1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1994

Morning Sitting

Volume 17, Number 2

[ Page 12479 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

A. Hagen: With us today are two very important members of the Speaker's constituency of Vancouver-Burrard. Madge Sasvari is the executive director and Ron MacLeod is the president of 411 Seniors' Centre Society located in downtown Vancouver. As you well know, hon. Speaker, the society was incorporated in 1977. It has over 2,000 members and serves a clientele of about 16,000 seniors, many of whom are on low incomes. More than 110,000 people pass through this centre every year to avail themselves of the over 40 programs and services provided. Whether it's counselling, help with income tax or line dancing -- a very good aerobic exercise -- you'll find it at this very active, well-respected and well-used facility. So on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Burrard, I know all of us will join in welcoming our special visitors this morning.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 21.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 21; F. Garden in the chair.

On section 21, section 16.

C. Tanner: First of all, I would like to congratulate the government on being so well organized that they gave me and the other opposition party five minutes' notice that this bill was coming up. It makes you wonder what's going on on their side when they can't even give us notice so that our critics are able to prepare themselves. One wonders whether they are prepared.

An Hon. Member: You know your job.

C. Tanner: But I'm not psychic, Mr. Minister, and I don't know which bills are coming up when you call them five minutes before the House sits.

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member. People are speaking from their seats. I would ask all members to refrain from doing that and to respond through the Chair.

C. Tanner: I only have one minor question on section 16(4), which states: "The Company Act does not apply to the Heritage Trust but the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, direct that one or more provisions of the Company Act apply to the Heritage Trust." Could the minister give us an illustration of what the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or in actual fact the minister, might pull out of the Company Act specific to this case?

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, the Heritage Trust is an agent of the Crown, and some of the trust's additional powers -- that is, entering into a commercial venture, borrowing money, and so on -- can only be exercised with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

C. Tanner: My specific question was: what would the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council be pulling out of the Company Act specifically? Is it regarding purchasing, selling and that sort of thing, which are of a commercial nature, and everything else will be covered by the Trust?

Hon. B. Barlee: Let's say the Heritage Trust has a heritage house somewhere, which they may want to lease out to a private partner on a lease agreement. That's what this would entail. This is an example.

C. Tanner: Does it have the ability to own things, and is that what the Company Act is necessary for?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, it does have that power.

Section 20, sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 20, section 18.

C. Tanner: On section 18(2), why does the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council have to appoint the chair? Why can't they pick their own chairman?

[10:15]

Hon. B. Barlee: Tradition has been part and parcel of this House for many years, and that's just one of the traditional empowerments.

C. Tanner: On the contrary, that isn't the tradition of this House; it's something that has happened under some acts. But there are acts where the board can pick its own chairman. If in practice they are going to, but you need to retain the power within the ministry or within the government to have the ultimate authority, that's fine, but it should be stated clearly that the board will have some input into the selection of their chairman.

Hon. B. Barlee: The board has the power to do a number of things. It may "determine its own procedure and provide for the regulation and conduct of its meetings." It may "delegate any of the powers, functions and duties of the Heritage Trust to a committee of directors, to an officer or employee of the Heritage Trust or of the ministry or to any other person...." So they have some wide-ranging powers.

C. Tanner: I know we were up late last night, but I am capable of reading what it says here, just as the minister is, and that's not the question I asked him. In the appointment of the board, and then specifically the chairman, how would the minister visualize that happening? For example, could he be saying that they will find a chairman and then the chairman will go and help select the board? Or could it be that they will find the board and then the chairman will be selected by the board but officially be appointed by the government?

Hon. B. Barlee: There are many factors brought to bear in this instance, and I think the government has to have the final say.

C. Tanner: I've got to ask the minister whether his intention is to continue going through this enormous piece of legislation in the same way he is answering my questions. I think I'm asking a fairly intelligent question as to how you select the chairman, because in my view he's the most important part of this trust -- or a very important part of it. The question I'm asking him is: how will that selection take place? I'm not disputing the fact that the government should have the final say on who it should be; I'm asking what process will be gone through. It seems logical to me that potential members of the board should have some input into that selection. After all, they have to work with the person.

[ Page 12480 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: In most instances the chair has been a director who previously served on the board. In fact, that is invariably the case.

C. Tanner: Could the minister assure the committee that there will be some sort of regulation or some sort of control on section 18(3), which is remuneration for services and expenses incurred? It almost looks like you have carte blanche to spend money. Will there be regulations setting out some sort of table of expenses?

Hon. B. Barlee: Policy says that that is essentially subject to Treasury Board.

C. Tanner: Will there be regulations under this bill setting that out? Besides policy, will there be something somewhere that this board can refer to as a guide other than Treasury Board regulations? When one of the members of their board even inadvertently incurs expenses that the board doesn't think are fit, can they refer to something? Surely it's not just hanging out there on its own without some sort of guidelines.

Hon. B. Barlee: These rules from Treasury Board generally apply. They're set on all commissions. I think there's due diligence done on this. Of course, it does say that the directors will be paid reasonable and necessary travelling and incidental expenses, and it means just that. I have been very careful of expenses in any ministry I've been in.

C. Tanner: I appreciate that this minister is very diligent and careful with expenses, but the duration in his office is fairly limited. Even if he's not replaced by a minister of a different political stripe, he'll certainly be replaced within the next cabinet shuffle, which is probably due any time now. But the fact of the matter is that unless there is something.... If the minister would even give me the assurance that they'll pick up the regulations as set out by Treasury Board, that would be fine; I'd understand that. But he hasn't specifically said that there are any guidelines for this board.

Hon. B. Barlee: Those guidelines are within Treasury Board regulations, which I think are well known to all members.

C. Tanner: Under subsection 18(4)(b), the committee can appoint an officer or employee of the Heritage Trust or of the ministry. Are we talking about an executive director?

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, hon. member, we have the authority to do that.

C. Tanner: To do what?

Hon. B. Barlee: To appoint somebody as executive director, and so on.

Section 20, section 18 approved.

On section 20, section 19.

C. Tanner: The reason I have been a little persistent here is because I think it's important that before this board is appointed, it understands there are some limits on its authority. There are reasonable limits that I think we should expect from a board. However, when subsection 19(2) talks about the power of appointment, it says: "The power of appointment under subsection (1) is subject to the Public Service Act...." Does that entail all the benefits that accrue to somebody who's working under the Public Service Act -- any public servant?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's correct; they are public service employees.

Section 20, section 19 approved.

On section 20, section 20.

G. Wilson: I have several questions with respect to section 20(1)(b) on the powers of the Trust to enter into agreements with persons, organizations, local governments or first nations. I wonder if the minister might elaborate on what process the Trust will have for an opportunity to enter into agreements with first nations.

