concerns a heritage wreck. I'm not talking about a self-portrait, either. I'm not; some of the others might be.
[5:15]
I should tell the minister that I did read the seven pages of the old act thoroughly, and I do realize that most of these definitions are similar. It took a lot less time than it did to read this act, I'll tell you. As far as heritage wreck is concerned, I can't see any reason for putting the (a) definition in. I don't see why suddenly, out of the blue, you say after "2 or more years have passed from the date that the vessel or aircraft sank, was washed ashore or crashed." First of all, why two or more years? Why make that definition at all? I would take out that whole (a) and just leave it alone. I don't think there's any need for it.
[ Page 10815 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, this refers to rights of salvage; that's basically why that's there. When I think of a heritage wreck, I think of my old car, my 1983 Toyota that I drove for some 438,000 kilometres. That should have been designated as well, although I put it to rest -- it's still going, by the way.
This is essentially because of salvage rights on the high seas and so on.
C. Tanner: Why not just say that? Why not say, "with the exemption of any salvage right or insurance," and make it clear -- because there might be exceptions. You might lose control of that wreck this way, if you have to sit and look at it for two years before you can get on it.
Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly vessels are registered, and planes are usually registered. So when you're looking at insurance and salvage rights, I think that's reasonable to have that, rather than a long dissertation about why it should or shouldn't be there. I think it's more or less self-explanatory.
C. Tanner: As far as section 13 is concerned, I'm prepared to pass it. I'm not satisfied with the way the minister answered the "first nation" definition, and I think other members aren't, either. But it's probably the best we're going to get under the circumstances. If he wants to pass section 13, I will be willing to do so.
J. Tyabji: The first question I have to the minister, based on the debate that has occurred so far under section 13, is: why wouldn't this act, which is...? We've got over 100 pages here. Basically, what the minister could have put down on a piece of paper is: "Any object or site deemed heritage by cabinet is therefore heritage and subject to regulation." We have such wide definitions here, and that's obviously been the contentious part of the debate.
Early in the debate we had the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain providing a very emotionally moving contribution to the debate about his ski trip. The thing that comes to mind is that this is an excellent example of where aesthetic values may clash. Although I might be sympathetic to that member's perspective, I'm sure there are people watching today who were made very nervous and probably quite afraid that forestry could be shut down. That's exactly why the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast tried to introduce an amendment to a previous section of the bill that has been stood down. The wide definition of heritage value will make people very nervous. Unless the minister is prepared to allow some sort of input to cabinet on this -- which was the amendment that we've stood down for now -- we could end up with this heritage bill more or less effectively shutting down industry in the province.
I have further specific questions on other definitions. But for those who are following this debate and who, for example, might be concerned with the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain's comments about the clearcuts being alarming, I know people have seen the same sight and said that to them that is encouraging and aesthetically positive, because it's a sign of a working forest. I myself have heard people say on a number of occasions that they actually like the sight of a clearcut. So in that case, it's a huge debate on aesthetic values. Maybe the minister has a comment as to whether that would fall under these definitions?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, if we did narrow the definitions, we would have a much longer and more vicious debate than we are now. This debate is not vicious. It's just a matter of considerations of various concerns of the various members. I understand that.
But frankly, this bill -- and I think the member for Okanagan-Vernon would agree with me -- has been debated to death. We have consulted people across the province. Virtually everybody has been at the table. They've all been given the ability to come to the table. We've heard from groups from the northern part of the province to Vancouver Island to the Boundary country to the Rockies. When I look over the background of this particular bill, I see that it started in 1987 with the Project Pride task force -- that's seven years ago; then the Project Pride report in 1988; then the 1989 discussion paper, which was a White Paper; then the 1990 interministry consultation "Toward Heritage Legislation: A Proposal for Public Review"; and in 1991 a second White Paper was released, again for input by the public.
My heavens, I must say that the former government had a lot of consultation -- and indeed they should have; I see why they did. Then in 1992-93 there was the throne speech commitment. It goes on and on. It has been backed by the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. It has been backed by the UBCM. It has been backed by virtually everybody in the province. It isn't perfect. It can never be perfect. We have to have wide definitions.
J. Tyabji: Under "heritage object," where we come across heritage value for the first time, the way that it reads is: "...whether designated or not, personal property that has heritage value to British Columbia" -- which is wide-ranging -- "a community" -- which I don't believe is defined here -- "or an aboriginal people." I'm just wondering. One would assume from the way it reads that for a heritage object or a heritage site -- because they have the same definition -- to be designated, the specific group that the heritage value is confined to would be the group initiating the designation or defining it. For example, it would be the aboriginal people who would say this object or this site has value to us as an aboriginal people, or it would be the community.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
The reason I'm asking that is: would a member of cabinet, for example, say: "That river, in my opinion, has heritage value for the aboriginal people, and therefore I will determine" -- because it says whether designated or not -- "that it has heritage value"? Or is the intent of this to have those specific bodies do their own designation?
Hon. B. Barlee: Local government, first nations, do not designate; government designates.
J. Tyabji: I wasn't using "designate" in the sense of the bill; I was using "designate" in terms of identification. So in terms of the bill, the government designates. How is it brought to the government's attention? When there's a site or an object that has heritage value to an aboriginal people, who decides that? Does the government decide that it has value, or do the aboriginal people say, "We would like you to consider this for designation," and therefore it has value? In the event of it not coming forward to government, would government be seeking those designations? Would government be looking for those things? Would the government step into a community and say, "This is deemed to be of heritage value to the community, in the opinion of the government," independent of the community or someone within the community bringing it to the government?
[ Page 10816 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: Under no circumstances.
J. Tyabji: That is encouraging -- although the government would designate, and I hope the minister understands my question there. It is encouraging to know that the initiation of that would not be by the government; it would be by one of those groups, and then the designation would follow from the government.
Then we go to heritage value. We understand that the government is the body that decides whether or not that heritage value has merit. We have here: "...'heritage value' means the historical, cultural, aesthetic, scientific or educational worth or usefulness...." -- which is very wide. Take the example of either an aboriginal people or a community identifying a site or an object that they want to bring forward to the government for designation. The government is saying that's where it would be initiated. Would the group initiating that process be the one singling out those values and saying to the government that this object or site should have heritage designation and this is our argument for it? Or would the government, independent of a submission from that group, be finding heritage value in that? The reason I'm asking is that the minister has said that the government will not be initiating the determination of these sites. Would the government be designating value in them if that community or that people has not drawn the government's attention to it?
Hon. B. Barlee: There's a fairly short answer to that. Essentially, all values are considered by government when deciding whether or not to designate.
J. Tyabji: Maybe I can make it more specific. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain brought up his ski trip. He felt that the aesthetic value of the mountain across the way was diminished by the clearcuts. The minister is saying that if the community of that area had not come to the government to initiate a process for heritage designation on the basis of aesthetic heritage value, the government would not initiate that process. If the community did bring it to the government on the basis of historic heritage value, let's say, and the government found no historic heritage value, would the government -- as the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain urged -- say that although it finds no historic value, it will assign aesthetic value to that and therefore preserve it?
Hon. B. Barlee: No, that would not occur.
J. Tyabji: That's very encouraging.
The next question is: what does "land covered by water" mean? It comes under "heritage site." Could the minister define that?
Hon. B. Barlee: That could be a lake where a sternwheeler or another historic ship has sunk. It could be the bottom of a bay where there was traditional taking of clams and so on. It could be another area that has some significant historical value.
J. Tyabji: The reason I'm asking is that that is strange language. It says "land covered by water," rather than "body of water" or "waterway." If the minister's saying it's all land, there is no such thing as water that doesn't have land beneath it. That's why I'm asking.
Given that the minister has pointed out that it could be a lake where a ship has sunk, a body of water or whatever it is, with the way that the definition is worded here, what would be an example of water in the province that wouldn't be considered to have some heritage value in its natural state?
Hon. B. Barlee: I can think of one or two examples. There's certainly a dam on the Columbia River that might not be considered to have the same values as Christina Lake, for instance. One is man-made; the other is not. One has more aesthetic value; the other one does not. It would vary from area to area. The west coast of Vancouver Island, of course, is really a shipwreck destination. There are more shipwrecks off the west coast of Vancouver Island than practically any other place in North America -- 200 have been catalogued so far. This area would be considered.
J. Tyabji: For the minister's information, I saw the Minister of Women's Equality flinch when he said "man-made."
The minister has said that the Columbia River dam would not be considered a heritage value and then listed a number that would. Based on the definitions as they are here, the Nechako River obviously has a very high heritage value to the aboriginal peoples in that area and would be an obvious choice to come before the minister. In its natural form, would that river be considered a heritage site? As I read this, it has heritage value.
Hon. B. Barlee: Consideration is everything. Virtually anything can be considered a heritage site; some would have more value than others. You talked about the Nechako, but you didn't mention the grand canyon of the Nechako. That certainly would have some heritage value. When I look at the old 1977 act, the words are almost exactly the same: "'heritage site' means, whether designated or not, land, including land covered by water, of historic significance." That act is 17 years old.
J. Tyabji: It isn't the wording; it's the minister's intent that I'm trying to get to. When we talk about things like the Nechako River, the minister says there is some value attached to it. Is it the intent of the definitions section to weigh the heritage value of a site or an object recommended to cabinet based on its relative value in other uses?
[5:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: At the risk of repeating myself, everything could be considered. That is up to cabinet in the final analysis. However, time flies. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 9.
LIMITATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill changes limitation laws in the province in three ways. Each change will enhance access to justice for people who have faced barriers to the courts in the past.
Section 1 will allow adult victims of sexual assault to pursue civil legal action at any time. This amendment
[ Page 10817 ]
recognizes that many factors may operate to prevent adult victims of sexual assault from bringing legal action within the limitation periods in the current act. The victim may believe that the abuser has done nothing wrong, particularly in relationships of trust, dependency or authority. The victim may be living in fear of the abuser or may be psychologically incapable of confronting the assault within the limitation period. This amendment ensures that these factors do not result in the victim losing the opportunity to seek redress through a civil action.
This bill also amends the only limitation periods in the act which run against minors. Without this amendment, the Limitation Act is capable of preventing minors from bringing a claim before they reach the age of 19 and can operate to bar a child's legal action before the damages or injuries have been discovered. This injustice will be remedied by the bill. The bill provides that the ultimate limitation periods do not run against minors. Instead, the ultimate limitation periods will begin to run once the individual becomes 19 years old. The government believes that those who have suffered injuries as children, in the past, should not continue to bear the cost of the current provision. For that reason, the amendment will be retroactive to 1975, when the current legislation was enacted.
The final amendment in the bill will delay the running of limitation periods in cases arising from damages caused by silicone gel implants and similar products. Limitation periods will be delayed until December 31, 1995, to ensure that individuals suffering injuries from silicone gel implants will benefit from class-action legislation. The government intends to introduce comprehensive class-action legislation in 1995, after extensive consultation. In the absence of an expanded class-action procedure in this province, many British Columbia women who have suffered injuries from silicone gel implants will have great difficulty obtaining fair compensation for their injuries.
With that, I would move second reading.
J. Dalton: I'm pleased to rise in support of this bill. The particular references the Attorney General has given are long overdue. I remember back -- a few years ago now, of course -- in my law school days when limitation periods were a complete zoo, so to speak. Students and lawyers never totally understood them.
I can assure all members that the particular items set out in this Limitation Amendment Act are certainly long overdue. Unfortunately, as all members know, in this society there are more and more people coming forward with allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct. That's an unfortunate thing, and it's a fact. So the Attorney General should be congratulated for dealing with that issue, as the first section does. The unfair limitation periods imposed upon minors have also been addressed in this bill. Again, that is long overdue. The unfortunate experience that many women are facing with silicone implants is also addressed.
The opposition is pleased to speak in favour of this bill, and we look forward to more detailed discussion in committee stage.
L. Reid: I too would like to spend a couple of moments standing in support of the bill. I would speak specifically to the limitation period on silicone implants. I'm sure the minister is aware that that has been a hugely contentious issue for women in this province who are trying to seek some kind of justice in the delivery of that health service. It seems that this legislation may aid them in their fight to receive some justice.
More important, I think -- and certainly in today's press coverage -- is the need for a decision on funding for services so that women can recover from those surgeries that were done inappropriately, which have had very negative impacts on their bodies. If this piece of legislation allows us to focus debate on the necessity for a decision around that, I would welcome it. I would certainly welcome expanded debate around the limitation process and having some process in place for class action. I think both those issues need to be addressed and debated today.
I thank the minister for bringing it forward, and I too will stand with my colleague in support of this legislation.