We are currently in the process of negotiating the whole question of status with respect to governmental jurisdiction of first nations. First nations are defined in this act. We've already gone through this debate in a very loose manner. You may find in fact that councils and boards will change equally as well and as quickly among first nations as they might for local governments. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether that's subject to a ratification process from government to government or whether this Trust is going to be empowered to be making these kinds of arrangements with the same status as they would have if they had the powers of the provincial government.

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, they do not need approval of cabinet, and they are not regulatory.

G. Wilson: If they're not regulatory, and if it requires the approval of cabinet.... I wonder if the minister might show us where in this particular act that's so. In fact, section 20(2) talks about the subject of approval for the purpose of engaging in commercial, industrial or business undertakings. It might be necessary for the acquisition of shares or the development of some kind of partnership or joint venture, and we can understand that.

But nothing here in the powers says that there's going to have to be some ratification process; indeed, it suggests quite the opposite. The concern is that you may have a situation in an area where there is a dispute with a first nation that may have under claim -- or in the first nation's treaty negotiation process -- issues around heritage like marine resources or actual tangible resources that might be there in terms of archeological sites and so on. That may then allow the first nation an opportunity for a separate or bilateral set of negotiations with the Trust that will greatly impact the negotiation ability at the first nation's negotiations with the Treaty Commission.

Secondly, we know that there are going to be ongoing negotiations between first nations and local government over zoning regulation, development permits and so on, if first nations are given status. In fact, only one area in the province has a very good working relationship, and that's the Sechelt area. Even in that area, there are conflicts over aspects that are considered to be heritage when ventures that may be privately initiated but supported by local government conflict with the propositions being put forward by first nations.

This is an important legal question that is going to have to be answered more clearly than the legislation currently stipulates, because it does look like there is a proposition for bilateral negotiation to take place here, which would greatly compound the difficulty of the government at any level -- local or provincial -- in that round of negotiations.

[ Page 12481 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: To the hon. member, these are not land claims. The trust is a very careful agent of the Crown. I will give you an example. They could enter into a service agreement with the Haida Gwaii on the preservation of totem poles in the Ninstints area. This doesn't have the more far-reaching effects that the member is alluding to.

G. Wilson: Except section 20 says: "To further the objects of this Part, the Heritage Trust may do one or more of the following: (a) acquire, manage and conserve property or acquire an interest in property; (b) enter into agreements with a person, organization, local government, first nation...." Then it says under (d) that "subject to a trust or agreement under which a property was obtained," it can "dispose of the property...."

This is not just a question of the preservation of site-specific artifacts, to which I don't think anybody would have an objection; this provides a significant amount of empowerment to the Trust. The concern is that where there may be a third-party interest or even a provincial interest, nothing in here says that that's subject to ratification by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or to some form of local ratification process with respect to acquisitions. That's causing some considerable local concern.

Hon. B. Barlee: I've listened very carefully to the member, but that was covered in the 1977 act. There is essentially nothing new in this.

D. Mitchell: Just while we're on this section of the powers of the Trust, the minister has talked about the need for legislative renewal. I accept that there is a need to update the previous statute.

Section 20 details the new powers of the Heritage Trust in some specific terms, but also in some not so specific terms. Can the minister tell the committee very briefly how this differs from the current practice under the Heritage Conservation Act? Is there any significant amendment here that we should be aware of?

Hon. B. Barlee: The current practice is discussed under the powers in section 20 of the current bill. Essentially that outlines what we're basically doing now, with some slight changes, but there are no significant changes in this.

[10:30]

D. Mitchell: If the changes are that slight, why do we even need this section in the bill. When we have a bill brought forward in committee that's hundreds of pages long with all these clauses, one wonders why we are simply substituting a new clause outlining the powers of the Heritage Trust when there aren't any significant or appreciable changes. I think there might be a few changes that are more than slight. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast referred to one of them. There might even be some other changes that are desirable.

I note there is a blanket clause that says that the Trust can, "do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize," which really leaves it wide open. Really, cabinet can use the Heritage Trust as a vehicle to do anything it wishes. The minister says there are some slight changes from the current mandate of the trust. Could he elaborate on those?

Hon. B. Barlee: The current changes are outlined in the bottom part -- subsections (2) and (3). I think those are fairly logical. I think that they're reasonable. The Trust could incorporate a corporation; it could acquire shares in a corporation or enter into a partnership or a joint venture. Again, subsection (3) says: "Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Heritage Trust may borrow money in accordance with regulations made under section 59 of the Financial Administration Act." So those are essentially the changes.

D. Mitchell: Could the minister tell us why those specific changes are necessary? There is a question of funding and cost here. There's also an accountability function that we, as members of this committee, have to be responsible to and cognizant of if the Trust is now allowed to incorporate, purchase shares in a corporation and enter into partnerships or joint ventures. Why is that specific change being made, and what is being contemplated here? Is the Heritage Trust going to be entering into businesses that were heretofore unnecessary? Also, the Heritage Trust can now borrow money, which I imagine would be guaranteed by the taxpayers. Why is that change needed, and who ultimately is going to pay the cost of that?

Hon. B. Barlee: It has that ability, if it's necessary.

You know, talking about wasting taxpayers' money, in my previous ministry, from 1991-92 we returned, I think, $16 million, $22 million and then $20 million directly to treasury. So I'm very careful of the management of money. I think this is a logical step; it brings us into the new century. I don't see anything undue there, and it's under the scrutiny and due diligence of Treasury Board.

G. Wilson: Maybe we can get some examples.

I want to come back to the point where the minister said that it was effectively covered off under the old act. In fact, it isn't covered off under the old act. Section 20 under the old act makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to entering into agreements with first nations. Furthermore, section 20(2) of the old act says: "Where, in the opinion of the minister, it is necessary to ensure that the purpose of this Act is carried out, he may exercise" -- I would imagine that in modern language it would now be "he or she" -- "the powers under subsection (1)." So there is absolutely nothing in here that allows the....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The minister says that is not correct. He might want to tell me where.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think it's very, very obvious. It says that the Trust is allowed to "enter into an agreement, including an agreement for the acquisition of a covenant or an easement, with a person, including the government of Canada or of a province." That pretty well covers everything.

G. Wilson: Well, it doesn't cover everything. It says it can enter into an agreement with a person for the acquisition of a house or property or something; we can understand that. It can get a covenant or an easement, and it could enter into an agreement with the government of Canada, which is duly accountable to the taxpayers through an accounting process within the statutes as well as through an election, or a province, which is also a.... It says here that it can enter into agreements with a "person, organization, local government, first nation" -- that's where my question came in -- "or the government of Canada or of a province."

The problem is that in all the legislation this government is bringing in, it makes a wide reference to empowerment of first nations and the significance of first nations. I don't have a problem with getting into that debate, but it's never been debated. The government that we're talking about in that 

[ Page 12482 ]

question isn't clear. It implies that there is an opportunity for an empowerment of title, which is not supported by the statutes of this province or of the Crown federally. I'm curious to know how the Trust is going to be empowered by this particular act to act in a manner that is similar to that of a province.

Then it goes on to say under subsection (2) that it can incorporate as a corporation. If you take those powers now and suggest that it can incorporate as a corporation -- and we only need to look at some cross-referencing to other acts that have come before this House with respect to the empowerment of corporations and lands in the Land Title Amendment Act -- we can see that the Trust is given very significant powers without any reference to accountability back to government. The only reference here is where it talks about the question of borrowing money in accordance with regulations under the Financial Administration Act. Other than that, nothing in this section with respect to the powers of the Trust refers back to a ratification process, approval process or accountability process. Yet it gives them powers that go well beyond the existing powers under the existing act.

Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, the Trust can enter into an agreement right now with a first nations band, as the act now stands.

G. Wilson: I don't know how that can be, unless it's constituted through some other legislation. It would seem to me that the only way they could do that is through order-in-council with the province of British Columbia. There is nothing in the existing statute that empowers that kind of parallel process to be undertaken. I'd be curious, if the minister could point out where in the existing legislation that empowerment exists.

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, these are not regulatory agreements, and they don't require the necessary legislation.

D. Mitchell: I don't want to belabour this section, although I think it is a fairly important section of the bill. We're dealing with the powers of the Trust. I would like to know if the minister could give us an example of why the amendment to this section is required, which puts into statute the Heritage Trust's ability to borrow money, to enter into partnerships or joint ventures or to acquire shares in a corporation. The minister has said that is the significant change here. I'm not really sure I understand why these changes are required. Could you give us an example of where the Heritage Trust would need these kinds of powers?

Hon. B. Barlee: I will give the member an example. There are some heritage houses in North Vancouver. The Trust might want to purchase one of those heritage houses. They might want to take a mortgage on it. This would allow them to do that.

G. Wilson: I do think that while there are many sections of this act that are not contentious and that we can get through very quickly, it's important for us to thoroughly canvass this question on the powers. Ultimately, the taxpayers are going to pick up the cost of this and the accountability is going to have to come back somehow. It's not clear in this act how that accounting is going to be done to the satisfaction of this member and, I think, others, and how we're going to cover the long-term debt that's going to be acquired.

It's not just acquisition. You borrow the money to acquire, but after the acquisition there are the long-term and ongoing costs of maintenance, upkeep and keeping these heritage sites in place. We may all decide that is worthwhile -- I'm not saying it isn't worthwhile -- but it is important to apply due diligence to this question so that taxpayers at least know we've done our job and thoroughly canvassed the government on its intentions.

So I'd like the minister to address, please, section 20(1)(i), that says: "...subject to terms and conditions it may choose to apply, lend money from the trust fund continued under section 21 or guarantee loans made by a financial institution for the acquisition, management, conservation or development of heritage property by a party referred to in paragraph (b)." And in paragraph (b), of course, we go back to talk about local government and first nations government again.

So there's an empowerment now for this to act as a lending institution, effectively, to put up guarantees with respect to loans for financial institutions for the management and conservation of these heritage properties.

I wonder if the minister might tell us what the limitations are with respect to that. If you look at the existing legislation, one of the things you'll notice is that while it says it may provide loans, grants and advice for other services to the person having aims and objectives similar to that of the Trust, there is a caveat in the existing legislation which allows the minister to intercede. But that doesn't seem to be here. It seems to be an autonomous authority now that is able to enter into these financial obligations which are effectively going to be carried by the taxpayers of the province. There doesn't seem to be proper accountability for those decisions, and I wish the minister could tell us where in this act we might find such accountability.

Hon. B. Barlee: The essential design of this act is to preserve some of our heritage properties in the province. An example is mile houses in the Cariboo. There are still some of the original mile houses standing. Some of them are in relatively good shape; some of them need some work. We'll say the Felker family, a ranching family up in the Williams Lake area, has a mile house. The Trust may want to enter into an agreement with the Felker family to restore that mile house. This gives them the latitude to enter that agreement.

Those annual reports by the Heritage Trust are public reports, so we're not about to jeopardize the economic wellbeing of the province in trying to preserve some sites which have really being ignored by past governments, generally speaking. That is not a wholesale condemnation, but generally we have not done the job. I have watched for two and half decades while some of our sites have disappeared before our eyes -- and I think the member will agree with me. Both critics will probably agree that this is essentially designed to preserve those sites. I think it's long overdue.

We could go through this act line by line, and in some instances we are. And that's your responsibility, your job, and I understand that. But essentially the thrust of this act will be proven probably in two or three years, where we preserve these sites. I can list literally hundreds -- not scores, not dozens, but hundreds -- of sites that could have been preserved by an act like this, and it was not done. So there are some areas where it requires due diligence by both critics -- by all three critics, in fact. I realize that. But bear in mind that the overall intent of this is to preserve those structures. I think there will be enough scrutiny, by the Heritage Trust and the public at large, through the annual reports, to cover some of the concerns you have. It's a 

[ Page 12483 ]

wide-ranging and massive bill of 107 pages. I understand that. But I would ask the critics to bear in mind that I think this bill is needed, and it has probably been needed for 25 years.

I've watched some of our irreplaceable sites.... We can always build another site, but it wouldn't have the same ambience or mood. Dawson City is a classic example: they lost another one of their famous dance halls last year through a fire. Sometimes you can't prevent a fire. I think we have to be much more careful, because our heritage sites are at a premium, with the exception of perhaps Victoria and a few other small areas in the province. Nelson, Greenwood and perhaps a few places on the Island come to mind, but they're only a handful.

[10:45]

I think that when you look at the public perception of a bill like this.... And remember that we have consulted with group after group after group on this. I've gone over some of the details of the groups we've consulted with right down the line. Frankly, I think this bill is fairly sound. I realize that you're certainly not going to agree with everything that's in a bill of 107 pages, but we have to have a certain amount of latitude.

G. Wilson: I don't take issue with the fact that we want to protect British Columbia's heritage and heritage sites. The minister suggests that we want to preserve literally hundreds and hundreds of sites, and that's true. It costs money to preserve hundreds and hundreds of sites -- hundreds and hundreds of dollars or millions of dollars. The problem is that it isn't just for the acquisition of those sites; it's for the ongoing cost of maintenance and upkeep and protecting against things like fire. All those things cost the taxpayers a lot of money.