J. Weisgerber: In speaking to this bill, the concern that I have deals particularly with section 1(l) and the reference to the extension of limitations, or in fact the removal of any limitation period. It seems to me that limitation legislation has developed over the years through some pretty reasoned arguments. Indeed, there's a whole history of case law around limitations and debates on limitations. I think it's entirely appropriate not to penalize minors and children by denying them the right as they gain adulthood to make claims, but I'm not nearly as sure I'm convinced that adults need an unlimited period of time to bring damage claims forward.
I would have liked to have heard a more compelling argument from the Attorney General. It seems to me that whenever we simply throw out any limitations we open the door to claims, for example, that may be made for a whole number of reasons. There are all kinds of dynamics that go on between individuals, families and groups of people. I'm going to listen very carefully during this debate to hear an argument that would suggest to me that there is a logical rationale for abandoning limitation when it comes to adults. I'm curious to know why, in the whole range of human endeavours, the minister would choose to identify sexual assaults for an unlimited limitation period.
With those few words, I'm going to listen very carefully to this debate and to committee debate before I'm convinced that this is necessary.
L. Stephens: I too would like to rise in second reading of Bill 9 to support the government's bill that has just come forward, the Limitation Amendment Act. I would like to speak specifically to section 1 and section 4.
On section 1, I think we must strengthen the position of zero tolerance for sexual assault. This bill goes some way to doing that, so I congratulate the Attorney General on this particular amendment.
As far as section 4 is concerned, the extension of the limitation period for breast implant victims to December 31, 1995, is another extremely good amendment that we support. I'm sure all members are aware of the tragedies in this regard, and they can be described as nothing but tragedies. I hope the government would commit to going a little bit further. Perhaps the Ministry of Women's Equality could communicate with the community at large to make them aware that this is a new requirement and to encourage women who need access to this.
With those words, I would like to say that we do support this particular bill.
J. Tyabji: I rise in strong support of this bill. I look forward to committee stage, because there may be some amendments that might allay some potential problems. I believe that this bill is extremely well intentioned and in many ways is long overdue. But whenever one opens up an
[ Page 10818 ]
opportunity to use the court system, one has to build some safeguards against the frivolous use of that opportunity. There's no question that there's a great need for expanding the time period during which people can pursue justice with regard to the section dealing with breast implants. I hope in that case that there will be an option where an individual seeking financial compensation could, perhaps through the Ministry of Women's Equality, find some assistance in a class-action suit or a joint effort, so that we don't just have individual efforts. I'm sure the Attorney General will have some comments on that.
We are at a time in our society when the courts are at their limit in terms of what they can handle. The cost of the courts is, of course, statutory within this ministry, which means that any time something comes before the courts.... Of course, everybody deserves their day in court and deserves to be heard; justice must be served. However, there are many cases of litigation now before the courts that don't need to be there.
At the same time that we recognize the crying need in this case for an expansion to the limitations, there should be a provision that would detract from the frivolous use of this, for two reasons. One reason would be the economics, which would be the cost to all of us through the statutory requirements of the Attorney General's office, but I think it's also to protect people with legitimate complaints. If there's one thing that opens this kind of process up to criticism, it's someone who pursues a frivolous case. That one tiny example in a huge flood of legitimate cases would be used as an example to discredit the intent of the bill, and that would be really unfortunate.
I hope there would be either a review process or a preliminary discussion process introduced, perhaps in committee stage and perhaps under section 3. One of the first things that could be introduced would be a review board or a consultation panel or something to determine the merit of a case. I'm sure the Attorney General is aware that there are many people who may be in an emotional state and who would be quite vulnerable to someone suggesting litigation. Although they're in the minority, there would be those lawyers, unfortunately, who would find some potential financial gain in pursuing something and plugging up the courts, and that would be unfortunate.
In that case as well, I would hope that in committee stage we might introduce an amendment to section 3 at the end that would see a harassment provision, not just in this bill but in many bills. I hope we will start to provide safeguards against an abuse of the courts, because as I've said before, the protection of this is not just the protection from an economic perspective; it's the protection of all the legitimate cases. There are so many cases that have a hard time getting before the courts because of harassment litigation. We know that litigation has become the assassination procedure of the twentieth century, particularly the latter part of the twentieth century, and that harassment litigation doesn't benefit anyone. So that the legitimate cases can proceed smoothly and without impugning the intent of the people who are legitimately pursuing justice on these issues, I would hope that there would be some amendments introduced in committee stage to build in a safeguard.
[5:45]
With that, I would like to commend the Attorney General and his colleagues who have worked on this bill. I understand, especially given the challenges facing the courts right now and the limits on them, that to open the courts up to this kind of action is a good idea that is long overdue.
D. Mitchell: I have a very brief comment that I'd like to make on this bill. I'd like to indicate that I support Bill 9, the Limitation Amendment Act, in principle.
I have a question, which I know will be more appropriately raised in committee stage of the bill, but I commend the minister for bringing this forward. I don't know if the minister can address the question that I am going to raise when he closes debate in second reading. If not, we can certainly pursue it in committee stage. It relates to the fact that section 1 of the bill, which I think gets to the main principle here, allows for damages arising from sexual assault to be brought at any time without reference to limitation periods. I'm wondering if what that means is.... For instance, let's look at the early days of the provincial custodial programs going back 20 or 25 years. If someone who was in custody at that time felt today that perhaps they had been sexually abused at the hands of employees while they were held in provincial custody, would that person, with the passage of this amendment, be more able now to bring forth an action? Is that what is new? Is that what is being brought forth in this amendment? It would be useful if the minister could refer to that.
The only other concern I have about the bill is the commencement clause. It's an unusual commencement clause for any piece of legislation that we've seen. In terms of its retroactivity, it's really very wide open. It really is limitless. I think that's unusual. Again, if the minister can address that now, fine; if not, we'll deal with that during committee stage as well.
Deputy Speaker: The minister closes debate.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to thank members opposite for their comments, all of which are appropriate and useful. Perhaps the best way of proceeding with this is to actually have a discussion in committee stage, because there are some specific issues raised. I think it would be useful for all members of the House to exchange views; in particular I refer to the Leader of the Third Party and his concerns about section 1(l). It would be useful for members of the House to talk about issues such as repressed memory and the psychological prohibitions that come from close family relationships, where the person who's potentially at fault has an unusual kind of relationship with the victim and therefore prevents the victim from pursuing an action until much later in their life, when they can get themselves clear to do it.
I think all of those kinds of issues should be dealt with in a to-and-fro way in committee stage. If members understand why I'm saying that, I think it would be more useful. With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 9, Limitation Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
J. Tyabji: I rise on a point of privilege.
Deputy Speaker: Please proceed, member. The member is aware of the rules in standing orders. A brief statement of privilege is in order, please.
J. Tyabji: Today at approximately 2:40 p.m. a division was called in Committee A of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. I'm an elected Member of the Legislative
[ Page 10819 ]
Assembly of British Columbia and have the duty and right to vote on all matters before the Committee of the Whole. Due to a motion which amended the standing orders of the House to strike Committee A as a Committee of the Whole with restricted membership, I was excluded from voting in a division.
On a point of privilege raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast this session regarding potential exclusion from a vote of Committee A, the Speaker ruled:
"Any process which denies or threatens members' rights to fully and freely speak or participate in debate in the chamber or Committee of the Whole is a situation which the Chair views with concern.
"If the Chair at some future time were advised that a member had been improperly denied access to any section of a Committee of the Whole, the Chair would redress the situation forthwith."
I would like to advise the Chair that I believe the division vote of Committee A constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege, as it excludes MLAs from voting on matters before a Committee of the Whole.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. I ask you to please provide me with a copy of that statement. Are there any other members who wish to comment on this motion of privilege? Otherwise, the Chair will simply reserve ruling and consider the matter -- will take it under advisement -- and give a later ruling.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like to call second reading of Bill 33.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is a miscellaneous statutes bill which I don't believe requires second reading debate. But I thought it would be useful to just outline what the issues are so that members can see what our perspective is and then prepare themselves for committee stage, which would be the more relevant debate, I think, on this bill. This bill contains amendments to six statutes: the Correction Act, the Election Act, the Motion Picture Act, the Scholarship Act, the Social Workers Act and the Supreme Court Act.
The Correction Act is amended to establish an independent investigation, inspection and standards office in the Ministry of Attorney General. The director and office of investigation, inspection and standards shall be independent of and separate from the corrections branch and the commissioner of corrections. The director shall have the authority to investigate any matter relating to the administration of the Correction Act on his or her own initiative. This will allow the director to be able to investigate a complaint from a person outside the correctional system. The director shall report the findings of any investigation in writing, directly and solely to the Attorney General, rather than to the commissioner of corrections. These amendments will serve to enhance public confidence in the British Columbia correctional system by ensuring that investigations of corrections-related incidents and complaints are rigorous, fair and impartial.
The Election Act is amended to provide that the general enumeration of voters, scheduled to begin in May of this year, is cancelled and that the chief electoral officer be authorized to conduct enumerations as the chief electoral officer considers necessary. The Election Act currently provides that during each parliament there shall be a general enumeration beginning on the first Monday of May in the third calendar year after the general election for that parliament, unless the Legislature is dissolved earlier.
The chief electoral officer has requested this amendment for the following reasons. Formerly, voters lists were developed only prior to elections; therefore, periodic enumerations were conducted. The voters lists produced by such enumerations were not comprehensively revised until the next enumeration. In contrast, Elections British Columbia now maintains a permanent voters list which is continuously revised to maintain its accuracy and completeness. British Columbia is presently the only jurisdiction in Canada to maintain a continuous voters list. A number of means are used in revising and maintaining the continuous voters list, of which enumeration is only one and no longer the most effective. In British Columbia, the continuous voters list is updated daily. Voters can register or update their registration every business day of the year at any one of the 60 government agent offices in the province by contacting the local registrar of voters or by calling Elections British Columbia toll-free. As well, during an election period voters may register or update their registration in conjunction with voting.
The introduction of the voter identification card following the 1989 provincial enumeration has also enhanced the accuracy of the voters list. Elections B.C. also undertakes special registration drives to target student residences or continuing care institutions, for example. Enumerations are also conducted to target high-mobility areas.
Lastly, the use of the voters list amendments and new registrations received during the municipal and regional district elections is a great assistance in maintaining the voters list. Amendments to the Municipal Act in 1993 allow municipalities and Elections B.C. to share registration information. The federal government cancelled the 1993 enumeration, and five other provinces are moving toward computerized voters lists to replace door-to-door enumerations.
General periodic door-to-door enumerations are expensive -- approximately $8 million -- and are increasingly less effective due to the highly mobile nature of urban society, the concerns of homeowners about personal safety and consequent reluctance to open their door to strangers, the difficulties of adequately recruiting and training door-to-door canvassers and the difficulties of locating many householders at home during daylight hours due to the fact that in many households all adults are in the workforce. Although the provincewide 1994 enumeration is to be cancelled, the chief electoral officer is enabled to conduct future enumerations as required.
An amendment to the Motion Picture Act will enable the director of film classification to impose conditions when issuing a licence and when there has been a contravention of the act or regulations. At present the director may only suspend or cancel a licence where there has been a contravention of the act or regulations. The ability to attach conditions to a licence will be a significant improvement to the enforcement of the act and regulations.
There are also amendments to the search-and-seizure provisions of the act. At present the language of the act allows for the seizure of unapproved copies of adult films which are intended for distribution. The amendment will also permit the seizure of master films or tapes from which additional copies could be made and distributed. This amendment will prevent this possible circumvention of the search-and-seizure provisions in the act. The act is further amended to provide for the destruction of adult films seized
[ Page 10820 ]
from unlicensed premises. These amendments will clarify and improve enforcement of the Motion Picture Act.
The Scholarship Act, which establishes the Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship, is amended to provide that the scholarships can be granted for graduate study not only in the United Kingdom, as at present, but in any Commonwealth country other than Canada. This amendment will provide scholarship recipients with greater flexibility in the pursuit of their studies. This amendment is particularly appropriate in this year of the Victoria Commonwealth Games.
The Social Workers Act establishes a board of registration which permits registration of social workers who meet certain professional criteria, and regulates the practice of those who are registered. Registration is not mandatory, but only those social workers who register are accorded the designation of registered social worker.
The Social Workers Act is amended to provide that the board of registration will have two lay members. Because registration is not mandatory for social workers, another amendment will ensure that non-lay members of the board of registration will also have to be registered social workers. This will prevent the possibility of an unregistered social worker participating in the investigation or discipline of a registered social worker.
In addition, the registrar, who exercises a purely administrative function, will no longer be a member of the board of registration. This will ensure that the neutral role of the registrar and disciplinary function of the board will be fully separate. The board of registration will also have the authority to make rules providing for the appointment and remuneration of the registrar.
Lastly, the words "chairman" and "vice-chairman" are replaced by the gender neutral words "chair" and "vice-chair," respectively.
These amendments have been made after consultation with the board of registration and the B.C. Association of Social Workers.