It says under section 20(1)(i) that this trust is going to be able to guarantee loans made by financial institutions for acquisition. So it's not even a matter of putting up the money, putting up a dollar value here; it's simply guaranteeing that which the bank is lending. Is there any cap or limit? Where, under the financial administration, which is coming up with respect to the audit requirements and the provision of reporting, do we find...? It seems to me that when you've empowered a trust such as this, the government might want to employ what it did with respect to their new initiative, Forest Renewal B.C., so we have a business plan put in place and so we can see what they're attempting to spend their money on and what kinds of loans they're putting in place. Let that be scrutinized so that, number one, the taxpayers at least know that there is some limit to the amount of taxpayers' money that can go into the acquisitions, and so that, number two, there can be some confidence that what the moneys are being committed to, either directly or through guarantees which we will ultimately be liable for, is something that (a) we can afford -- and that really is the bottom line, because we can't continue to let the debt rise -- and (b) we can maintain on an ongoing basis.

I see that the member for Richmond-Steveston doesn't think this is a big problem. Debt is obviously not an issue with the Liberal opposition, but it is with the taxpayers of British Columbia. While they want to try to protect the heritage sites, they also want to protect the interests of the long-term debt in this province, in terms of the taxpayers' obligations to it. That's what we're looking at in this particular section.

Hon. B. Barlee: I just did some work on the long-term debt. To reply to the member very briefly, if the member would take time out to read journals such as the June Reader's Digest, the May 23 Maclean's and Profit magazine -- which are not exactly New Democratic journals -- all of them say that we have, by far, the best debt service ratio of all the provinces in Canada. I don't think there's any argument about that.

As far as the cost is concerned, when I mentioned hundreds of sites.... I can think of a number of areas. Say Perry Creek in the East Kootenay country, named after a placer miner who discovered that creek in 1867, where there are a bunch of cabins. Some of those cabins from the 1890s would probably require about $1,500 worth of work to preserve. One of those cabins has an overshot waterwheel. Do you know what an overshot waterwheel is?

G. Wilson: I do.

Hon. B. Barlee: Good. Do you know what an undershot waterwheel is? I doubt it.

You can go to McKinnon Creek; the same thing applies. There are about seven cabins there from the 1930s. I think they are a monument to the old miners of British Columbia, who are part and parcel of our history. It would cost a fraction -- a minimal amount -- and I don't think people would debate the necessity of saving them.

Interjection.

The Chair: Would the minister take his seat. Please state your point of order, hon. member.

C. Tanner: If we kept to the subject, we could get through this rather horrendous bill rather quickly. I think the last two people who have spoken are not being pertinent to the subject. We're never going to get on if the minister continues to tell us nice little stories.

The Chair: Thank you for the point of order. I'm sure that the minister was relating to the subject; we're talking about heritage.

D. Mitchell: I actually enjoy the minister's stories, but I think we want to get through the bill, too.

Section 20 deals with the powers of the Heritage Trust. Can the minister tell us if there is any contemplated limit that's going to be enshrined in the statue on the amount of money that can now be borrowed under this section? Will any guidelines be given to the Heritage Trust? Are there any limitations whatsoever?

Hon. B. Barlee: Treasury Board, of which I'm a member, limits that -- and believe me, they scrutinize it extremely carefully.

A. Warnke: I have listened to the debate on this particular section, and while it appears to be somewhat convoluted and extended in some ways, the central thrust is actually fairly simple. I'm somewhat surprised that members who engage in the debate cannot be a bit more succinct about what their objection to this particular section is. Indeed, it seems very straightforward that some members of the opposition and of other parties seem to be saying that there is a creation of an entity here that renders tremendous powers to negotiate some agreement that would be at the expense of the non-aboriginal community. I've heard the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast before, and the fact is that there has been a consistent line of thought in the questions the particular member has posed to the minister, the 

[ Page 12484 ]

premise of which is very questionable. Does this mean that no powers should be involved in the Heritage Trust, in which case you don't need an act? If you don't need an act, then the underlying premise is that there should not be any attempt to preserve heritage, period.

I and members of the official opposition can listen to this debate and see that what's underneath here is a very clever way of saying: "Why worry about the heritage, especially as it applies to first nations peoples." It seems to me that some attempt to preserve the sites and cultures of first nations is needed. And if, in the name of the taxpayer, that's somehow offensive to the people of British Columbia, I think some members really miss the point.

So to perhaps cut through this particular debate so that we can get down to dealing with the essential thrust of this section, let us ask two questions of the minister. To what extent can the minister reassure the people of British Columbia, especially non-aboriginals, that they are not going to be jeopardized in any way -- perhaps even to the point of confiscation, because that's been implied in some remarks by other members -- by this particular section? Let's just call it whatever it is. That's one question, and I'd like the minister to respond to it.

Hon. B. Barlee: That was a very reasonable statement by the member. Essentially, the public hasn't been jeopardized yet, and we have the ability under the present act to carry out many of the things that have been discussed in this chamber in the last half-hour. So with the scrutiny of Treasury Board and the Heritage Trust itself, and hopefully the diligence of the minister, I don't see any real problems. There haven't been any real problems, even under the old '77 act, and we've had the ability to do many of these things right up until now.

The Chair: The Chair would like to remind all members that we're on a subsection of a section, and we've canvassed it for a long time. Keeping that in mind, we'll keep the questions brief, if we can.

G. Wilson: The minister might want to ask the member for Richmond-Steveston who's going to pay for all of this. But the fact is that this does not create a new entity; the entity already exists. The minister has told us that.

Secondly, it dramatically changes the existing act. The minister is going to acknowledge that. Otherwise this wouldn't be necessary. Thirdly, it provides an opportunity for the Trust to enter into a guarantee of loans made by financial institutions for acquisition of sites or property. Can the minister tell us if there is a cap on the amount the Trust will be allowed to put in place in terms of a guarantee for acquisition? Is there a ceiling to the amount of money the Trust can commit?

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, the rules are set by the nine ministers who sit on Treasury Board. As any act impacts upon it, they look at that very closely to see whether or not it justifies approval. I can't give you specific figures. You might name one figure and I might name another. There has been nothing in recent memory that I can think of that has impacted the public economically by the previous act, for instance, which has many wide-ranging powers. This act simply brings some of the legislative powers into the twenty-first century.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I have one very brief question to the minister on something that this section doesn't do. I just want to ask if the minister had contemplated this, or if it is captured in here. We're dealing with the powers of the Heritage Trust, and I know there's an educational function that the Heritage Trust fulfils as well. Was it ever contemplated to specify a power for the Heritage Trust along the lines of providing awards, scholarships or bursaries for those who want to study the heritage or the history of British Columbia? That's something that has never been enshrined in the legislation, either in the existing statute or in the new one. I know that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has given it the ability to do just about anything it wants. But if we're trying to promote a better understanding of British Columbia's past, would it not be a good idea to enshrine in that statute an ability to award scholarships to those who are studying or promoting the heritage of British Columbia?