An amendment to the Supreme Court Act will allow Supreme Court masters to render a judgment in a proceeding they heard while sitting as a master within six months after they have resigned their office or have been appointed to the bench. Masters are judicial officers appointed by the Attorney General and have the jurisdiction of a Supreme Court judge sitting in chambers. This amendment will ensure that decisions can be rendered without the necessity of a rehearing and within a reasonable period of time after a master has left office.
Hon. Speaker, I would move second reading.
J. Dalton: I would move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading of Bill 6.
INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Bill 6 read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading of Bill 10.
SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Bill 10 read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading of Bill 17.
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Bill 17 read a third time and passed.
[6:00]
Committee A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Schreck in the chair.
The committee met at 2:35 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 46: minister's office, $366,255 (continued).
C. Tanner: I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to be in two Houses at the same time. The heritage bill, a most important bill to both the minister and myself, is being debated at this moment. I am the lead critic on it. At the same time, for some reason or other beyond my comprehension, I'm expected to be here and question the minister on her estimates in my role as critic.
Therefore I would move, Mr. Chairman, that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: The motion is in order. Those in favour signify by saying aye; those opposed by saying nay.
The Chair believes the ayes have it.
Hon. D. Marzari: Well, I call a division on that, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: The Chair hears a division being called.
K. Jones: Is it appropriate that the Chair should be calling a division?
The Chair: The Chair didn't call a division; the minister did.
Could I have your attention while we try to set some history in this parliament? This is the first time we've ever had a division in Committee A.
I remind all members that there is assignment of who is in this committee, and then there is an understanding on substitution. To facilitate substitution, chairs in this House have been assigned, much as tokens would be, for the purpose of substitution. There should be as many members voting as there are duly assigned chairs, there being, in addition, one chair not in the round, and I see a member occupying that chair.
The Chair sees all seats that are duly authorized to vote currently occupied. Unless there is objection -- and the Chair also sees other members present who are not
[ Page 10821 ]
authorized to vote at this time, being in excess of the number of members assigned to this committee -- the members the Chair recognizes as being present for the count are those seated in the normal chairs of this committee, plus one next to the windows. If the Chair hears no objections, I believe that is our understanding of the procedure.
That having been done, we will now take the vote. The question before you is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 9 |
||
|
Gingell |
K. Jones |
Weisgerber |
|
Tanner |
Chisholm |
Neufeld |
|
Warnke |
Reid |
Wilson |
|
NAYS -- 14 |
||
|
Garden |
Krog |
Copping |
|
Lali |
Zirnhelt |
Jackson |
|
Boone |
Conroy |
Kasper |
|
Marzari |
Giesbrecht |
Brewin |
|
Randall |
|
Lord |
C. Tanner: The result of that vote hasn't solved my problem. There has been a compromise suggestion from the government side. I therefore make a motion that we adjourn for two hours.
The Chair: The Chair is advised that the motion is out of order. Also, the Chair is not knowledgeable of any agreements made between parties.
Shall vote 46 pass?
C. Tanner: Will the Chair find some way to accommodate me so that I might be in the House to debate a very important bill -- both to myself and to the government -- and give me the opportunity as the lead critic on that bill to get into the House and discuss it?
[2:45]
The Chair: Hon. members, can I please have some assistance in maintaining order in this committee. By our rules, the Chair is not in a position to mediate or resolve differences between members that may arise on such agreements.
In this committee there is a precedent of moving short recesses from time to time. The Chair would recognize a motion to recess for ten or 15 minutes as in order and consistent with the precedents in this committee.
Shall vote 46 pass?
G. Janssen: Point of clarification, hon. Chair. The agenda was circulated this morning to all members of the House. When the House convened this morning, it was announced what the agenda would be for the day. The opposition knew that full well and made no overtures to the fact that there might be a conflict. As late as the start of the House this afternoon, it was agreed upon by other members of the House that the critic for the opposition would be granted the opportunity to go over the sections that he might not be able to canvass because of attendance in this House. It's regrettable that the member does not take the opportunity that was afforded him and chooses to make....
The Chair: There is no such thing as the point on which the member rose, and it is certainly not a point of order. The question before the committee is vote 46.
J. Weisgerber: It would be sensible if we were to adjourn for ten minutes or so and see whether the parties involved can sort this out. I move an adjournment for ten minutes.
Motion approved.
The committee recessed at 2:47 p.m.
The committee resumed at 2:57 p.m.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to spend some time this afternoon discussing with the minister the Peace River Regional District industrial tax recommendations. I know that the minister is familiar with those things. However, for the purpose of this committee, for Hansard, and for those people who are interested or perhaps not as aware as the minister is of some of these concerns, I'd like to read into the record a few of the observations made by a research group who prepared a presentation to the minister.
The committee, comprised of regional district and municipal officials in the Peace region, found among other things that the Peace River region is one of the richest industrial regions in British Columbia. Most of the industrial workers in the northeast reside inside municipalities. Across this province, the average is 80 percent. In the Peace region, 75 percent of the industrial workers reside within municipal boundaries.
Across this province, 80 percent of the industrial tax base is within municipal boundaries. Most of the industrial tax base in the northeast lies outside municipal boundaries. Indeed, in the Peace region, it is 5 percent when you exclude the communities of Taylor and Tumbler Ridge and 45 percent if you include all the municipalities. The result is that municipal support from the industrial tax base is inequitable. As a result, business and residential taxes are exceedingly high in some municipalities. In the Peace region, the tax contribution from industry is very small.
[3:00]
To move away from this particular text, I can tell the minister that, indeed, many of the residential and industrial tax rates are extremely high in communities like Dawson Creek and Fort St. John in particular. But that same situation also arises in other communities in the region to a lesser degree, such as Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge, Pouce Coupe and Hudson's Hope, and it is a very serious situation.
The regional district and the municipalities have come up with a very interesting solution. I believe it's a workable solution. They have proposed that an industrial tax, applied to industry outside of municipal boundaries for the communal use of the municipalities and regional districts on a formula basis, would see industry in the region taxed in total no greater than 75 percent of the industrial tax rates provincewide.
The worry that industry is going to be overtaxed is well founded. Arguments have been made that industry in the region enjoys a much lower tax rate than the average industrial tax across the province. Representatives making this proposal want to put that guarantee up front, that no matter what formula would be applied, industry would be guaranteed that their tax rate would never exceed 75 percent of the provincial average industrial tax rate. That's an important consideration when we look at this proposal -- the idea being that with that safeguard in place, there would be a shared pool created with regional industrial tax dollars
[ Page 10822 ]
that would again be distributed among the municipalities on the basis of need, and on the basis of their existing municipal and industrial tax rates.
I know I've gone over something the minister is quite familiar with, but to put that issue into context, perhaps the minister would give us some indication of the progress that is being made with this initiative.
Hon. D. Marzari: Due to the diligent lobbying of the regional district in the Peace, the minister and the ministry are aware of the unique circumstances that surround the industrial tax base and the residential tax base and of the special needs that North Peace experiences in terms of its infrastructure requirements.
The documents that had been brought forward by the regional district and its members are conclusive; they are very convincing to me and to others who have heard the argument that although the residential tax rates in the North Peace do not exceed those in most other municipalities in similar situations throughout the province, the costs of living in the north and of putting in municipal infrastructure do exceed average costs. To prevent freezing, sewers have to be buried two or three times deeper than anywhere else in the province, and because roads buckle and heave at three or four times the rate they do anywhere else in the province, the cost is that much more.
Therefore it makes sense that the municipalities of the north find some equitable way to rationalize the ratios between the industrial and residential bases. However, whereas many municipalities in the province can canvass or bring in their adjacent industry by an extension of boundaries or by other techniques that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has managed to devise over the years, the nature of business and of natural gas means that there are about 2,000 natural gas wellheads in the North Peace that cannot easily be lassoed into a boundary extension for any one of the four municipalities that are making the request through the regional district for some kind of equitable tax-sharing. Therefore it's been my job and my concern to develop a technique and a consultation process with both the regional district and the industry most affected.
The industry affected, of course, is the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and particularly Westcoast Energy. What we are doing at this point is discussing with CAPP and Westcoast equitable solutions we can all -- the North Peace Regional District; the provincial government, which is not interested at this time in introducing new taxes; and the industry itself -- live with. These discussions are ongoing, and I am assuming that we will reach a reasonable compromise in this effort. The regional district is interested in something like a $6 million tithing of the industry. We are suggesting that some compromise solution or some lesser amount be reached by the industry and injected into a capital pool for local community infrastructure requirements. The discussions to this point have not been negative; in fact, they are very hopeful. I am pleased to report to this estimates committee that the exercise is ongoing and that the regional district, I hope, will find resolution within the near future.
J. Weisgerber: I wouldn't want to suggest for a moment that the talks weren't being well considered and that there wasn't considerable work being done. I would take this opportunity to suggest to the minister that residential and commercial property rates in communities are very high. I'll speak about Dawson Creek particularly, because I've lived there and done business there. Two years ago I looked at tax notices that had assessed homes in the area of $100,000, and homeowners were paying $2,000 a year in property taxes. I don't think that's consistent with the averages around British Columbia; indeed, I think you'd find it far higher.
Even more difficult for small businesses are the commercial tax rates, which are much higher in communities like Dawson Creek and Fort St. John to the point where it is a severe disincentive to business and where businesses close and go on record as having closed because of the combination of extremely high tax burdens and the competition with neighbouring communities in Alberta where the 7 percent social services tax doesn't apply. But I'm not going to try to drag in the 7 percent issue. It's been there for a long time, and I, like everybody, would love to find a resolution to that issue.
Property taxes, first of all, are unacceptably high by any measure. If you compare properties, valuations and rates, tax rates in the Peace are extremely high. On the other hand, I think the municipalities have done quite an outstanding job of trying to control expenditures. The result is a deteriorating infrastructure. Sewers are not being redone at the rate they should be. There are sewer systems in the downtown area of Dawson Creek that were put in by the U.S. army in the early 1940s with cast piping which is simply rusting and no longer even watertight. The community can't afford to replace it and is really in a box, inasmuch as it can't raise tax rates and can't attract more tax base within the municipal boundaries. Industries that come there look at the tax base in the municipality and look at the tax base outside and simply decide to relocate outside.
The municipal politicians find themselves in that difficult position of having a new business come, indicate that they're interested in locating there and then say: "I'm sorry, we can't relocate within your municipality because your tax rates are too high." The municipal politicians obviously look for the growth in that part of the world and are willing to accept it either in or outside of the tax base. So you find a periphery of new businesses opening in these communities, which simply compounds the problem.
I believe this issue is critical, and I think it's imaginative. I was impressed that the research done disclosed the fact that the impact on tax increases for the oil, gas and forest industries in the Peace area will be less than 2 percent of their existing property tax and royalty obligations. No one likes a tax increase, and everyone resists a tax increase, but I think an overall 2 percent increase in tax obligations for industry in the Peace would be acceptable.
I raise that because while the minister is correct in saying that there have been ongoing discussions, there is a great deal of concern arising out of the Premier's recent visit to Fort St. John. In an interview in the Fort St. John paper following that visit, he said: "It's possible that an agreement can be reached with the oil industry to help rebuild roads and other services in the region, but the big companies working in northeastern B.C. must be willing to participate in it."
It's a marvellous new twist on taxation if we are indeed going to start saying to folks that this tax we've introduced is a voluntary one. We're going to ask folks in any community, in any region, any sector, whether or not they want to willingly participate in a tax increase or a new tax. I would suggest that there would be very few tax increases if the taxpayers had to voluntarily agree to contribute. I think it's obvious that the ministry, the Premier or the municipal regional government will never get Westcoast and CAPP to voluntarily agree to a new form of taxation. Quite honestly, I think it would not only be highly unlikely, but the
[ Page 10823 ]
representatives of those companies would find it very difficult to explain to their boards of directors why they voluntarily agreed to a tax increase or the establishment of a new tax.
The point I'm making is that government clearly has to examine all the arguments, look at what I think has been exceptional work done by this group, talk to industry, look at the history and then make a decision. If it's fair and equitable -- and certainly the arguments I see outlined here and have heard over the last couple of years suggest to me that there is a very equitable approach being taken -- then I think government has an obligation to say to industry: "This is the new regime" or "We've taken an extra $100 million this year in petroleum royalties out of the region." The province is enjoying a considerable increase in revenue as a result of gas and oil activity. We recognize that the municipalities genuinely need this kind of money and yet forgo the revenue.
[3:15]
It seems simple. Either the government has to agree to share more of the existing tax base with the municipalities, or it has to look at this and, if it's fair and equitable, say to the municipalities: "You have the authority to proceed with this program." Perhaps the minister has some arguments that would give me a different sense of that.