Hon. B. Barlee: We're already doing the scholarships program. In section 20(1)(c) it says that we have the ability to "conduct and arrange exhibits or activities to inform and stimulate the interest of the public in any matter related to the purposes of this Part." So I think that more or less covers it.

Section 20, sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 20, section 23.

C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, can you tell us why we have the alternative of both the government or the name of the Trust in section 23(1)? Why should the residency of the property be in one of those two places? Why both? Why not one or the other? It seems like a contradiction of some of the powers of the Trust. On the other hand, I hope there's a reasonable explanation as to why you need that choice.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question. First, it does allow more flexibility if you have those two options. Second, I think I can safely say that the public at large may have more trust in the Trust than in any government at present. A person may make a donation to the Trust, whereas, because of political considerations, they may not want to make that same donation to the government at the time. It gives us that flexibility in that area, and I think that's to the betterment of the heritage community.

C. Tanner: For the sake of this discussion, let's say that we're talking about property and not an artifact. Do those properties that rest with the government under this act have the same protection as those that rest with the Trust?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, they do.

G. Wilson: I just have two quick questions to the minister. Under section 23(2), it says: "Despite the Land Act, property acquired by the Heritage Trust under this part may be dealt with by the Heritage Trust under this Act." Is that a regulatory question, or is there a section of the Land Act that you're specifically exempting? Having read through the Land Act, I'm not quite sure what that refers to.

[11:00]

Hon. B. Barlee: The traditional way for government to manage properties is under the Land Act, but this allows more flexibility.

G. Wilson: Could the minister be a little more specific on that. What specific sections of the Land Act would be exempted by...? I've tried to do my best in cross-referencing 

[ Page 12485 ]

what I can with respect to title, provisions of title and matters on taxation, but it's very difficult to know what the minister is getting at when there's that kind of caveat without specific references to sections of an act. If he could be a bit more specific, it would be helpful.

Hon. B. Barlee: Okay, I'll drop back to examples which I think will clarify the issue.

The Hat Creek Ranch, which is outside of Cache Creek, would be an example. That could be under the lands branch. It clarifies it and makes it easier to incorporate that property under this act. Another property might be the Hedley Mascot mine, the old site just above Hedley, which we call the Mile High Mine. That essentially could be governed by Lands, but it's better governed under this act through us and the Heritage Trust rather than through the lands branch.

C. Tanner: I had noted this particular section too. I get very nervous when with carte blanche we say we're throwing out and not going to recognize another act -- one that was there to protect people and make sure they're compensated for what they give up or sell. That appears to be disregarded in this act.

I'm not sure that I've got a sufficiently good explanation from the minister as to why they need this particular power -- unless it is to protect what he just illustrated in the previous section 23(1), when he said there are times when people want to make a designation to the Trust because they don't want to make it to the government. I asked the minister at that time whether what's designated to the government has the same status as that which is designated to the Trust. My hope was that 23(2) was a follow-up to that question; in other words, it was to protect property given over.

But that's not what it says, Mr. Minister. It does say "Despite the Land Act...." That concerns me, as it did the previous speaker, I think.

[A. Hagen in the chair.]

Hon. B. Barlee: Well, I think it's fairly self-explanatory. You can acquire those lands under the Land Act, but this is specifically to apply to certain properties. I mentioned one of the properties, the Hedley Mascot. The old Hedley Mascot would be much better under the auspices of the Heritage Trust than under the lands branch. This simply clarifies it for specific and special properties. That is a special property and would be noted by the Heritage Trust. Frankly, Lands doesn't have the expertise to govern some of those properties; nor, perhaps, do they have the interest in those properties that Heritage Trust would.

I'll give an example of the old Mascot mine, which was built in the 1930s, sitting almost a mile above Hedley. Those buildings are unique in British Columbia and perhaps in North America, with the exception of Colorado. They're really unique. They should not be under the lands branch; it should be under Heritage Trust. The member has a background in mining and in history. Essentially, this is just a clarification. It does allow us that latitude that I think we require.

C. Tanner: With the illustration that the minister is using, as I understand it, when they're already in the government possession, why not just transfer them to the Heritage Trust? You get rid of all those problems.

Hon. B. Barlee: The land I spoke of, giving an example, is not owned by the Crown. It is in private hands -- in a trust company, actually. If the Crown wishes to acquire that, I think it's better acquired under the Heritage Trust than Crown Lands. I think the member will agree. Certainly if I were to go to a company and say, "The government wants to buy your land," they would say: "Oh well, here we go. I think I'll put that price up slightly." Whereas if I say that the Heritage Trust wishes to acquire this land -- for the benefit of future generations of British Columbia, as a monument to the old hardrock miners of this particular area or the province as a whole -- I think it would be easier managed by the Heritage Trust. I also think the price would be significantly better for the public at large.

C. Tanner: I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse, but I think it's important. Why don't we specify that section of the Land Act that applies to the illustration the minister just gave? Why do we say carte blanche that everything in the Land Act doesn't apply here when it's under the Heritage Trust? I think that's what is making all members on this side nervous. Why not specify those sections of the act that don't apply to the Land Act?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think it's relatively clear under section 23(2) which says: "Despite the Land Act, property acquired by the Heritage Trust under this Part may be dealt with by the Heritage Trust under this Act." I think that's reasonable; I don't see any problem with that at all. I gave you a classic example that I think makes all sorts of sense; I think it makes sense to the member and to most other members of the House. It is much better under the Heritage Trust than under the Land Act. It gives us flexibility in this area, which you require sometimes.

D. Mitchell: There is another matter relating to this section: "Property vested in the Heritage Trust is exempt from taxation...." I have a question for the minister, and I just want the minister to tell me whether or not I need to be concerned about this. Presumably that would include property taxation. The concern I have is for smaller rural municipalities or regional districts. If the Heritage Trust were to acquire a significant piece of property -- such as a ranch, a former industrial site, or what have you -- that formerly paid property taxation, presumably now the heritage property acquired by the Heritage Trust would no longer have to pay any taxation; it would be exempt. That could be a serious problem for smaller communities in British Columbia: they would lose that taxation base for their community. I guess I'd like to ask the minister if we should be concerned about that. Is there any intention to make up for the loss in property taxation to smaller communities where that is a problem, perhaps by a grant in lieu of taxes?

Hon. B. Barlee: I can give you a very classic example, and I think everyone in the chamber can understand it. We are in the Legislature. Essentially, Crown lands are exempt, but grants in lieu do apply. So we don't pay; we only pay through grants in lieu as far as the Legislature and this chamber is concerned. That's an example. It's not an unusual example; it's a typical example all across the province.

D. Mitchell: Just for clarification and so I understand it, then, is the minister saying that where the Heritage Trust acquires property or where property is vested in the Trust, and a rural municipality or regional district is going to have a drop in their tax base because a ranch or former industrial site has now been designated as a heritage trust, under this legislation the community affected would not suffer a loss in 

[ Page 12486 ]

taxation revenue, because a grant in lieu of taxation would make up the difference? Is that what he's saying?

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, government policy will apply in that area, whether it's grants in lieu or otherwise.

D. Mitchell: I don't want to belabour the point, but the minister's comments on the record will have to stand as the authority and direction in the future, because to my knowledge that's not stated anywhere in the act; what is stated is that property vested in the Trust is exempt from taxation. I take it that the minister's direction and commitment here is that the government would make up any loss in taxation to a small community, municipality or regional district that suffered a loss in taxation because a heritage site was created where formerly a revenue-generating property existed. We'll just have to take that as the minister's commitment, I guess, unless he can expand on that any further.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think that is clarified in the last line under section 23(3). It says: "Property vested in the Heritage Trust is exempt from taxation, levies and all other charges, except insofar as the government is liable." Those are the operative words: "...the government is liable."

[11:15]

G. Wilson: I have a couple of questions on that last statement. If the minister could point out the extent to which liability will override the exemption question, we might have some comfort. It can be read two ways. It could be read to mean liable with respect to local government, but it could also be read to mean with respect to liabilities in terms of further cost by this government in terms of paying out. So we would like to know exactly what that means.

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, the Minister of Finance is responsible for this concern, and she will set the policy there.

G. Wilson: Not wanting to belabour the point, this doesn't give people very much comfort. On the one hand, the minister is making a commitment as the minister responsible for the administration of the act; then he turns around and says that this will be policy directed by the Minister of Finance. We can take it from that that it's probably more likely Treasury Board.

Local government is potentially going to be in a negative situation as a result of these changes. It's going to be a cost to local taxpayers, and potentially it's going to be a cost to provincial taxpayers. We have just heard about the creation of a new parallel process for the acquisition and disposition of land, and about corporations that can enter into agreements. We have talked about a trust that is now able to set up guarantees with loans given by financial institutions. All of that is going to be done and allow this government to simply bypass the Land Act without being specific as to the sections of the Land Act that are going to be exempted.

It really is too much for this government to expect the opposition to allow the passage of this section without further information. It may well be that the rationale is well presented. I have heard some rationale from members of the minister's staff on the questions, but I remain to be satisfied. It really does say that the government is going to be given carte blanche on a parallel process of land acquisition and disposition through a heritage trust which will be empowered as a corporation -- as it is now -- to enter into all kinds of agreements with people, first nations and local and federal governments. In addition, it will be able to borrow money and guarantee loans made from financial institutions, all of which is going to cost the taxpayers of the province an unspecified amount of money. The minister has said there will be no cap to the amount of money that will be spent on this, even though history shows we are not spending a whole lot of money on it. I give the minister due credit that we haven't spent a lot of money -- or as much as many would have liked.

Failing a more detailed explanation on those two questions, what sections of the Land Act...? Exactly what is meant by the question of government's liability? Just saying that the policy will be set by the Minister of Finance doesn't really cut it.

Hon. B. Barlee: The member usually asks fairly logical questions. I don't think that's a logical question, because there are scores and scores of structures under this policy right now; there are probably hundreds of structures. This simply gives us a little more flexibility in that area. I fail to see why the public is in jeopardy as far as the financial arrangements are concerned. We spend a certain amount of money on this chamber and on this building, and that's open to public scrutiny. It certainly has to go through due process and due diligence in government. It's not as though this is something new. This is simply something old that gives us more flexibility.

D. Mitchell: I want desperately to move through this bill with the minister. The bill is very detailed; it's a very complex piece of legislation. But even so, there are many elements of ambiguity in the legislation. The minister's comments during this committee stage may need to be relied upon in the future to guide the interpretation of this statute, and it's very important for him to be very clear.

For instance, on this section, where we dealt with the taxation of properties that were vested in the Heritage Trust, I heard the minister say very clearly that local governments would not be adversely affected by the loss of taxation revenue on properties that were vested in the Heritage Trust -- although subsequently he indicated that that would be decided upon by the Minister of Finance. So it's hard to know what kind of direction is being given here. We would only ask the minister to be really clear and very specific in his comments so that there isn't confusion and we can move through the bill.

G. Wilson: I have a last question, and then we can deal with this on division, because certainly it's not acceptable in the way it's drafted, from our point of view. When we get to section 47, I note a whole detailed section on taxation exemption and obligation for payment, and we can maybe get back to that.

I have one last question. There's the exemption of taxation and levies, and then it suggests other charges. There may be a whole series of land charges, development charges, and all kinds of things that may be driven by local government with respect to permit charges and service charges for provision of water and sewer and so on. Whose decision is it to exempt these properties? Is the exemption automatic once the Heritage Trust has them, or can that be negotiated by local government if they deem that their interest is negatively impacted by a sizable project? Or is it something that will be designated by this minister?

Hon. B. Barlee: We have actually consulted with local governments ad nauseam. They have no difficulty with this 

[ Page 12487 ]

act. They believe in the thrust of the act, they think it's long overdue and I'm inclined to agree with them.

G. Wilson: I just wonder if the minister might answer my question. I'm not talking about whether local governments are in favour or opposed to this act. I've talked to a number; some have concerns, and others don't have as many concerns. I'd like the minister to tell us -- because it impacts on a later section -- who decides the exemption of charges. Is it the Heritage Trust, is it negotiable with local government, or is it the province?

The Chair: The member continues.

G. Wilson: That was a fairly straightforward and simple question. I don't understand why the minister is reluctant to give me an answer. It's a question that has come forward from constituents and from people in local government. They're curious to know, with this process in place, who decides the exemption on charges. It's a fairly straight-forward question.

Hon. B. Barlee: All the section says is that the same exemptions apply to the Heritage Trust as apply to the government.

D. Mitchell: Point of order. I note that the opposition members seem to outnumber the government members by a ratio of about 2 to 1. The committee is very sparsely attended. Perhaps we could simply show, for the sake of convenience, that this section, if it carries, is carried on division.

Section 20, section 23 approved on division.

On section 21, section 27.

G. Wilson: Just a couple of what will hopefully be fairly quick questions. With respect to filing written notice, it's interesting that subsection 27(1) states that it's obligatory for the minister to "...file a written notice in the land title office with respect to land that is designated under section 4"; but it is not obligatory for land for which notice may have been given in the first instance. We can accept that, but then it goes on to say: "...in the opinion of the minister, is protected under section 6(2)...7, 7.2 or 8.4 or (d) that, in the opinion of the minister, has been altered in contravention of section 6(2)." I wonder why it isn't made obligatory. I realize that we're substituting a new section in part 5. There seems to be a movement away from obligatory notice and toward discretionary notice. What's the rationale for doing that?