Hon. D. Marzari: There are a few arguments that might lend a different sense to this debate. There is no question that the regions and the municipalities that are being advocated by the member aren't needy from the point of view of infrastructure.
The lifestyle in the north is beautiful and wonderful, but it's difficult. I sincerely understand that infrastructure requirements, such as streets and water and sewer, that people in the south take for granted are much more difficult and much more expensive in the north. However, the question that we have to deal with is how we bring the source of wealth in the north to an equitable agreement with the municipalities. How do we canvass this? It's rather easy to throw a boundary extension around a pulp mill to bring it within the city boundaries, charge commercial or industrial rates and thus balance off your residential with additional taxes to ensure that you meet your city budget.
It's different in the north because of the nature of the industry itself. The conventional techniques that we have developed won't necessarily work. The ministry and the regional districts are looking at some of the conventional ways to harness industry and encourage it to work with a few of the municipalities concerned. I think Dawson Creek is the perfect example here. However, in looking at Fort St. John, we have to look at a pooling of capital, and we have to pull in the industry there. The question is not yes or no. The question is how much, how soon, when can we do it and under what auspices.
The member is recommending a new tax. He's saying the heavy arm of the province should come down and impose a new tax on the industry in the area because it's booming right now. It would not be a major slice out of its competitive advantage in the international marketplace to take a piece of the action and put it into the local infrastructure. It's a very compelling argument for those who like to tax.
However, we have to look at precedents that were established by the previous government in working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We need to work similar deals throughout this province in communities that have been looking towards bringing their industrial tax base into line and ensuring equity in a tax pooling arrangement.
A few years ago, the former government did that sort of voluntary tax deal with Highland Valley Copper in Logan Lake. In fact, one of the reasons that Logan Lake -- of all places -- is undergoing quite substantial growth right now, with a very active city council and a very active economic development base, is the agreement that they reached with Highland Valley Copper.
Similarly Elk Valley developed a cooperative arrangement with its industry and pooled it between various municipalities. Elk Valley can now enjoy the benefits of formula-driven pooling involving the mines. I believe that we can do the same thing in the North Peace. We can pool money and we can pool industrial tax dollars brought in by industry, particularly industry in the North Peace, which I gather employs 95 percent of the people.
Ninety-five percent of the employees of Westcoast actually live in the municipalities. There's some corporate responsibility, but we should pool some of the dollars that we should be able to pull out of an agreement with Westcoast and with CAPP. We should be able to work it with the municipalities, cap it and give some kind of fair deal to everybody concerned. Bringing in the heavy arm of the province to inject a new tax into the system, when this government has made a strong commitment to have no new taxes in the foreseeable future, would be erroneous, would not be within the traditions of this government and would not necessarily solve the long-term problem that we're facing in the north.
I am strongly in favour of further discussion with industry, on the assumption that we're going to be able to forge a deal to pool it with the four municipalities involved, to cap it appropriately and to carry it on for the foreseeable future in a way that benefits everybody.
J. Weisgerber: At the risk of becoming argumentative, I expect there are corporations all around British Columbia who wish that the government had been enlightened in that way before they introduced the corporate capital tax, that they'd gone out to the corporations in British Columbia a couple of years ago -- assuming the government had that philosophical bent then -- and asked: "Would you like to pay a corporate capital tax? We'd like to have some more money, but we don't want to tax you unless you're willing to pay." I think we know what the answer would have been. Had you gone out to the car dealers last year and said, "We're thinking about taking away the trade-in allowance on automobiles, taxing labour and increasing the sales tax to 7 percent -- would you like to participate in that?" I think you know what the answer would have been, and it's the same answer you'll get from Westcoast and from CAPP. I don't think it's reasonable to say to people: "The only way we're going to be able to bring in taxation is if the persons or the corporations being taxed voluntarily agree." I just don't believe it's going to happen. I think the government knows this very well, but having been somewhat put upon by criticisms of its tax policy, it has now made this statement of no new taxes. We have this ideological thing standing in the way of something very logical.
The minister referred to a number of appropriate examples. I think Highland dealt with a specific situation, not the same situation that exists in the Peace. Elk Valley was a challenge, but it isn't the challenge that the communities in the northeast are facing. There was a much closer parallel in the municipality of Fort Nelson.
The former government gave to the new structure in Fort Nelson the exact authorities that the other Peace River communities are asking for. Fort Nelson has already been
[ Page 10824 ]
granted the power to tax industry, including Westcoast, and all the CAPP members in that area outlined as the Fort Nelson-Liard Regional District, for a 100-mile circumference around Fort Nelson. What was granted in Fort Nelson is exactly what is being asked for in the Peace.
The minister mentioned the North Peace on a number of occasions. I want her to understand clearly that both constituencies of North and South Peace are equally involved in this, and that the amount of gas and oil activity is very similar. There is an enormous amount of activity in the Chetwynd-Tumbler Ridge-Dawson Creek triangle, in the Brassey oil field and the Sukunka gas fields, which are some of the largest in the world. The employment and activity are quite equally divided between North and South Peace. I'm not sure whether it was simply a slip of the tongue, but I want there to be no doubt on the record that we're talking here about the Peace River region -- the area covered by the Peace River Regional District and by the North and South Peace River constituencies.
I genuinely appreciate the cooperative attitude the minister has taken with the municipalities, and the minister must know that the various officials in the region are appreciative of that as well. It's not that they feel there is a lack of empathy, but I believe they see themselves in a box that they simply can't get out of, particularly given the comments by the Premier as reported in the Fort St. John News.
My purpose here today is to encourage the minister not to introduce a new tax, but simply to give the Peace River Regional District exactly the same taxing authority as exists in the Fort Nelson-Liard region. They are adjoining regional districts, and the demographics of the areas are very similar. Virtually all of the gas and oil activity in the province exists within those two regional districts and constituencies.
I don't think this is a new tax; it is simply the application of a tax that Westcoast is very familiar with in the northern part of the territory that they serve. CAPP, again, is very familiar with this, because a large percentage of the activity in British Columbia takes place outside the Peace region, in the Fort Nelson-Liard region. I really have to stress that it is fundamentally simple and that there is a precedent. We're not cutting new ground here, we're not introducing new taxes and we're not asking for anything for one group of municipalities that hasn't already been awarded to others. I really do believe that, had CAPP and Westcoast been asked about the tax in the Fort Nelson-Liard area, they would have said exactly as they're saying now: "Gosh, our costs are high, taxes are high, expenses are high and world competition is tough." What else would you say if someone came and asked: "Would you like to pay more taxes?" It's a natural and predictable response.
With that, I appeal to the minister. This is the most critical issue facing the municipalities -- no question -- but it also affects the quality of life for individual British Columbians in that area because of the tax assessment on their properties and small businesses. It is really choking the service base. That's, I think, the fundamental argument for industry. They need the service base: the small businesses, the stores, the shops and the motels. Those businesses simply cannot continue to function.
[3:30]
In summation, I believe that what will happen is that more and more of the gas and oil service industry will find a home in Grande Prairie, Haight and Beaver Lodge when they look at the ability to license their vehicles in Alberta and to avoid the 7 percent sales tax and the higher property taxes that they would face in northern British Columbia municipalities. We will see a continued erosion of the service base in the communities -- the exact opposite of what I'm sure the minister and everybody else in that region is trying to achieve.
Hon. D. Marzari: If I can add to some of the comments that have been eloquently made by the member opposite, I think it's very important for the member to know that the discussions being held right now among the ministry, the regional district, CAPP and Westcoast are going to produce fruit; these are not just pie-in-the-sky promises of consultation and "let's meet again next month." I think that the member will see very soon a solid commitment by the industry in the form of a direct contribution to the leisure pool in Fort St. John. The member will be able to see some concrete evidence of the goodwill that is being generated right now, because there have been round-table discussions and businesslike discussions about the appropriate corporate citizen role of the industry in the region. I think that's worth saying. I do not think the member need worry about the industry pulling out of the region and moving across the border to avoid the sales tax or the corporation capital tax. The member should be assured that the industry was born here and wants to stay here, and it wants to make its mark and its contribution. I have reasonable assurances of that, because the discussions have not been "no" or "yes" to this point; they have been "what can we do?" and "what techniques can be used?" The techniques -- the actual nuts and bolts of the agreement that was reached in Fort Nelson -- were confirmed by a comprehensive local vote by both farm and residential property tax payers throughout the region. When the region voted on the deal, everybody was included.
The Peace River Regional District, however, is looking toward another solution. At present, it is not inclined to move into the regional residential tax base; it is fearful of raising residential rates, perhaps for the reasons the member has expressed. People in the north feel they have paid their fair share in terms of residential and farm taxes. Therefore, we will not be able to use the same technicalities -- the nuts and bolts of the agreement we want to come to -- that were used in the Fort Nelson deal. What we are trying to forge is another way of doing this, by using conventional techniques, such as boundary extensions, and by finding another way to create the pool that we've talked about this afternoon.
I am very hopeful, and I want to reassure both members sitting on the other side of the House, whose pictures are prominently featured in the regional district office, I must say -- especially with moustache of the member who just spoke, which is an impressive one indeed, and which I hope he might one day regrow for the benefit of this House -- that the discussions are not pie in the sky; they are very real. There is goodwill on all sides, and I expect that very shortly there will be a concrete commitment of good faith toward ultimate capital pooling of the industrial tax base in the Peace.
J. Weisgerber: I'm going to get that picture changed.
An Hon. Member: Oh no!
J. Weisgerber: Someone once said the moustache was appropriate for a World War II fighter pilot. In the 1990s, I'm not sure that's particularly flattering.
I'm going to turn to my colleague from Peace River North, the former mayor of Fort Nelson, who is more familiar than I am with the specifics of the Fort Nelson deal. Let me just say to the minister in clarification that I have no doubt that the
[ Page 10825 ]
properties owned by the CAPP members and by Westcoast will stay in the Peace. They're not mobile; wellheads, pipelines and those kinds of things don't pick up and leave. The concern I have is with the companies that service those organizations -- groups like Schlumberger and Amaco. There are a hundred oilwell-servicing businesses and contractors. There is a whole industry built up around the development of gas and oil resources and production.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
In the early 1980s we saw, to our great dismay, one of the results of the recession. And one of the great results of the national energy policy -- for which I will never forgive the Liberal Party in government at that time -- was that industry moved out of the Peace region in droves. Companies didn't pick up their oilwells and go, nor did they pick up their pipelines, but the companies closed their offices and their warehouses, laid off their employees or transferred them to Alberta and essentially fuelled the growth of the community of Grande Prairie as a result. That's the issue. It's not the taxation of properties that is the focus of this discussion, but taxation of commercial property, which makes it unattractive for the service industries to continue at current rates. When I talk about people picking up and leaving, it's not the CAPP and pipeline folks; it is a whole industry. It took virtually a decade to move that industry back into the region, and not even to the same degree that it was in the 1970s. It's in jeopardy, and that's one of the fundamental underlying urgencies to this debate.
Just for the purpose of clarification, I would now, unless the minister wants to respond, turn it over to my colleague.
R. Neufeld: It was interesting to listen to the minister talk about how benefiting areas were put in place in the Fort Nelson area. I would like her to explain again. Unless I really misunderstood, she stated that a vote was taken before the benefiting areas were put in place. I recollect quite clearly how the benefiting areas were put in place. We visited the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- I think your Mr. McLeod was there at the time -- and a circle was drawn around the area, and those services that were going to be in a benefiting area were designated in that area. As I understand it, if something is going to be built -- a recreation complex or whatever -- it has to be voted on by the residents both inside and outside the boundaries, and it has to pass in both before it can be financed. That's the way I understand it, but maybe the minister understands a different way that those benefiting areas were put in place.
Hon. D. Marzari: The reference to a vote was obviously inappropriate. What I wanted to address was the scope of the benefiting area and the fact that in the Fort Nelson situation everyone in the benefiting area was included in terms of spreading the tax base. Residential, farm, commercial and industrial were all included in the overall mix, which was, in fact, the ultimate solution there.
In the Peace River Regional District, however, the suggestion is that there be certain assessment categories left out of the mix, which creates a technical difficulty in terms of using some of the traditional mechanisms for drawing a line around a benefiting area. The fact that certain residential properties in the regional district but not in the urban areas would be left out in the solution they have put forward has been discussed with the regional district. This creates a problem down the line. It's very important if we use the traditional techniques -- or even if we forge new ones -- that everybody be seen to be sharing equitably, even though the dollars on the assessed tax rate won't be all that great coming from certain residential properties in the outlying regions. It's still important technically, for the purposes of the mechanisms we have now, that they be included.
We are working with that. We are also at this point encouraging the regional district to incorporate and to include all residential and all categories of assessment for the final solution we hope we can come up with. It's more equitable if everybody is participating and if all residential participates in the solution. It's more equitable, fair and just to the industry and to commercial that will be pulled in on any final agreement. These are some of the nitty-gritty, nuts-and-bolts issues we are working through with the petroleum producers and the regional district as we come up with the kind of tax pool that will be seen to be fair to everyone.
R. Neufeld: I understand that some classes are exempt in the proposal, which is a bit different than Fort Nelson. There are specifically good reasons for that, and the minister is fully aware of them.
I am still wondering why the ministry is dealing with Westcoast and CAPP, and agreeing to a reduction. I'm going by memory here. I didn't read the numbers in there, but I believe that the initial application or proposal was for about $6 million. What industry is doing now, as I understand it, is that we're down to about $2 million -- or there was talk about being around $2 million. That's a third of what was targeted, which was not excessive. The $6 million was not excessive. If it were really excessive, I could understand it. I think it was about less than a 2 percent increase in their total taxation, across everyone, so it wasn't as though they were going to receive a horrendous tax increase.
I see it as the government not dealing hard enough with the industry in this particular instance, telling them that we have to work around these different areas and that we think $6 million is a fair number and $2 million really isn't. When you spread $2 million -- and it's one little community you're talking about -- it's a lot of money. But if you're going to spread it around the whole regional district, it doesn't go very far, and I think the minister is well aware of that. Are there not some changes that could be made in legislation to allow this? That would be very simple. We have seen all kinds of amendments coming through over the last few years. Could we not amend the legislation so that would be possible?
Hon. D. Marzari: The solution the Peace River Regional District has come up with did involve a $6 million tithing of the industry. I've been looking for a solution that is acceptable to everybody and looking for the nuts-and-bolts machinery that we can work this through.
The main thing we have to deal with, off the top, is that the machinery that's been selected in the proposal put forward -- rather than being comprehensive and bringing everyone into the fold, saying we're all going to pay a little bit for this -- looks rather like Swiss cheese. It is a Swiss cheese solution that says that pockets of residential will be left out of the mix and the overall solution. I don't think that industry or the regional district or government will find that satisfactory. This has been relayed to the regional district, and we're looking for ways around that together. It's entirely possible that we may need legislation and that an order-in-council -- the section that we've used to do this before -- might not be used here because of the Swiss cheese problem. It might be that legislation is required to create a
[ Page 10826 ]
deal for the Peace that brings industry into the fold and asks them to assume their status as corporate citizens not only in terms of the spinoffs from wages, salaries and business that they inject into the community but also in terms of taxation. I'm looking for a tolerable solution; I'm looking for one in the short term. I am convinced that we will find one; it will not be a $6 million solution on this first go-round.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that there is some difficulty in excluding some classes. Comparison with Fort Nelson is not quite fair. For instance, in Fort Nelson I can remember one of the benefiting areas.... The makeup of the community around Fort St. John is tremendously different from the makeup of the community around Fort Nelson. The outlying area is tremendously different. Fort St. John has a huge farming area with a lot of a residents that live just outside of the community. Those people just outside of the community who are suddenly asked to pay more taxes are no different than industry would be; of course they're going to turn it down.
[3:45]
I can tell you what the ministry did when we were in touchy situations in Fort Nelson with benefiting areas. It can't be done in Fort St. John, but the comparison of Fort Nelson to Fort St. John is what I am trying to get across to the minister. The lines were drawn. I remember one specific function, and I forget what it covered. It would be one that residential homeowners would have certainly not agreed with, and it canvassed that way around Fort Nelson. So the line was drawn from Fort Nelson down the middle of the Alaska Highway to the Westcoast gas plant, circled the Westcoast gas plant -- it was for fire protection -- and then went out. There was only one residence and that happened to be an employee of Westcoast. Of course, that one resident could have voted no in that area, and it would have gone down the tube. Obviously he or she voted yes, because it did go through. So that's the difference. We don't have a huge farming area around Fort Nelson the same as you do in Fort St. John. So those are the difficulties that Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Hudson's Hope and all those areas are experiencing in the proposal that they're trying to put through.
It was interesting to note the "no new taxes" that the minister talked about. I'm sure the minister is aware that 80 percent of the industrial assessment in British Columbia is inside municipal boundaries. Considering the Premier's comment about no new taxes on industry, are you saying that you're going to pass that authority onto municipalities so they cannot increase their taxes? Are municipalities going to be under the same umbrella that the minister is talking about -- no new taxes? If you just take it one step further, if the ministry allows -- that's the impediment, "no new taxes" -- the municipalities to draw those boundaries so they can assess those taxes, you're off scot-free. I can't imagine why there would be any opposition from the minister to that.
Hon. D. Marzari: "No new taxes" is a commitment made by the Premier and the Finance minister in this budget year for the next three years. It's a strong commitment based on the fact that British Columbia's GDP is growing and that we are now reaping the benefits of strong investment and of being on the Pacific rim in this land of opportunity; that's not a trite expression. I was not suggesting for a moment that no new taxes apply to municipalities. It's been through the efforts of provincial governments over the ages and through machinery developed inside Municipal Affairs that municipalities have been able to pull in or extend urban boundaries around industry to reap the benefits of industrial tax, to spread the tax base over industry, commercial and residential and therefore to build their communities. That's completely appropriate.
The difference in the north, of course, is that it's not as simple to canvass or to pull 2,000 wellheads inside a municipal boundary. That's the reason we have to come up with something more innovative and with agreements that are based on reasonable goodwill and reasonable good faith, and I believe we're going in that direction.
I was in no way suggesting that the Fort Nelson agreement was sound or unsound, or that we endorse it or don't endorse it. It was a strong agreement pulled together by a strong administrator and probably a strong council. But we have to recognize that the solution that was found in Fort Nelson isn't necessarily applicable farther south, where in fact we cannot use the same machinery or the same tools to bring about a solution.
The Swiss cheese solution that worked farther north is not necessarily going to work in the south, particularly if the tax burden or the contribution is large, because the inequities of having certain areas left out of the pooling would become that much more glaringly obvious, and the machinery we would use would be that much more at risk. Consequently what we have to do is find a better solution, and that is in fact what we are about to do.
R. Neufeld: I want to go back to the $6 million and what the minister said about it being considerably less to start with. You know, Madam Minister, I think that's really unfair to that area. I think you know from the study -- and your staff certainly understands -- that the 80 percent of the industrial assessment that's within municipal boundaries presently, even at the $6 million that this area is asking for, would still be less than half the 80 percent of the assessment that the province of British Columbia presently pays toward municipal taxation.
What has taken place is just grossly unfair. This is not to blame anyone or any past administration. Fort Nelson was maybe a little ahead of the game a number of years ago because of strong administration. To get to where Fort Nelson is today, the area south -- Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, and that regional district -- is just trying to gain some of that same equity and some of the same equity we find in many of the communities you or your government members represent.
I have a home in Fort St. John that's assessed at about $120,000, and my taxes are $3,200. I have a home in Victoria where the assessment is about the same, and the taxes are about $1,500. That's the inequity. In Victoria I drive on paved streets; there is ornamental street lighting, lights at all the corners and a multitude of other things. You can walk along the Gorge; you can do all kinds of things in Victoria. In Fort St. John I get about two blocks off my street, and I'm on gravel road.
It's the same argument I made when I talked about gravel to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Peace River North and Peace River South enjoy the largest amount of gravel road in the whole province of British Columbia; just Peace River North and Peace River South have more miles.
Again in the city, we are to the point where we can't move; we can't provide the services. What they're asking government for is some equity and only about 30 percent or 40 percent of what the rest of the province enjoys in taxation, and we're talking about cutting that back a third. We have to decide at some point that we're going to do it. I don't quite know how you rationalize your "no new taxes." The last member talked about the 7 percent tax on labour instituted
[ Page 10827 ]
by your government. I can guarantee you that that removed a whole bunch of business from Fort St. John and Dawson Creek to Grande Prairie across the border.
I can't understand your rationale on taxation at all, because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources came to Fort St. John a few months ago and made a big announcement that we're going to give Imperial Oil Ltd., the largest oil company in the world, a $600,000-a-year break on royalties. By the way, even that company moved their head office out of Fort St. John to Grande Prairie. They don't have an office in Fort St. John anymore; they've moved it to Grande Prairie. And your government comes along and gives them a $600,000 tax break. The people in the community of Fort St. John are wondering just what is going on. Why can't they come to less than 50 percent of the average or 40 percent of what other communities in British Columbia enjoy and have the ministry work with them to come to that $6 million figure instead of working with CAPP and Westcoast to reduce it to about a third? That's what they're asking. That is the part that I have a hard time understanding.
Hon. D. Marzari: Well, I can't resist it. Just a week or so ago the member stood up in the House and talked about a government -- our government -- that wanted to tax, tax, tax. And I find him here in this House talking about and advocating very eloquently for his community the necessity of bringing his community -- and I agree with him -- in line with what we would call normal standards of servicing on city streets, city sewers, water and lights. It's got to be one way or the other. Either this government does nothing but tax, tax, tax or we have to ensure that communities are properly serviced and that we don't, in fact, go out and tax, tax, tax. One way or the other, there has to be some middle ground here, and I hope the member can find it.
We are not working one party against the other here. We're not setting up a confrontational situation. We are not going out saying we're taxing the industry. There has to be mutual respect. There has to be a deal cut, and that deal is being cut now. It won't be $6 million; it will be something less than that. It will be a beginning of a corporate citizenship on the part of industry in the Peace that will recognize the very unique situation that industry enjoys in the Peace, and it will recognize the strengths of the regional district that's making the application for some kind of equitable solution.
That's what we in the ministry are working on. We are trying to act as brokers inside that deal, which I feel very strongly about and which I sincerely feel has to be brought about for equity and fairness to the region itself without necessarily enforcing an unwanted tax on the industry. That is pretty much where it stands, and that is what I hope we can do. I would prefer to do it without legislation, because legislation would probably take another year, and to come to some kind of agreement within the next few months.
J. Weisgerber: We're going to wind this up fairly quickly. We have had a good debate, and we may even have moved the process ahead an inch or two. Let me say to the minister that we appreciate the efforts, and we are looking for a solution that would come sooner rather than later.
[4:00]
With regard to the Swiss cheese analogy, let's take back to the other side of the argument the fact that there's already a Swiss cheese landscape there. There is an industrial tax base that is undertaxed and around it, residential and commercial that is overtaxed. All we want to do is to lay another piece of Swiss cheese on top of it so that there is a bit of cheese going all across the bread, and everybody will be happy.
R. Chisholm: I have a couple of questions for the hon. minister along the aboriginal line and on problems with taxation. These have been submitted to me by the district of Chilliwack, which has been having some problems with a couple of aboriginal bands. I'm going to read them out because they are written in their own hand, and then they'll be asked in exactly the way they would like them asked. They state: "Over the past three years, Chilliwack district has lost about $300,000 per year in unpaid taxes. Two of its eight Indian bands have enacted taxation powers and received tax revenues directly, but have yet to sign a services agreement for services the district provides. This is a revenue loss of almost $1 million that Chilliwack taxpayers have to pay for." Cabinet can impose a first one-year agreement, and in September 1992 the previous minister was asked to do this, but no action has been taken. They're asking why, because they continue to lose tax dollars, and the people of Chilliwack are paying their bill.
Hon. D. Marzari: The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is taking the lead on this issue, but the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is working very closely with them and with the Indian Taxation Advisory Board under the chairmanship of Manny Jules. We have been very involved with local governments and first nations when we've been requested to bring the parties together, and that is what we have been doing to negotiate service agreements successfully. That's what it is -- a process of negotiation around the service agreements.
This year an additional 11 first nations have indicated that they want to proceed with some form of taxation for 1994. A lot of them might not proceed during this current year, but we're all learning as we go on this new and innovative form of self-government. We have to develop protocols that will ensure fairness and equity for all involved.
We have West Vancouver and the Squamish nation coming up with a final negotiation and an interim agreement to cover 1993-94, and they're dealing with a $2 million local taxation negotiation.
I want to see agreement very quickly between municipalities and the respective first nations that are making the claims and asking to engage in taxation, because it's an important one for the stability of local communities -- both the first nations communities and the municipalities involved. We are continuing to work with all parties, and I'm glad the member for Chilliwack has put this issue on the floor. I will ensure that information comes back to him about what the ministry can do in this situation to assist matters along and to develop a good relationship between neighbouring jurisdictions. The main objective here is stability for all in changing times, and I'll be sure to get back to the member as quickly as I can on the Chilliwack situation.
R. Chisholm: Thank you for the answer on that one. I gather you will get back on that particular issue, and that would be great.
The second question they asked me was about some respects of the ALR. Why should the restrictions applied by the Agricultural Land Commission and the Ministry of Environment to non-Indian property owners not be applied to the aboriginal people?
Presently subdivisions are being built on farmland, with no reference to environmental concerns because they are on Indian lands. This puts pressure on the remaining ALR lands, as you can well imagine. Their question is why they are not treated equally, since it's obviously having a
[ Page 10828 ]
detrimental effect on the ALR lands within the municipalities.
Hon. D. Marzari: The provincial jurisdiction doesn't cover lands that are on reserve, and I'm sure the member is referring to reserve lands. That is not something that provincial government or Municipal Affairs can deal with in terms of land use initiatives or growth management. Reserve lands are reserve lands, and it is only going to be in the nature of individual agreements that might be made that will make any difference in that. I assure the member that we're not dealing with something the provincial government has jurisdiction over.
R. Chisholm: I don't think they're expecting you to answer the question. I think they're looking for your assistance and some cooperation by talking to the federal authorities to try to solve this situation, because it is putting undue pressure on. I think they're looking for you to show leadership and talk to the appropriate authorities on the federal side and possibly solve the problem in this area.
Hon. D. Marzari: We would be more than pleased to do that in concert with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and in concert with the treaty negotiations that will be ongoing when government makes decisions about where the treaty negotiations will take place. I agree with the member; I also agree with first nations that we have to make appropriate use of our land and that growth management of our urban areas becomes of strong concern here.
R. Chisholm: I think the next question is somewhat similar. They're looking for the minister to talk to the appropriate authorities and to get some cooperation in this area. The statement they made was that the citizens of Chilliwack are concerned when aboriginal bands talk about plans for casinos, dangerous waste incinerators and general planning issues without any concern for the community's official community plan or for community sensibilities. They're looking for the minister to talk to the appropriate authorities and to get some cooperation in this area.
Hon. D. Marzari: A number of different ministries are involved with the various functions the member outlined. The Minister of Government Services is consulting with first nations around gambling and gambling privileges in this province. Other uses -- solid waste or incineration -- also are being considered under the Waste Management Act and by the Waste Management Commission.
If the community is looking for some assistance, I would be more than pleased to discuss this with them and with Aboriginal Affairs to ensure that everybody is included in the loop and that we take appropriate action together with first nations to resolve some of these difficulties.
R. Chisholm: By their question and their statement, I think they too are looking for some negotiation with the federal authorities because of what has happened in Abbotsford and what is presently happening in Chilliwack with the aboriginal bands and casinos. They're worried that nobody is going to take them into account when it comes time for something to happen. They're just hoping that the minister will get involved with the situation when it arises. I have asked these same questions of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs so that he would be on the same wavelength as you when the time comes.
The last question I have for the minister concerns the proposed changes to the Municipal Act, which seem to require municipalities to hire social planners. They're not exactly sure what a social planner is or what his authority or ground rules will be. This extra cost is laid on the local taxpayer without any meaningful prior consultation with the municipalities. They're looking for some consultation and some information on exactly what this entity is going to be.
Hon. D. Marzari: One of my most delightful moments when I took this job as Minister of Municipal Affairs, being a former social planner in the city of Vancouver, was when I reviewed work done by the UBCM, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and SPARC of B.C. Basically, it was to look at what social planning could do, if it were considered part of an official community planning process or part of the granting process of the ministry, to help communities come to grips with the juxtaposition of the physical problems on this side and social problems over there. Never have the twain traditionally met, at least in our legislation. Most communities in this province, however -- because city councils are pretty close to what's going on -- use their common sense and understand that to solve problems on the physical side, they have to integrate the social side and deal in a commonsense way with the issues that face them.
By injecting social planning into the Municipal Act -- which, as I say, was one of the first actions I took, and there it now sits on the order paper in the form of Bill 25 -- we have provided a new tool for municipalities to use if they so desire. It legitimizes social planning, but it does not enforce social planning. If a municipality has to ask what social planning is, it's very unlikely that it's going to ask for a grant to do social planning.
However, if a municipality is aware that it has difficulties with a particular age group -- whether it be a growing number of dissatisfied adolescents or a growing demographic of seniors that has an impact on the need for social services or a concern around children and child poverty, which many communities see -- then it is ready to incorporate some of that sensitivity to social issues into their community plans. This legislation and this government are prepared to help them along with that.
Obviously the planning budget is not bottomless; it has finite edges. But I think it's very important that we bring common sense to and put a human face on the business of community planning. It's not just zoning bylaws and side yards and setbacks and distance from the street centre. It has to do with kids and where they play; it has to do with seniors and how they get around; it has to do with accessibility; it has to do with people as they live and work and recreate.
Social planning is now in the legislation as a legitimate part of what a municipality may wish to engage in when it approaches the provincial government for planning grants. It is not enforced; it will not necessarily take away from municipalities' freedom to choose what they want to plan. It is not being pushed down municipalities' throats. In fact, it comes from work that has been done at the UBCM in consultation with the province and with SPARC of B.C., a well-known social planning agency that basically has its fingers in every community in the province. I think there's a growing awareness of what social planning can bring to the whole mix. That is what I'm proudest of. Just having this debate in this room and having this in Hansard will be a good beginning for this legislation and encouragement perhaps for communities to think there's something out there beyond the cut-and-dried community plan.
[ Page 10829 ]
R. Chisholm: I think they realize what you mean by social planning, and they are members, of course, of UBCM and all the rest of it. I think their problem was that this extra cost is laid on the taxpayers of Chilliwack, of course. There hadn't been any meaningful consultation prior to it, so they weren't too sure what this entity was. They are looking to be assured that they will be consulted when other items of this nature come up and be told exactly what this being is going to be and what it's going to be able to facilitate for them.
[4:15]
Hon. D. Marzari: You can assure your constituents that this is not an extra cost; it is a potential cost, should they wish to engage in the exercise. It is my assumption that appropriate social planning can save municipalities and all levels of government tremendous numbers of dollars just by being aware and, as I say, putting a human face on the planning exercise. There is no additional cost. In fact, there are planning dollars at the provincial level in the Municipal Affairs ministry that can be applied for if a municipality should wish to incorporate social planning or aspects of it into their regular planning proposals.
L. Stephens: I have a few questions on the social housing aspect of your ministry, and I know that's something you've been particularly keen to see happen. My municipality and city have developed a number of initiatives primarily with a lot of the non-profit societies to provide affordable housing. The land costs, of course, are always a huge problem to overcome. I'd like to ask the minister if the process used to develop new housing is being streamlined or is undergoing review, or if she anticipates making changes to make it easier to develop new social housing in the municipalities.
Hon. D. Marzari: The ministry, of course, no longer has a housing component as such. In fact, the Minister of Housing and Consumer Services, I know, will be prepared to discuss at greater length what the housing program looks like for this government. In fact, millions of dollars are going to be set aside even though the federal government has pulled away from social housing, basically for the first time in 30 years in my recollection. The National Housing Act is basically pulling away from social housing.
The province, however, is picking up this need because we see a need to provide affordable housing in communities. The Municipal Affairs ministry introduced Bill 57 last year, which basically addressed a number of tools that communities can now use to help make land more affordable, help make housing more affordable and assist communities in planning affordable housing. Bill 57 sets out for communities a series of tools which the city of Vancouver has had for some time now -- for example, the ability for a city council to now legitimately go ahead and do density bonusing, allowing a developer to choose a site and, for whatever reasons, be bonused on that site by building higher or bigger, or by producing or developing housing which might not be at market value but might be put into the hands of a non-profit society. Bill 57 also allows for agreements that would lock in low-rental stock where it exists so that municipalities can create and maintain rental housing at below market value in their communities. Bill 57 has a number of facets which we encourage municipalities to plug into and take advantage of, and to inform their developers about these so that we can do some decent non-market housing.
I would encourage you to inquire at the Ministry of Housing and Consumer Services about how municipalities should plug into the new B.C. 21 program on housing. I think the constituency in Langley could well use that kind of assistance -- it being a high-growth district right now, from my perception. The respective mayors would probably benefit from having a seminar, perhaps on Bill 57, and a discussion with my colleague the Minister of Housing.
L. Stephens: The difficulties that we have in Langley are much intensified by urban growth, as they are in many communities in the lower Fraser Valley, central Fraser Valley and so on. Land pressure is the biggest component. I wonder if the minister has had any feedback from the municipalities about Bill 57 and what it has set out to do. Is there any anticipation that some of it isn't working or needs to be adjusted? Or are municipalities around the province happy overall with what is there and that it is meeting the need?
Hon. D. Marzari: I haven't had a lot of feedback from the municipalities per se, but I think the development community has been very heartened by Bill 57, because it is the first to take a look at new housing legislation to see whether or not there's a place where they can actually nest, make some profit and find some bucks. That's very useful because that's all part of growth in the province.
The more important things that municipalities have to get involved with -- and certainly in the GVRD there is a lot of discussion around using land more efficiently and effectively -- are reviewing municipal bylaws that encourage that wonderful single-family dwelling with side yards and setbacks and discourage the use of zero lot line developments. Medium-density development can still offer ground-floor access to the outside -- or row housing, which it used to be called but is no longer a popular term. Condo developments or the kinds of developments which give people ownership, ground access, family housing and garden access aren't necessarily the single-family mode of housing which uses up land from here to eternity, out into the hinterland and up to Hope.
We are also looking at a secondary-suite policy which I hope we can bring into the light of day in the next while. Hopefully, if we do our job right and pay attention to the sensitivities of the various communities, it could be another tool that communities could use if they wanted to double the number of housing units in a given neighbourhood or region.
We're also looking at development cost charges and what we can do with them to encourage the building of smaller units and more units, and to encourage municipalities to become more innovative in how they encourage developers to put housing on the ground. There are a number of options, and many of them are in the hands of the municipal councils themselves in terms of their zoning. Wherever possible, the province will be able to assist along the way with its secondary suite review and development cost charge policy.
L. Stephens: I was very pleased to hear the minister talk about secondary suites, because that's something our municipality is very interested in. We feel that would go a long way towards alleviating a lot of the problems with housing for our young people who find it very difficult to live on their own in the commercial rental market that we have today, particularly in some of the smaller cities that have primarily single-family residential. It's something we support, and we encourage the minister to bring it forward as soon as is practical.
The minister touched on DCCs, and I would like to talk a bit about school site acquisitions that affect school boards and communities all over the province to a very large
[ Page 10830 ]
degree. Again, the land costs associated with acquiring sites for schools is quite horrendous in some districts. Apparently, this year about $32 million is needed to acquire these proposed school sites, and the land costs seem to be increasing faster than the overall capital costs of building these schools.
In some of the faster-growing areas of the province, such as Coquitlam up on the plateau lands there -- the minister is probably very familiar with it -- there's been an awful lot of difficulty with acquiring and building schools to meet the needs of that rapidly growing urban community. I'd like to know how the minister is addressing this particular question on school site acquisition, whether or not any decisions have been made and what some of the options she may be considering now.
Hon. D. Marzari: Under the topic of development cost charges, we're looking at what they could cover, who should be paying them and what the limits of that possible envelope could be. Without getting much further into the topic and without referring to any possible programs, the situation around the escalating costs for acquiring school land and the increasing difficulty in the appropriate planning of school sites is obviously a concern for this government. We only have to look at the social capital envelope to see that you're quite right, in that the costs of acquiring the land are becoming more expensive than actually building the school on it.
Also, if we're going to be looking at appropriate physical planning for future communities down the road, we have to ensure that school sites are properly protected well in advance of the community being built. That would be the ideal situation. The tools we have to use are, obviously, development cost charges, community planning processes and official community plans, and we need to work with developers and school boards. I will simply say that there is an active process going on now to pull some of these loose strands together so that government can have a policy around reserving sites and appropriate school planning.
L. Stephens: Is there any discussion or movement to involve the municipalities and school boards in a more coordinated way with the ministry so as to make the process much easier and much more beneficial for all concerned?
Hon. D. Marzari: The topic is being discussed at probably the most appropriate level right now. The UBCM actually has a working group with municipalities at the staff level throughout the province talking about site reservation. Inside that envelope of discussion fall most of the things that I have discussed in the last few minutes around school planning. So local government is taking the initiative on this and we at the provincial level are also having some interministerial meetings around how best to proceed.
L. Stephens: Would the minister be able to indicate if those discussions with municipalities and other ministries are with a view to bringing forward legislation to deal with this issue of school site acquisitions in British Columbia?
[4:30]
Hon. D. Marzari: It's possible that simply by the inventive use of budget and other administrative tools we can ensure that a good policy can be enacted. I will not put forward any hope or threat of legislation at this point. It wouldn't be appropriate. I can reassure the member that the situation and the problem itself is being exceedingly well canvassed. We are including the municipalities and UBCM themselves in this provincial review.
L. Stephens: I will be listening carefully to see what flows from those discussions. I think people who are affected by the school system are looking with great anticipation towards what may come forward.
I was in Kamloops last week at the OMMA convention, as was the minister. In their questions, the municipal people there brought forward a number of issues. One issue was the process set up to acquire their share of the funds in the federal-provincial infrastructure program. There was some discussion about how the funds would be allocated in an equitable manner. I wonder if the minister could respond to that.
Hon. D. Marzari: The UBCM is the perfect place to discuss the infrastructure agreement because the UBCM ensured that this province got a good deal out of the federal government in the provincial-federal agreement on infrastructure. The wonderful thing about the infrastructure agreement for British Columbia is that over the last number of years the UBCM and the municipalities throughout this province have submitted their lists; their lists for sewer and water have been long.
With a provincial budget of $50 million to $60 million a year under the conditional grants program, the wish lists and necessities of communities have never been satisfied. Because of the infrastructure agreement these lists will finally be able to be cracked. There is a long tradition in this province, better than many other provinces, of prioritizing the applications that come forward for sewer and water according to ten categories.
The top two categories have to do with environmental and health necessities. Those categories were dealing with health risks in communities that have grown like Topsy, whose septics are saturating the ground or where there has been a breakdown of existing services and immediate remedial treatment is needed. As one moves down through the various categories, one gets to the areas where there is an immediate health risk and where it would be useful for a community to have an extension of services to be able to grow and plan the community.
The infrastructure agreement, with a 33-33-33 split, for the first time gives us the ability to get well into the health and environmental priorities and beyond, even to the point where we will be able to encourage communities to grow in an appropriate way that will be sustainable and cost efficient for the community. They won't constantly be running after subdivisions to sewer them, and they can actually start thinking about encouraging denser development and in-fill development, doing some planning around sewer and water and using sewer and water as an incentive for communities to plan appropriately.
The communities have been told. Municipalities throughout the province knew that the first deadline was April 30, and many applications have come in. Before that many of them had been longstanding and on the books and were simply renewed. I know a few have trickled in since April 30, partly because I insisted at OMMA that people get them in right away, and we would turn a blind eye to the fact that they might be a few days late. The decisions are imminent. Hopefully the federal government will have its act in gear, and we'll be able to get the money to communities as quickly as possible, since the building period for many communities in our province is short, and we have to be able
[ Page 10831 ]
to get pipes into the ground and water systems properly built.
I think that British Columbia, more than any other province, is magnificently positioned with organized lists, a very eager group of municipalities and a strong advocacy position on the part of UBCM to get on with the job. I should add that, much to my chagrin, UBCM was left out of the initial signing of the agreement. It shouldn't have, but it was, and I was glad to be at the signing ceremony on behalf of the UBCM to show that it was, in fact, a federal, provincial and municipal agreement. The UBCM has declined, for the obvious reason, to get actively involved with the final selection of which projections should go ahead. They have left it to the well-trusted priorities of Municipal Affairs, the lists that have been developed over time and the Minister of Employment and Investment to make the decisions.
L. Stephens: Along those same lines, they talk about the environmental costs they're having to incur. The local resources are stretched to the limit. Other than the grants and unconditional grants, is there any additional funding available to the municipalities for this?
Hon. D. Marzari: The conditional grants program will continue unabated. In fact, one of the prerequisites for the federal program is that they not supplant local initiative and provincial granting programs for sewer and water. So our budget does reflect and does have money in it for the infrastructure agreement, but it also continues the conditional grants program so that municipalities may cash in on a fifty-fifty basis. It's obvious, though, that any municipality would want to take its chances with the 33-33-33 situation before it would want to slot itself back towards the traditional 50 percent conditional program. The ministry has its hands full this year dealing with all the priorities and all the applications, but there is a continuation of the conditional grants program.
L. Stephens: One of the other issues that was a huge concern to most of the municipalities was liabilities protection with the unlimited building liability. I wonder if the minister is addressing that concern and in what way. What is the timing on that?
Hon. D. Marzari: Municipal insurance has to be one of the major issues we're facing in the province right now. To people who have suffered or have had injury or property loss, or where public buildings fail, public liability is the order of the day. With a community that's becoming increasingly litigious and when settlements are being made that are increasingly rich, the public sector's pockets have to become increasingly deep. Municipalities that are very often at the receiving end of these court decisions are consequently expected to have infinitely deep pockets, and this is not tolerable.
The ministry has put together a paper linking the business of insurance with the business of inspections and building codes. We have asked municipalities and building inspection professionals to comment on how we might best go about developing a comprehensive insurance framework, and whether to set guidelines, deadlines or ceilings beyond which liability can be charged. We have to find the balance between protecting the local government and protecting the individual consumer, and we have to develop a proper understanding very soon of the roles and responsibilities of government and consumer. This is what our paper intends to do.
We have developed the paper in conjunction with the Municipal Insurance Association, and they will obviously be most interested in what comes out of these deliberations. Every municipality in the province has asked how to do this and how to approach this problem appropriately. Within the next nine months, I intend to have some solution.
L. Stephens: All the municipalities will be very pleased to hear that there is some work being done and that they will be consulted; I'm sure I heard the minister say there will be quite extensive consultations with the municipalities. That's something else the minister heard while she was in Kamloops: the municipalities feel that consultation has been less than what they would have liked on a number of issues. I'm sure it will comfort them that on this particular one, which seems to be so very important to them, they will get what they have been looking for.
One of the other issues that came up concerned the aboriginal reserve in Kamloops and the desire of the band councils to work with the Kamloops municipality to facilitate sewer and water that went either through or around the reserve land. Is the minister anticipating developing any kind of initiative or partnership, or fostering any kind of cooperation between the native bands and the municipalities or regional districts to facilitate expansion into sewer and water and issues like those?
Hon. D. Marzari: In the normal course of things, municipalities usually work with first nations to work out sewer and water agreements. This is certainly the case in Vancouver, and I assume it must also be the case in Kamloops.
If the question has to do with those sewer and water agreements, that is largely the business of the local municipality and the first nation involved. At this juncture, for a number of reasons, the province does not include first nations in conditional grants for sewer or water. Such discussions have never taken place. We have encouraged and have worked closely with municipalities as they come to negotiate with first nations around the provision of those services. Obviously it's very important that first-class service is delivered throughout the province.
L. Stephens: With negotiation of land claims, aboriginal self-government, resource issues and those kinds of things, I would assume that infrastructure would be discussed to a degree that the province would be involved in those issues as well.
[4:45]
Does the minister see that as a municipal government responsibility at this juncture or has that particular issue not come up? Can the minister give me direction as to whether or not this is a consideration under land claims and negotiations of that nature?
Hon. D. Marzari: First nations, as you know -- and as the member for Chilliwack previously said -- are in the business of getting into self-government. In the process of doing that, they are beginning to negotiate taxation policies with local governments. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is in that process as a facilitator and an enabler of agreements which are local in nature.
Are we involved? Yes, we're involved. If the question is if we are involved financially with the support of sewer and water infrastructure grants on reserve land, the answer is no. I don't see anything much happening on that in the foreseeable future.
[ Page 10832 ]
To the extent that negotiations must proceed around taxation and around local service agreements between municipalities and first nations, we're very much involved.
F. Gingell: I'd like to take the minister to page 183 of the estimates, which deals with the Canada-British Columbia infrastructure program as one of the cost divisions of her ministry's budget. I've been listening to the arrangements, and I'm a little confused with these numbers. Is it one-third, one-third, one-third? And is the $78 million the recovery from the federal government? I can't work out the mathematics. I wonder if your briefing book can help.
Hon. D. Marzari: The $78 million you see under recoverables is the federal contribution to the program for this budget year -- the $53 million plus $25 million that we recouped from the '93-94 budget. The agreement signed in the '93-94 fiscal year adds up to $78 million, which will be our contribution to the infrastructure agreement for this budget year. What you're missing there is the $25 million that we brought forward out of our program from last year.
F. Gingell: That was quite an acceptable arrangement with the federal government. I presume these projects hadn't started and were approved subsequent to the election in March 31, 1993, and the actual money had been spent and the work had been done. Is that the case?
Hon. D. Marzari: In this business of financing sewers, there's a difference between when you budget for a service and when you end up paying for the service. The time lag is such that the take-up you anticipated might not be there occasionally. Consequently the service is budgeted for 1993-94, but if the take-up is not there, then money can either be returned in the budget year or put towards.... What we did with the money last year was put it towards the infrastructure agreement to carry us through this year.
F. Gingell: But the money had to be spent in the 1993-94 fiscal year because there isn't any means in the way we keep our accounts and the restrictions in the Financial Administration Act of carrying these expenditures over. So I have to presume that the $25 million had in fact been spent and was part of the program. That's not quite what I heard.
Hon. D. Marzari: In fact, the $25 million, which adds to the $53 million in this book that had not been taken up out of last year's money, was spent on the GVRD water program.
F. Gingell: That saves me my next question, because I was going to ask you what it had been spent on.
It has been made plain -- and you have underlined it in the things you have said today -- that it was the insistence of the federal government that these expenditures are all new things, additional things and things that wouldn't have been done before. When one looks at the total amount of money allocated to conditional grant programs in 1993-94 and the amount in 1994-95, I wonder if, when you state that we haven't in fact cut back on our conditional grant programs, you do that with an absolutely clear conscience.
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes I can, actually. The fact of the matter is that in the business of financing sewers and water, we are doing one of four things at any given moment. We can be making payments under the old debt-based formula or we can be making payments under a present capital formula just to fulfil commitments that we've made in previous years. We can also be making payments under the present capital formula in response to commitments that are made this year, and, of course, commitments we make this year will be rolling over into future years for payment down the line. Consequently, the budget is not so much a fixed state at any given point in time. Capturing this kind of amortization of four or five different kinds of activities is rather difficult.
The blue book you're reading basically outlines the conditional grant plans for this year, but it's not the entire picture. Within a month I'll be announcing a further package of conditional grant commitment plans, which will basically be our conditional program. This has been the practice of government for the last 15 years, I gather, and it will be partly funded from this year's blue book and partly from future years. Of course, the whole thing is going to depend on how quickly these projects are completed and when they cash in on the program of whatever year.
Consequently, you'll be seeing the full commitment in the blue book and the conditional grants, which will be made within the next couple of months. The federal government, I'm sure, understands that most provinces probably operate under similar agreements and similar revolving funds to get their projects completed. They will see that, in fact, the full allotment is there, plus the infrastructure dollars.
F. Gingell: I'm just trying to get a feel for all these numbers. In 1993-94 your ministry had originally budgeted the amount of $164 million to be paid out under conditional grant programs. Can the minister advise the committee how much was in fact spent in 1993-94?
Hon. D. Marzari: The total that was spent in 1993-94 is $177 million.
F. Gingell: Did the $177 million include the $25 million that was paid out to the GVRD under the Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works agreement?
Hon. D. Marzari: The $25 million obviously came out of the 1993-94 fiscal year.
F. Gingell: Prior to the decimation, writing-off or blowing-up of the revenue-sharing fund at the end of last year, it was expected that the amount of the agreements signed and on stream at the beginning of the year, plus those signed during 1993-94, minus the amounts paid out -- which you've just given me as $152 million -- would total roughly $108 million at the end of March 31, 1994. That is for agreements that were signed and been agreed to but had not yet been done, and that were committed but in the planning and building process. Can you tell us what that amount actually was at March 31, 1994 -- the committed but undisbursed amount?
Hon. D. Marzari: Committed but as yet not paid off: $110 million.
F. Gingell: So when we look at the budget for 1994-95, there is $113.8 million budgeted. There was at March 31, 1994, as we've just discussed, this amount of $110 million for committed but undisbursed. Could the minister please advise what portion of the $110 million that was committed but undisbursed at the end of 1994 is in that $113.8 million for this year's expenditures?
[ Page 10833 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: In 1994-95 we are estimating at this juncture that somewhere between $50 million and $70 million will be claimed for payment.
The $177 million figure that I gave the member a few minutes ago did not take into consideration the police and health equalization grants that have been transferred out, so that $177 million should read $162 million.
F. Gingell: Just to get this thing into perspective, if you spend between $50 million and $70 million, there will be between $60 million and $40 million still undisbursed but committed from these programs to be dealt with in 1995-96.
[5:00]
Hon. D. Marzari: I gather that we'll also make some commitments that could involve payments out of those dollars this year and in future years as well. The range is right, so we'll be able to make further commitments on that.
F. Gingell: Well, if she's got a budget of $113.8 million, and she spends between $50 million and $70 million on deals that are already in place, there is a total of between $43 million and $63 million for this year. That is substantially below the amount of commitments that have been made in the past. That is why I asked the question about whether you had a clear conscience; these all had to be new projects -- things that wouldn't be completed.
I am concerned that these commitments that you will make this year are obviously multiple-year commitments. There isn't any way they can be done in one year; it's just not feasible. Having gotten rid of the revenue-sharing fund, you don't actually have the money voted for future years. Under the previous arrangement, at least there was a special account into which pre-agreed portions of income taxes, consumer taxes and natural resource rents were being received. At least government had committed to local government that shares of these various incomes would be available; there really was a commitment. I'm not sure whether it was a statutory approval for payment, as there is in many other special accounts. Can the minister advise what kind of liability she might see in place at the end of 1995 under the straight conditional grant programs -- not part of the new shared program -- that might exist at that point?
Hon. D. Marzari: I should reassure the member that, in fact, the range he described for the actual dollars that might be committed this year is not out of keeping with what has been committed in past years. In fact, budgets you've seen in past years were spread -- as they all are -- over a number of years, so we're not looking at a real diminution in new commitments being made under the so-called conditional grants program.
When I say so-called conditional grants program, I should reassure the member that there's no liability at this point. The liability, if there was one, was in the last number of years when a conditional grants program existed under the Revenue Sharing Act -- a so-called special fund which in fact did not exist.
I know what the member has said in the House about funds that don't appear to exist but really exist in the bank, but the application for so-called conditional grants to perpetuate and maintain the sewer and water program was voted on each year, separate and distinct from any statutory requirement or any act on revenue sharing. That was certainly why this government and the UBCM consented and agreed to decimate, as the member put it, the Revenue Sharing Act, which had not been functioning for some years as a special fund, a statutory approval mechanism or a legal entity.
The conditional dollars found for municipalities for their sewerage and infrastructure agreements were voted on each year as new money was injected into a rolling system. It was carefully tabulated by the druids in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, who then roll out at the end of the year the potentials, the take-ups and the slippage, what has been spent or not spent and what it might be put toward. Consequently, we were not looking at a statutory approval mechanism. We were not looking at an act that was functioning at all, and I don't think it has been functioning since 1983 in any real sense of the word, when it kind of disappeared. It is this government's intention to clean that up, which is why the new act is now before the House.
The member is correct in the range he puts forward. It is not dissimilar to what has been spent in previous years, and trying to compare this year with previous years is somewhat like apples and oranges, I'm told, because of the nature of the spending patterns. We're nonetheless not looking at a cutback in the so-called conditional grants side of the program; we are looking at a new format for ensuring that municipalities maintain a stable relationship with the provincial government on their infrastructure.
F. Gingell: With respect to the issues of whether or not there was a bank account and whether or not there were funds, there's just one last thing I would like to say. I'm not being argumentative, but being a member of the Liberal caucus and not having been in government in this province for lo these many years -- although one hopes we can change that soon -- the fact of the matter is that the money that should have gone into the fund was used for general revenue purposes. Understandably, it would be inappropriate for it to have been put in a savings account. It reduced government borrowing, but it was nonetheless there. In fact, one had to just repay the money that had been borrowed. The question I asked, or thought I asked, which I don't have here, is: what do you anticipate the committed but undisbursed balance to be in one year's time? What will be the result of this year's deals? I can work it out if you tell me how much you think you might sign in agreements for these programs in 1994-95.
Hon. D. Marzari: I should inform the member that we don't know at this juncture what the take-up is actually going to be of the conditional grants program, plus the infrastructure program. There's no way of saying what the take-up is going to be within the year.
F. Gingell: But every year you have had an estimate. That's how you have produced numbers that were the estimated committed grants which will remain undisbursed at the end of the fiscal year. You have always made this estimate, and I don't know what your estimate is for this year.
Hon. D. Marzari: It's a very generous spread. It's between $70 million and $100 million, from the calculations you can do with the numbers I've given you already. That's the estimate. The federal infrastructure program puts a premium, I believe, on fast completion of projects within 18 months. That injects a whole new level of take-up down the road -- a year and a half from now.
F. Gingell: I always thought that the words "conditional grant programs" meant that it was conditional on the municipalities bringing their share of the funds. I now
[ Page 10834 ]
discover that it's also conditional on the Legislature passing the necessary votes to pay them.
If I may deal with one other quick subject -- I hate to show my ignorance, but I'm going to -- dealing with the section in your budget on University Endowment Lands. I think I understand the majority of the numbers, but I am a little confused to see this $4 million for salaries and benefits. Can you tell me which particular group of employees that is for?
Hon. D. Marzari: That's the fire station. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has the honour and privilege of actually running a full-scale fire department on the University Endowment Lands -- complete with trucks.
F. Gingell: So the amount which is the contribution to the city of Vancouver is just for backup fire protection, and I presume it is the whole of that amount of $85,000. Can you advise if that's the case?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, I believe that's the case. The backup from the city of Vancouver amounts to that.
I should add that this fire department also covers the University of British Columbia, and you'll notice that there is no recovery there.
F. Gingell: Is the roughly $2.1 million for operating costs also for operating costs of the fire department?
Hon. D. Marzari: The $1.3 is for the purchase of water from the GVRD, which is cost-recoverable.
F. Gingell: I presume that is for human consumption, then -- obviously not for putting out fires or else you'd be sending bills for the fires. So that $1.3 million is for water for both the university's use, I presume, and for people who live on the University Endowment Lands. Do I take it that this group of costs, which totals $6.5 million, is for water and for fire protection only -- although there is another $700,000 in operating costs -- and that you recover $2.6 million of that from the residents through not necessarily property taxes, but user fees or poll taxes? It's on their property tax bill anyway, even if it may be shown as water. Maybe we should deal with that. Is that $2.63 million the total of all the property taxes paid by the citizens residing within the University Endowment Lands?
[5:15]
Hon. D. Marzari: The property tax bill to the University Endowment Lands residents is $2.5 million. I should be fair to UBC. The $123,000 in category 99 is recovery from the university. The water bill of $1.3 million is for the community itself; it is not for the university. The university has its own arrangements with the GVRD for water.
F. Gingell: I don't know how to start into this. You are collecting $2.5 million from the residents of the University Endowment Lands for property taxes. More than 50 percent of that amount is spent on water alone. Is that true?
Hon. D. Marzari: That is correct.
F. Gingell: Is that because you're paying far too much money to the GVRD for the amount of water based on some reasonable per-unit cost? Or is it because you're not charging enough taxes to the residents of the University Endowment Lands?
Hon. D. Marzari: The university lives in its own world out there on the endowment lands.
L. Fox: Whose riding is that in?
Hon. D. Marzari: It's in my riding, and I'm working closely with the citizens of the endowment lands, the university and the city of Vancouver to rationalize these costs and this budget. With some of the numbers you have before you, being the unofficial mayor of the University Endowment Lands is an uncomfortable position for me. I think the residents on the University Endowment Lands want to see some resolution of their status and that of being unpaid purveyor of service for the university.
I should add that we, as a province, engage in underwriting the costs of the roads on the University Endowment Lands. I think we have to look for a little quid pro quo here in certain respects, which I am engaged in doing. Hopefully, we'll find resolution to this budget situation on the endowment lands and its status in the next year.
F. Gingell: The costs that are shown here are not all the costs of all the services that a municipal government would deliver to the residents there. I take it that they don't include police service, which is in the Attorney General's budget, or road maintenance, which is in the Ministry of Highways. Does it include sewer? Is that included in the GVRD?
Hon. D. Marzari: Their public works budget is cost recoverable, so the sewer, water and some of the road maintenance are cost recoverable.
F. Gingell: Cost recoverable from whom?
Hon. D. Marzari: From the taxpayers on the endowment lands.
F. Gingell: Are you saying that the residents of the endowment lands pay amounts that are in excess of this $2.5 million we have just discussed? Or is the cost recovery that you refer to part of that $2.5 million?
Hon. D. Marzari: The actual property tax bill is about half of the $2.5 million you see in category 97, and the rest is water rates coming through the door.
F. Gingell: I take it from what was said earlier that all the fire department costs are in the salaries and benefits category. So is it true that the ministry absorbs a great portion of the costs of fire protection for the University of British Columbia through this budget?
Hon. D. Marzari: The exact figure is 92 percent, which is absorbed by this ministry and this government for fire protection services on the University Endowment Lands -- a small community -- and basically covers the costs of fire protection at the University of British Columbia with no recovery.
L. Fox: I've been sitting here for a long while listening to this very interesting debate....
Interjection.
L. Fox: That's right.
[ Page 10835 ]
Some of the members of the opposition touched on a number of issues I had intended to address this afternoon. The first one I'll touch on regards the MIA and the situation they face with respect to the liability that was alluded to by the member for Langley. The primary issue with respect to that increase in the liability cost to the MIA is due to the expanded parameters around building inspection and the interpretation of the courts with respect to that. I'm aware that you have a joint committee with the ministry, UBCM and the MIA, that is are studying that impact.
It seems to me there were a number of initiatives when this issue first came to light in the early eighties. Subsequent to that, the Municipal Insurance Association was formed, which is, of course, an association incorporated by the municipalities themselves. It seems to me that during those years there was considerable discussion about whether or not municipalities should even have to carry the liability or have to provide the function of building inspection and whether or not there should be more onus placed on the builders and, perhaps through the private sector, engineering firms to take on that responsibility at the request of municipalities and move the municipalities one step away from that liability and put the liability back where it belongs -- on the contractors and builders of those particular structures.
Can the minister tell me whether or not this is something that may be considered in today's world? It wasn't favoured in the past by the provincial government. In those days, as mayor of the community I happen to represent, we were one of the communities pushing for that opportunity to drop the building inspection and put it back into engineering and private hands, who we felt should carry that responsibility. Perhaps the minister might want to talk about that.
Hon. D. Marzari: Obviously it's at one end of the continuum to drop building inspection -- let's leave it up to the developer or the consumer to decide whether or not they've gotten a raw deal. At the other end of the continuum would be full liability on the back of the municipality. Right now the litigious nature of what goes on in terms of insurance settlements is somewhere on that continuum. The municipality, being the one with the deep pockets, very often had to fork out the dough and take the lion's share of the liability, although the city of Vancouver managed to avoid that back in the eighties.
The paper now circulating among municipalities, the building inspection profession, the design profession and anybody I can manage to get to read it and respond is designed to produce some answers and some resolution to this question. It's obviously not a matter of whether or not there should be building inspection. I don't think the community as a whole would tolerate going back to no building inspection at all. That is not a solution.
There are a number of building inspection professionals in this province being accredited and going through rigorous training programs and processes. They are updating themselves on a regular basis as to what items are on the market, and they're inspecting buildings in accordance with some rather strong standards that we encourage to be enforced through the province and the municipalities.
I don't want to say anything right now about liability and municipal insurance -- not until the report is completed and the response comes back, and we have had a chance to tabulate the response from the municipalities, building professionals and inspections people. At that juncture we will take a close look at liability in this province and at how building failure is dealt with.
It's a very different environment in this province now than it was 20 years ago. People expect more and more. Under the Building Code, we expect energy efficiency and environmental safety. We expect our buildings to provide us with whole numbers of things they never were expected to provide 20 years ago, so we're in an entirely different environment.
The paper that's out there now canvasses liability, building inspection and the expectations of the community. It asks everyone who has received it in the last two months to respond by giving us the best ideas they can come up with and by talking about ways we can balance consumer protection with protection of municipal interests and the municipal pocketbook.
L. Fox: Perhaps I'd better clarify it. If I used the word "drop," I meant it in terms of responsibility being held by the municipality. What I was trying to get across is that with all the engineering firms and even the building inspectors themselves, there's an opportunity for a bit of entrepreneurialism and private enterprise to take over the role. The fact of the matter is that municipalities are deemed by the courts to have deep pockets. According to the court's interpretation, the taxpayer has the ability to pay. If private inspection companies or engineering firms were doing the inspection, then we would see a situation where they would look more at the legitimacy of the issue, rather than at who has the ability to pay. That has always been my concern; we see it more and more falling into the same problem of the provincial government.
Any tax-collecting agency seems to have problems getting the courts to understand that there isn't a big pot of money that can be tapped beyond what is reasonable for liabilities. Many small communities throughout the province of British Columbia have part-time inspectors who work perhaps one day a week. The building doesn't stop when that inspector isn't around.
[5:30]
There are many mechanical problems in terms of small communities being able to meet the desired level of inspection according to the interpretation of the courts to reduce liabilities. I recognize it's a catch-22. However, it seems to me that we have to look more seriously at offering that service through privately licensed, legitimate building inspectors. We have moved a long way in the course of the last ten years with respect to recognizing building inspectors -- thank goodness. Before that, it was whoever we could get to do the inspection for those small amounts of money -- particularly in small communities; they followed the book. They were very easily misled by many disreputable contractors who would come into communities, build a few homes and leave.
The public expects to be protected. I think we could do better than leaving it in the hands of the municipalities. With building inspection in the private sector, municipalities could buy their own insurance and be recognized by the courts as not having such deep pockets. That's the purpose of my putting it forward. I don't think the minister needs to respond.
I just got started, but I've been asked to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:32 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]