Hon. B. Barlee: There are 20,000 or more archaeological sites in British Columbia. Some of those are probably important and some are not; we may put them on the land title or we may not. It gives us a little latitude on certain ones.

G. Wilson: Just for clarification, I didn't quite hear what the minister said. You said that they may put them on...

Hon. B. Barlee: Some.

G. Wilson: ...some of them. I didn't hear the conclusion of the statement. Would the minister just repeat the statement?

Hon. B. Barlee: If that archaeological site is extremely important, both from the public viewpoint and from archaeological viewpoints, we could put that on the land title. In most instances, we probably would not. There may be a specific instance.... It may be a burial mound, a midden or any number of different things. It could be a vast selection of sites. Out of the 20,000 sites, very few would probably be put on land title, but there may be a case where we'd have to do that.

C. Tanner: This section and subsequent sections illustrate something that I said at second reading, Mr. Minister, and that is that I think smaller municipalities around the province are going to have a great deal of difficulty dealing with this act. I would like some assurance from the minister that his ministry will have assistance available, at least in expertise, when local municipalities have to deal with this. It's fine for Victoria or Vancouver or Prince George or one of the larger municipalities, but the smaller ones have the same problem. In fact, by the illustrations that the minister has been using in all the discussions of this act, he's all over the province, and that includes a lot of smaller municipalities. Could the minister give us an assurance that assistance will be available to those municipalities that have to interpret and enforce this act?

Hon. B. Barlee: As I said, we discussed this with the municipalities at some length -- great consultations. In fact, I have a letter here dated one year ago:

"Dear Minister,

"The UBCM executive regularly reviews the legislative initiatives currently underway that are of interest to local governments and to our communities. We've been working over the past few years with the heritage conservation branch of your ministry in the development of new heritage legislation. We felt it was an appropriate time to remind you that the new heritage legislation is still supported by the UBCM."

He goes on to mention:

"Our staff has been authorized to continue to provide assistance to your ministry on this legislation.

"Yours truly, Mayor Gordon Campbell, President, UBCM"

C. Tanner: Thank you very much for that. I knew very well you had that letter. I have been in contact with the UBCM; I know of that support, and there's no change of opinion there. In fact, right now I've got five letters from five municipalities asking that we do support the legislation. Mr. Minister well knows that I am supporting this legislation, but I'm questioning those parts. What concerns me is whether the smaller municipalities -- and I didn't hear the minister give me that assurance -- will be assisted when they have to implement this legislation.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the consolidated process is fairly well formulated. When I look down the list, there was consultation in '87, '88, '89, '90, '91, '92, '93 and now into '94. The public service will answer most of those questions. Generally, I think we have a pretty good public service, contrary to what some of the public.... But I think safeguards are written in there. From conversations with some of the municipalities, they don't really have a problem with many parts of this bill. Frankly, I think they can obtain all the information that they require through the usual channels.

[11:30]

[ Page 12488 ]

L. Hanson: In this section, I believe the minister mentioned that registration of a midden against the title could happen. Earlier in the bill, there was some discussion as to what the process was to determine that there was something there. There is only one thing that we haven't covered yet. I'm not sure exactly where it is stated explicitly in the bill; maybe the minister could comment. If there is a suspicion of a midden and you register it against the title, you need some evidence to do it. Do you order a study -- and at whose expense -- to determine whether or not something needs to be protected?

Hon. B. Barlee: When I think of the 20,000 sites, the answer depends on the circumstances of those sites. Some of those are on Crown land; some of those are on private properties. So that would vary. Sometimes a private contractor might be involved, and sometimes it's the government itself.

L. Hanson: I recognize that. Of course, the implications of a registration against title of public land are quite different from a registration against title of private land. In some cases it could be detrimental. An earlier clause stated that if there is a registration against it and if there is a loss of value, it is required to be compensated. I'm asking the question of the minister: who pays the cost of determining if there is some need to register a reservation or notice of heritage status against the title?

Hon. B. Barlee: It depends again on the circumstances. If it were a small amount of money, I think the Crown could probably pick that up.

I'll give you an example. There is probably an archaeological site in the Nanoose Bay area. The developer there has offered to pay $400,000 for an archaeological study. This is an example of the private investor coming into the picture. But generally speaking, out of those 20,000 sites, probably a very small fraction would be "important" archaeological sites. In most of those instances, that's still within the hands of the Crown. The Nanoose Bay one is not, for instance.

L. Hanson: I recognize that. I know that in some situations in the past -- the construction of highways, bridges or something like that -- the Crown has picked up the cost of the investigation to determine what the actual heritage value of the site is.

I am concerned, because nowhere in the legislation did I see that if someone wanted to do something with their private property and they were not allowed to because of some suggestion that there is a site of some heritage value on that property, there would have to be a dig or some investigation to see if it is in fact a valuable site.

The question I am still asking the minister is whether the Crown picks up the cost of that under those circumstances. If that's it, that's fine. That's really my question.

Hon. B. Barlee: I thought I answered that. Again, that depends on the circumstances. If a small amount of funding were required, I think the Crown would pick that up. When I say small, I mean a very minor archaeological excavation. The Crown would probably pick that up -- if it's important. But the other thing is that the majority of these sites would not be deemed important. There would be some classic sites that should be saved for future generations and because of the impact upon our archaeological history. I think there are a number of cases all around the province where the individual developer, when the site is on their land, has seen fit to provide moneys for an archaeological dig or survey.

R. Neufeld: It's interesting that the minister talks about small amounts and large amounts. I want to bring to his attention one specific archaeological dig, and it happens to be in my constituency. It has to do with the Charlie Lake caves. Apparently, quite an area around where the caves are situated is under some kind of a preserve. A constituent of mine has an acreage, and part of that acreage has a mobile home park on it. There are about five acres that he wants to subdivide for his own purposes, and then he wants to sell the mobile home park.

Initially, the response he got from the department of lands was that there had to be an archaeological dig performed on the site -- at his expense. There was no one in the area that could do it, so there was some contact made by telephone. An amount of about $3,000 to $4,000 was quoted for just a sketchy look at the area. The lands department said it was the owner's responsibility to do that before they would subdivide that land, so I don't believe the minister when he says that the Crown would pick up some nominal amount, because that is not what is happening today. Today, you are requiring people with private property to pay for those digs or experiments -- unless this is just happening in Peace River North and not in the rest of the province. This actually happened, and there is documentation on it.

Since some intervention, the Crown has allowed him to go ahead with the subdivision with a covenant that says that absolutely no development will take place on that five acres until that archaeological dig is completed and paid for by the owner of that land. So there are two messages here. The minister's trying to go over it and say both that the Crown will pay for the small amounts, when really that's not the case, and that when it comes to the larger amounts, the Crown's not going to pay for it. So we need to find out here exactly what the Crown is prepared to do.

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, the member is not on section 27. I suggest that the member contact my staff and we will get back on the particulars of that.

Section 21, sections 27 and 28 approved.

On section 21, section 29.

C. Tanner: We see that the Crown has remedy in the courts for an action that it might want to take, but unless I've missed it, I don't see any protection for a remedy to those people whom the Crown has taken action against. Obviously if the Crown goes to court, then those people can go to court. But where's a similar protection for the other side of that argument, for those people who might think that the Crown is acting improperly? If we've got to specifically put the Crown in the legislation here to give them recourse to the courts, where's the compensating action in this act?

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, that's written into common law.

C. Tanner: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I know that. But if it's written in the common law for those other than the government, why do you need the government written into this bill?

It seems to me you want it both ways. You want the power specified in this act to go to court, but if the government is acting improperly in the view of those affected, there is 

[ Page 12489 ]

nothing to protect the people whom you're going to court against. It doesn't seem to be fair to me. The common law, if you like to call it that, applies to both government and the citizen. Where's the citizen's protection against the government moving arbitrarily against them?

Hon. B. Barlee: We only have the power of obtaining an injunction. The citizen has the right to object to that and go to court over it, if he so wishes.

I think most people are reasonable on this. Anyone who has a significant archaeological site, whether that's a prehistorical site or a site in the last hundred years, realizes that there is a certain public responsibility. There are safeguards there that are essentially written under common law. So I don't see many cases.... The member for Peace River North did mention one case, and I'm quite willing to get back to him on that. This gives us that flexibility, which is seldom used. But it's occasionally used when it's very important. That's up to the discretion of the Heritage Trust.

Remember, this is generally a selection of citizens from across a broad spectrum. They are people who are well versed in history and who I think are very careful. They would practise due diligence. So that's covered under common law. We have to have a certain amount of latitude, but not a lot. We mentioned 20,000 sites -- a fraction of those would be important archeological sites.

C. Tanner: We are allowing the government, the minister and the Trust to have a lot of latitude to here. You have continually asked us to condone that latitude. In my opinion -- and I think in the opinion of most members -- we are giving you that latitude. If we are all equal under the law, it doesn't appear to me to be equal when you write specific legislation saying that government can go to court and you don't writing compensating legislation saying the citizenry has the same right to appeal to somebody or other.

[11:45]

Hon. B. Barlee: I will give the hon. member an example. When you compare this to the 1977 act, the provisions under this act are infinitely fairer than under the old act. It gives more flexibility and more recourse to remedy for the individual concerned.

G. Wilson: I really have to take issue with the minister's comment on that. If you compare section 29 in the old act, it says: "A person who contravenes section 6, 12 or 14(1)(b), or an order made under section 7(3)(b)(ii) or 14(1)(a), commits an offence." Hence they can be charged under the act. Section 29 in this act says: "The minister may apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction...." That has all kinds of ramifications against a person, and it says: "This section applies whether or not a person is charged with an offence under this Act." This gives sweeping powers to the minister. Furthermore, section 29 says: "...fails to comply with or contravenes the requirements or conditions of a permit issued under section 5 or 7...." If you go back to read that, that's a permit of the Crown with respect to what can or should be put in place. Then it goes on to say: "...fails to comply with or contravenes an order made under section 7 or 8.4...." Section 8.4, I remind the minister, is where the government is empowered, at the owner's expense, to put in all kinds of property conservation work. Then it goes on to say that once this injunction has been filed in the Supreme Court and the court rules, conservation may be performed by other people. He doesn't even get to choose who does the work, and the owner gets to pay. Then it goes on to say that the authorization for the minister to undertake conservation work will be at the expense of the person, and any other requirements that the court considers advisable.

All of this can be put on a person who isn't even charged with a violation of the act. That clearly isn't what the existing act says. In terms of latitude and protection for the individual, I would take strong exception to that. If you look at the preceding sections of this particular act, it can be done by regulation. If they are in violation of regulations -- which aren't even printed in the act -- they can be subject to those actions by the minister.

Hon. B. Barlee: I am really amazed at that question. Under the old act, I have a terrific amount of power stated under "Civil remedies": "...the minister on behalf of the Crown in right of the Province or a council, as the case may be, may order the person to restore the property to its condition prior to its alteration within a period specified in the order." This gives me a terrific amount of power under the old act, but this gives you more latitude. This is a fairer way to approach the problem.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I just can't believe the minister would try to sell that to the people -- I mean, good Lord! It says in the previous act: "Where a person alters property in contravention of this Act...." It's in contravention of the act. They are charged with an offence under the act. It's in contravention of the act. It says that anybody who contravenes those sections -- and it spells out what those sections are -- contravenes the act.

This act says that the section applies whether or not the person is charged with an offence under this act. It can be done by a new regulation that can be brought in by order-in-council and can be effected on a person. The person may quite innocently have altered or modified or changed a site that has been designated. The owner is going to find themselves slapped with an injunction by a court, have a court rule or order that the following things be done and have the court approve somebody else -- a construction outfit not of the individual's choosing -- to do the work and then present the owner with a bill. That's what this act says. That's not fair; that's just outrageous.

Hon. B. Barlee: Under the old act, the minister has all sorts of powers. Under the provisions of the proposed act, we have reduced those powers; we put in more flexibility for the individual concerned. I can't just step in and say: "You must restore your property as it was." That may entail hundreds of thousands of dollars. It could certainly entail millions of dollars.

G. Wilson: I would suggest that the minister go back and read the old act, because the old act says that "where a person has not complied with an order under section 1, the minister or a council, as the case may be, may restore the property to its condition prior to its alteration, and the person who altered the property in contravention of this act" -- therefore they are charged with a contravention of the act -- "is liable for the reasonable costs of the restoration." You have to restore it to a site-specific condition, and it must be done under reasonable costs of remedy once the person is charged in violation of this act. So the individual has a right to defend themselves prior to being hit, as this allows, with a Supreme Court injunction restraining the person under section 29(1).

If you read sections 28(1), 28(2) and 28(3) in conjunction with section 29 of the old act, this minister has limited powers and has to charge an individual with being in 

[ Page 12490 ]

contravention of the act. This act says quite specifically that the minister can do so whether or not the person is charged with an offence. That's an outrageous set of powers for this minister. How this minister can possibly expect to sell to the people of British Columbia that somehow this is a fair and proper way for the powers of government to be distributed and meted out against a person, who quite innocently may have altered property and then found themselves slapped with a court injunction and with restoration costs from a contractor they didn't even get to choose and then had to foot the bill, is just outrageous.

Section 21, section 29 approved on the following division:

Hon. B. Barlee: I move the committee report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. B. Barlee moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1994: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada