2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th 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, February 15, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Scottish culture and heritage

L. Reid

100 th anniversary of Westminster Building

D. Black

Campaign to end violence against aboriginal women and children

G. Hogg

Toque Tuesday campaign and youth homelessness

S. Hammell

Ridge Meadows South Asian Cultural Society

M. Dalton

Revelstoke children’s charter

N. Macdonald

Oral Questions

Delays in court proceedings and Internet luring case

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

Ombudsperson report on seniors care and seniors advocate

K. Conroy

Hon. C. Clark

M. Farnworth

Family farm tax case

M. Sather

Hon. K. Falcon

Surrey school district portable use and funding

H. Bains

Hon. G. Abbott

Ministerial Statements

Black History Month

Hon. H. Bloy

A. Dix

Tabling Documents

Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2011

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Auditor General for Local Government Act (continued)

G. Gentner

J. Rustad

V. Huntington

R. Hawes

D. Donaldson

D. Hayer

B. Routley

E. Foster

D. Routley

C. Hansen

B. Simpson

R. Howard

M. Farnworth

[ Page 9153 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: In the House today I would like to recognize Paul Lacerte, of the British Columbia Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, as well as chiefs, elders and aboriginal leaders and the delegation who participated in this morning's gathering of aboriginal men standing up against violence towards aboriginal women and children.

These strong men gathered this morning and took

part in a press conference earlier this afternoon to raise awareness about a very serious issue, one that affects each and every one of us, and that is the issue of violence against aboriginal women and children. These men are standing up against a problem that has haunted aboriginal communities for far too many years but which the members of today's gathering are determined to address. I applaud their efforts and their determination, and I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: As the last surviving legislative intern on the floor of the House, with the departure of our old pal Barry Penner, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the class of 2012 legislative interns, who are arrayed in the most stunning fashion up in the gallery behind you, Mr. Speaker. I'm certain that the one thing they miss is not being able to look down more directly on you.

May I introduce Kristian Arciaga and welcome Derek Csath, Leila Farmer, Jacob Helliwell, Paula Krawus, Carly Lewis, Ian Madison, Ella Rebalski, Matthew Scarr and Colin Whelan. Will the House please make them all welcome.

As you know, I was an intern a few years ago — technically speaking, 1975. As part of the inaugural internship program we were, of course, primary students in that 1975 year as opposed to university graduates, as all the exceptional young people here today are. I know that they will enjoy this experience. I certainly enjoyed it. I do issue this warning, though. For me, the Legislative Assembly has been rather like the Hotel California — you can check out, but you can never leave. So, welcome.

J. Horgan: Although I was never an intern, I was called to the office at Reynolds high school in 1973 to become a page in this place. I thought I was in trouble, so I didn't show up, but I would have been here earlier if I hadn't been on the edge.

I want to join the Minister of Education in introducing the interns who'll be serving the NDP caucus over the next number of months. Just for my colleagues' benefit, really, I've found where they live in the basement. I've unturned the rocks and moved away the boxes, and we've found Leila Farmer and Ella Rebalski, both from the University of Victoria, who are the first people you come to when you go downstairs into the basement, past the boiler room. Beside them is the loner, it appears. That would be Matt Scarr, University of British Columbia.

[1340]

But I want to focus on Ian Madison and Colin Whelan — Ian from the University of Victoria and Colin from a campus in Burnaby on a hill. The two of them are by the library, down the stairs, by the electric panel. There is one window for interns, and Colin gets it — good for you. I went in to meet them this morning, and I said: "I need a briefing note on royalty policy in 20 minutes. Which one of you two is doing it?" It was Ian who said, "I'll do it." He's the keener in the bunch, so pile up on him.

Would the House please make the NDP interns very, very welcome.

Hon. H. Bloy: It's my pleasure to introduce some international students from Simon Fraser University who were here touring this morning and met with my colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain earlier today. We had Lyndon Lee, Vivien Sham, Elizabeth Mondragon, Marton Jalkoczi, Petr Salaba, Hanson Wong, Jin Nancy Wu, Rachel Qin, Yitong Hayley Dong, Kimberley Yu, Alan Chung and Dong Cheng Cai. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: It's been a while. I'd like to join the Minister of Aboriginal Relations in welcoming the members of the aboriginal community, members of the Aboriginal Friendship Centres Association, to the Legislature earlier today. I believe that they are still going on with the session over at the Hotel Grand Pacific, where I and my colleague the critic for the Solicitor General joined with them on their campaign, really, to have aboriginal men stand up and gather together against violence against aboriginal women and children.

We heard moving speeches by the speakers and by the panel of people really saying that they will now take on ownership, together with all of us, to end violence against women and children. The campaign is about a moosehide, which is symbolic in a variety of ways. In some communities they'll be using the deer hide as a means to raise awareness and to end violence against aboriginal women and children. In some cases they will be using bearhide, from particularly men in Kent prison, where the bear symbolizes that they can't bear to hurt women anymore. I ask the House to please welcome them and thank them for their efforts.

[ Page 9154 ]

D. Black: I want to introduce a visitor from the city of New Westminster today. Kevin Sage is here in the visitors' gallery. He's a young activist from my community who is also studying at Simon Fraser University. I ask all members of the House to please make him welcome.

J. McIntyre: Now that we're back in session and following along yesterday's vein, I also have a birth announcement. But I have to hastily add: not me, not my family. In fact, it's on behalf of a constituent, Paul Lalli, who is a former councillor in the district of Squamish. He was hoping that the House would make his second son, fourth child, Rajan "R.J." Singh Lalli, who was named by his two sisters and born December 13, 2011, in Squamish General Hospital…. He was hoping that we would all make R.J. feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SCOTTISH CULTURE AND HERITAGE

L. Reid: January is a celebratory month for those of Scottish descent, beginning with the first footing on New Year's Day. It is about who knocks on your door. The next big celebration sees us join with men and women of Scottish heritage to celebrate the birth of Robbie Burns. The 15th Field Regiment of artillery hosted an amazing Burns supper at the BCIT aerospace campus in Richmond, which featured the Welsh Men's Choir, the Pipes and Drums of the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and the band of the 15th Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Air Force.

The camaraderie in the room was lovely to behold, as the event was attended by many who had served overseas, Richmond's first responders and the community at large.

These groups are representative of many groups around the world who celebrate the life of Robert Burns, a Scottish poet perhaps best known for writing the words of Auld Lang Syne . I know members would agree that symbols are important in both our public as well as our private lives. The historical significance of yesterday's introduction of the Black Rod is just one example.

Symbols represent our identity and how we understand each other, both past and present. Some may ask why a tartan is a symbol for British Columbia. The B.C. tartan was initially created to mark the double centenaries of the union of B.C. and the Confederation of Canada in 1966 and 1967. It was eventually recognized in legislation through the British Columbia Tartan Act of 1974.

The provincial tartan has five colours, each with its own significance: blue for the ocean, white for the dogwood, green for the forests, red for the maple leaf, and gold for the Crown and the sun on the shield and flag.

[1345]

I will say that an official tartan pays tribute to the many and varied contributions of Canadians of Scottish ancestry to Canada. Sir John A. Macdonald and other fathers of Canadian Confederation, who laid down the legal and legislative basis for the new nation of Canada, were Scots. The direct impact of Scottish culture on Canada has been and continues to be significant. So to all the other Scots in the world: happy Robbie Burns.

100 th ANNIVERSARY

OF WESTMINSTER BUILDING

D. Black: On numerous occasions I've spoken in this House about the rich heritage of the city of New Westminster, the oldest city in western Canada and the first capital of British Columbia.

Today another milestone was celebrated in the Royal City at a special ceremony held to honour the 100th anniversary of the construction of the Westminster Building. Located on Columbia Street, this iconic landmark has been home to many notable businesses over the years. At seven storeys high, it was for many decades one of the tallest buildings in the city.

The current owners have established a centennial fund to take on projects which will honour the building's history and leave an appropriate legacy for the future. They've asked local historian Archie Miller to begin researching the building's construction, to research the tenants, and have put out a call to New Westminster residents to pass on any old photos or stories related to the building's past. In addition, they are looking for partners to invest in a series of LED spotlights, similar to the ones used to illuminate heritage buildings in Vancouver's Gastown.

For many years the flagpole on the roof of the building was a city landmark, pictured in photos and postcards from years gone by. But it was taken down many years ago. To celebrate the building's 100th birthday, today, National Flag Day in Canada, our flag will proudly fly atop the roof of this heritage building once again.

I know the citizens of New Westminster join me in thanking the owners for all they are doing to preserve the Westminster Building and to ensure it continues as a city icon for another 100 years.

CAMPAIGN TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST

ABORIGINAL WOMEN AND CHILDREN

G. Hogg: Last year Paul Lacerte, executive director of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, attended a national conference on ending violence towards aboriginal women and children, and 160 people attended. Only five were men. That bothered Paul.

Last September Paul watched his daughter Raven skin a moose, and he saw much more than his daughter skinning a moose. He had a vision; he saw an opportunity. He

[ Page 9155 ]

saw a gathering, a movement to get aboriginal and non-aboriginal women and men to stand up against violence towards women and children. He started gathering and cutting moosehide, and the movement gained support and focus. The moosehide campaign had begun, and today aboriginal men have made a commitment to stop violence against women and children.

Vancouver Island did not have moose, so they cut deerhide, and their motto became "You don't have to hide, dear." The Kent prison cut bearhide, and their motto became "We can't bear to harm our women and children." From the era of residential schools to the era of self-responsibility, awareness is growing and action is occurring. They wear, we will all wear, moosehide pins, deerhide pins and bearhide pins to show our commitment to action, to talk to friends and relations, to take a stand.

Today the moosehide campaign is here in the provincial capital, and each of us honours all men who are standing up, who are speaking up and who are taking action to support healthy, caring relationships and communities, who are standing up to become part of the solution.

Next week Paul is taking the moosehide campaign to the national meeting of the Assembly of First Nations. We are all honoured to support the spread of the campaign to aboriginal organizations and communities throughout Canada. Today we raise our hands to all who are committed to the moosehide campaign.

TOQUE TUESDAY CAMPAIGN

AND YOUTH HOMELESSNESS

S. Hammell: Last week British Columbians joined Canadians from coast to coast for Toque Tuesday, a collective effort to help put a cap on youth homelessness throughout Canada. The winter toque campaign is a fund- and awareness-raiser by raising the roof, with the purpose of drawing attention to the rise of youth homelessness across our country. These toques are sold for $10 by community volunteers.

[1350]

Today I rise to recognize the work Pacific Community Resources has accomplished this year with the toque campaign. The national campaign set a goal of selling 45,000 toques across Canada, and Pacific Community Resources doubled their sales from last year, selling over 3,000 toques throughout the Lower Mainland.

Last week on Toque Tuesday I attended an event in Surrey where members of the Surrey Fire Fighters, the RCMP, the B.C. Lions and the Surrey Eagles were joined by locals from The Front Room shelter for a game of hockey and a barbecue. Two members of this House, the members for Surrey-Whalley and Surrey-Fleetwood, participated in the hockey game, helping to draw attention to the homeless issue in Surrey.

If we all act, we can prevent much of the homelessness we see throughout British Columbia. These toques are a fun and easy way we can commit ourselves to helping the cause. If you see a volunteer selling a toque, consider a purchase. One toque is equivalent to a bus pass or clothing for a youth's first job interview. Ten toques is equivalent to one week in supportive housing for a youth, and 200 toques is enough to support a youth to go back to school for a year or enrol in an apprenticeship program for two months. If we work together, we can put a cap on homelessness here in British Columbia.

RIDGE MEADOWS

SOUTH ASIAN CULTURAL SOCIETY

M. Dalton: I'm pleased today to speak to the House about an organization that, since 2006, has been doing a great work in my constituency, the Ridge Meadows South Asian Cultural Society. The mission of the association is to reflect the rich diversity and heritage of the peoples of South Asia and their contribution to Canadian society. The society has provided tens of thousands of dollars in funding to local charities such as the Family Education and Support Centre, the Ridge Meadows Hospital and the Cythera House.

Each February the society hosts a gala featuring South Asian dance, musical performances and delicious food. Their galas are always a success, with near-sellout crowds.

This year's gala will welcome Mr. Anand Kumar, a globally recognized mathematician from India. Mr. Kumar overcame poverty and created the Super 30, a program which helps coach financially challenged students. Super 30 has been featured on the Discovery Channel and the BBC and has received international acclaim.

At the annual gala the society also recognizes a South Asian citizen of the year. Through their work, the society inspires pride in their own heritage as well as their Canadian identity. The Ridge Meadows South Asian Cultural Society demonstrates the values we share as Canadians and how meeting the needs of our community pulls us together.

The society was started under the leadership of Dr. Biju Mathew. Other members of the board include Regie Mali, Ed and Paul Gurm, Rustum Yezdargian, Randhir Sanghera and Paul Gill. Mr. Speaker, for all of the work that the society has done and continues to do, we thank them.

REVELSTOKE CHILDREN’S CHARTER

N. Macdonald: In 1989 the United Nations adopted the convention on the rights of the child. This important initiative addresses the rights of children everywhere.

On January 12 Revelstoke unveiled its own children's charter to raise awareness and understanding of the roles

[ Page 9156 ]

we all have in striving for the best outcomes for children. Revelstoke has long been a leader in making the community a safe and nurturing place for children. In fact, in 2009 Revelstoke was found to have the lowest recorded vulnerability in its preschool population of any community in British Columbia. Revelstoke has been recognized for its exceptional programming and its resilient partnerships. It is with great determination that those who work in the early childhood education field and the teachers in our school system meet each new challenge.

The Revelstoke children's charter is just one more step in Revelstoke's ongoing commitment to excellence in this critically important area. As MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke, I was proud to accept and endorse the Revelstoke children's charter. By signing, I agreed to recognize and advocate for children's rights.

But I also agreed to ask this question before making decisions on legislation and policy. What impact will this decision have on our children?

The Revelstoke children's charter lists 15 things that all Revelstoke children have a right to, and the 15th item is this: all Revelstoke children have the right to "be served by governments that honour their responsibilities to children."

[1355]

So to truly implement the goals of the children's charter, we cannot just depend on local citizens to ask the hard questions about how to ensure that our decisions put our children first. We as a provincial government and as elected officials must also take this pledge.

Oral Questions

DELAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

AND INTERNET LURING CASE

A. Dix: My question is for the Premier.

On January 25 Judge Daniel Steinberg of the Provincial Court stayed charges against a man accused of attempting to lure children on line for sexual purposes.

Judge Steinberg, in dismissing the case due to a 27-month delay, had this to say: "There is…only one word to describe the current state of the Provincial Court of British Columbia's ability to handle its caseload: abysmal."

We are losing more and more cases, and increasingly serious cases. I'm sure the Premier would agree that cases involving sections 152 and 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code count in that category. When is her government going to realize the seriousness of the crisis they caused in the court system and take real action to fix it?

Hon. C. Clark: We are taking real action to fix this. We have been taking real action on it. That includes the appointment of 23 new judges — nine in just this last month; the hiring of new sheriffs; more money for legal aid; a doubling of the jail capacity in the Interior.

All of that is a substantial investment in a system that needs it — no question about it — because stays and delays are unacceptable for victims. They are unacceptable for society. No one wants the system to work that way.

But here's the thing. We're putting more money in at the same time that crime is dropping, that the number of cases going to court is dropping, and the length of cases is actually staying the same. It just doesn't add up. We are adding more money to the system, but in addition to that, we have a greater responsibility to British Columbians. That is to get to the bottom of why, while there is more money and less work coming into the system, the delays are getting longer.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: This circumstance is not happening in other jurisdictions. This is the direct result of years of inaction by the government. A 13-judge shortfall — the only province in Canada to have allowed this to happen. Closures of courthouses. A 16-month delay in Surrey, on average; 16 months in Chilliwack, on average; 14 months in Vancouver and Port Coquitlam, on average. That's what's happening.

You know what? It didn't happen overnight. It's happened because of years of action and inaction on the part of the government. It's one thing to complain about judges, which apparently is what the government is doing. It's another thing to take the issue seriously, and the government hasn't.

The judge in this case said: "I find that the consequences of the government's decision-making and priority-setting have meant the creation in this case, as in many others, of an intolerable delay. It offends the very real need…to suppress predatory behaviour on the Internet. The government has spoken through its actions, and the stay…is the consequence."

When is the government, when is the Premier, going to take real action to address the crisis, the real crisis, in our court system?

Hon. C. Clark: This is an issue that deserves a great deal of government attention, and we are making sure we devote that attention to it. Victims — and citizens in general, more broadly — need to know that the justice system is working for them.

Confidence in our justice system across this country has been at a low ebb for over a decade. We have a lot of work to do to try and enhance that. We need to increase transparency in our courts. That's certainly one of the things we can do. We need to add resources, which we have been doing, as I said. We've already added nine new judges in just the last month, and a number of other areas. We are making substantial systemic reform in areas like

[ Page 9157 ]

family law by diverting a large number of cases from our court system out to much less costly mediation. We are continuing those reforms.

[1400]

But we need, as I said, to get to the bottom of this problem because as we add more money, as we divert cases from court and as the crime rate goes down, the delays get longer. We spend more per capita in British Columbia on our court system than they do in Ontario. We need to understand more deeply why money isn't just solving the problem.

I know the Leader of the Opposition has one solution to every problem, and it's just to spend more money. Well, here's one case where we've already shown that that isn't enough to make it work.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: The Premier of British Columbia seems to suggest that the government of the last 11 years — the only government in Canada to reduce the number of judges over the last five years — has no responsibility for the catastrophe that is happening. When you see a stay in a case involving attempting to lure children for sexual purposes on the Internet — you see a stay in such a case — that's a crisis. That's serious business.

I don't accept the fact. I don't accept the view of the government that they don't have the resources to deal with these issues. They ought to deal with these issues. They are a priority in British Columbia.

To quote again from Judge Steinberg: "There is no amount of press releases or talk show appearances that is going to fix the overstretched limits of our institutional resources. There is only one course of action that will fix the current situation, and that is action, not words." Those are the words of the Provincial Court judge.

Will the government accept its responsibility for this crisis that's happened under its watch? What action — what serious action — are they going to take to fix it?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, let me read the member some quotes from the newspaper. "A backlog of 20,000 court cases has some accused criminals walking free, and Crown prosecutors are planning to revolt." That's pretty serious business. It's from the Vancouver Province , on October 2, 1998.

Let me read you another one. "It's a systemwide overload, the chief judge said. The Attorney General said Tuesday he is very concerned about the mounting backlog of court cases and considering the appointment of possibly three new judges." That's from the Vancouver Sun , October 30, 1997.

This is a very serious problem. It's something that our government is absolutely focused on fixing. So what we need to recognize, though, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, whose answer for every problem is: "Just spend more money. Just raise citizens' taxes. Go get the money, spend it, and you'll solve the problem."

I don't think that just raising taxes and spending money is going to solve a problem like this one. We have been adding new resources to the justice system. We are going to continue to do that as part of systemic reform. But as I said, the numbers don't add up. We have a much greater responsibility to those people in 1997 and the people today who aren't being adequately served because we haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet.

K. Corrigan: This party has been in government for 11 years. It has overseen…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: …the dismantling of the justice system and has done nothing to address it. Judge Steinberg's reasons for staying the charges are a damning indictment of this government's mismanagement of the justice system for years and years. He says:

[1405]

"The nature of this charge is one that society in general has a very strong interest in seeing determined by trial in the ongoing effort to suppress the avenues of harm which have opened up, given the current ubiquitous nature of the Internet, its easy access to people of all ages and the need to protect vulnerable young people who may fall prey to Internet predators. There is no question in my mind that there is a very strong societal interest in this matter."

The most serious of charges — huge potential for harm if we as a society are not able to prosecute such cases successfully. Yet here we have the accused walking free after a 27-month delay, more than two years.

So my question is to the minister responsible for our justice system. When is she going to fix these problems and make sure that those accused of the most serious of offences do not walk free without a trial?

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, I would like to share another quote with the member opposite. "Criminal cases are delayed to the point where we risk dismissal or reduction of thousands of charges," Chief Judge Robert Metzger said, "because the court system is unable to meet the accused's right to trial within a reasonable time." Unfortunately, it's a little inconvenient for the member opposite. That happened in the Vancouver Sun in 1998.

The issue is that we have a system in need of reform, and in fact, that's exactly what we've been doing. This government, for example, began the community court. And let me tell the member opposite that, in fact, we're seeing a new way of trying to manage people who are very complicated to deal with within the court system. Just recently we celebrated the tenth anniversary of the drug court in British Columbia — unbelievable success, [ Page 9158 ]

ten years of success.

This government began to focus on prolific offenders, because the tragic circumstance in the justice system is that a small percentage of people continue to come in and out of our system, in and out of our system. So we created a prolific-offender program. We have continued to look at innovation. We're going to do that, but we're also going to look at how we can ask some questions about systemic reform.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, maybe the Premier and maybe the minister can be responsible and take some action today, instead of asking the people of this province to watch yet another criminal go free as we talk about systemic change somewhere down the road, in a year or two.

In his judgment Judge Steinberg quotes from Associate Chief Judge Gurmail Gill in a recent case of impaired driving that was stayed:

"The current delays being experienced in the justice system are not ones that can be described as temporary or unforeseen, nor do they stem from a sudden upswing in case volumes overwhelming the system. Clearly, the cause of the problem is a court with significant and chronic reduction in complement, despite the provision to government of timely and detailed information outlining the shortage as well as the potential consequences of failing to address it."

Not temporary, not unforeseen. You were warned time and time again, yet this government continued to ignore the overwhelming evidence and cut our justice system far beyond what it could handle.

My question, again, is to the minister responsible for the justice system. When is she going to stop ignoring the evidence and fix these problems now?

Hon. S. Bond: As a result of some of the significant reforms that we've made as a government, we've seen 13,000 fewer cases actually show up in courtrooms across British Columbia. And we're going to continue to look at reform.

In fact, this is the government who, for the first time in three decades, revitalized the Family Law Act. Why is that important? It's important not just because families are numbers and that we need to be concerned about backlogs. It's important because there are different ways for families to find resolution in complex, very combative circumstances.

[1410]

So what we're going to do is move those cases out of courtrooms wherever possible. In fact, for the first time in a long time we actually had a constructive, positive discussion about that in this Legislature. That's the kind of constructive behaviour that we'd love to see. We discussed the Family Law Act. We agreed that it needed to be changed. Those are the kinds of reforms that are going to make long-term differences in the province of British Columbia.

L. Krog: I'm not sure about the long-term differences, but in the short term criminals walk the streets of British Columbia who should be in jail. The fact is if this government spent more time looking forward instead of looking in a rearview mirror, perhaps they'd take the time and put the resources into dealing with the issues that affect British Columbians today.

This serious shortage of judges arose because of deliberate government policy. The reason people are walking the streets is because of deliberate government policy. Those aren't my words. Those are the words of Provincial Court judges across this province, who have said it over and over again. This government closed courthouses. A previous government actually opened courthouses.

So perhaps today in this chamber this government could take seriously a fundamental responsibility of every democratic government, which is public safety. I'd like to hear this Premier stand up today and tell us what she's actually going to do to ensure that there aren't more dreadful cases like the one discussed in this chamber today, appearing in the newspapers. What is she actually going to do?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all — and we've been very clear about this — any stay is one that's unacceptable. In fact, what we're going to do is continue to work on the kinds of reform that British Columbia has actually led in. Let's look at one of them right here in Victoria. We have an innovative Victoria Integrated Court. That court dealt with approximately 100 offenders in the first year, and it operates with brand-new justice resources.

You see, Mr. Speaker, it's not simply about continuing to look at the court system the way it exists today. We actually have to be bold, ask questions about what we can do. But in fact, that's at the same time that we've been investing resources.

Let's look at streamlining small claims court procedures, for example, at Robson Square. In fact, we have special mediators and justices of the peace instead of higher-cost Provincial Court judges. Imagine this. Over 4,000 cases were included in the project evaluation. They were resolved, I might note, 39.2 percent more quickly than the old system and at a lower cost to taxpayers. I'd say that's an example of what we are doing.

OMBUDSPERSON REPORT ON SENIORS CARE

AND SENIORS ADVOCATE

K. Conroy: When it comes to care for seniors, it's clear that the government's actions don't match their words. After all, this is a government that in 2005 brought in the seniors budget and promised "the best system of supports in Canada for seniors." Well, yesterday the Ombudsman came out with a scathing report that clearly shows the Liberals have failed on almost every front in seniors care.

[ Page 9159 ]

Since 2007 the opposition has been calling for a seniors advocate. The Premier could make it happen immediately, not wait six months for more consultation — now. There's a bill on the order paper that could be passed very quickly. Will the Premier commit today to a first step in real action to give seniors an independent voice and bring in a seniors advocate without delay?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I'm delighted that the member has paid attention to the government's actions on seniors. I'm also glad that the Ombudsman…. I want to thank the Ombudsman on behalf of the government and everybody in the Legislature for her very hard work on what I know was a long project for her and one that looked very deeply into some of the issues there.

We are responding to it, and we are responding to it with a seniors advocate. We want to make sure that seniors in British Columbia have a voice to the government, so we are going to make sure that happens. I know that the Health Minister — who's in Winnipeg today, by the way — is working on that.

[1415]

But I just want to be clear about the government's record on seniors. We have reduced access to residential care from one year, as it was in 2001, to 90 days today. That's pretty good. There is no longer a threshold for the homeowner's grant for seniors. I think that's pretty good as well. Shelter aid for elderly renters now goes out to more than 15,000 eligible seniors. We've renewed the seniors supplement. In addition to that, seniors who are earning less than $40,000 a year pay $1,000 less in taxes today than they did in 2001.

I guarantee you this, Mr. Speaker. That's one thing that absolutely would not be true if the NDP were still in government today.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind members not to acknowledge whether a member is in the House or not in the House.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Let's talk about some of the real stories, the real situations that happened to seniors in the last ten years — stories like Eldon Mooney, the senior who choked to death at Sunrise of Lynn Valley and whose family was told that he died peacefully in his sleep. In 2007 we brought up tragedies that occurred at Beacon Hill Villa.

Go back to 2006, just after the seniors budget was announced in this House, and recall the story of the Albos from Rossland, who were split up and died away from each other after 70 years of being married. Under the Premier's so-called agenda, it will be the fall at the earliest before we see a seniors advocate introduced in this Legislature.

If the Premier is serious, if she wants to ensure that seniors have an independent voice now and that stories like we're talking about today don't continue to happen, she will get up today and bring forward the legislation that's on the order paper and ensure a seniors advocate is here now.

Hon. C. Clark: I want to first acknowledge the pain that those families have felt, the pain that the families the member has referenced have felt as a result of this.

My own mother struggled with a brain tumour for many months in hospital. I cared for her in my home toward the end of her life. I understand just how difficult that is. To be struggling, in addition, with news like the member has talked about is incredibly difficult and only adds to people's grief.

Having said that, though, there are thousands of people in British Columbia who dedicate their lives selflessly to looking after seniors. Many of them are volunteers; many of them are paid to do that and make it their life's work.

We have an excellent system for caring for senior citizens. We need to make sure that we continue to improve that, though. A seniors advocate will be part of that improvement, but so will making sure that we have detailed residential care facility inspection reports, making sure that we have consistent provincewide standards for all seniors care services and a whole number of other things that the Health Minister talked about yesterday. This is an incredibly important issue for our province and our country, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we get it right.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I think those comments by the Government House Leader there indicate this government's attitude to this report. It frightens them. It frightens them so much that they call it a prop.

A report with 176 recommendations about the state of seniors care in the province of British Columbia, 143 findings and stories about a husband who had to lobby for over a month for his wife to get an X-ray. And that's the minister's response? It's a prop? That says more about this government than anything else you can imagine, hon. Speaker. One of the key….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Boy, have we touched a nerve.

One of the key recommendations in this report is around advocacy, something this side of the House has been pushing for years against a government that's been in power for 11 years.

[1420]

[ Page 9160 ]

With 176 recommendations and six months just to decide on one, one can only imagine how long it's going to take to deal with the other recommendations.

So my question to the Premier is this. There's a bill on the order papers right now that will enact a seniors advocate. Will the Premier commit to doing that today?

Hon. C. Clark: In fact, I'm delighted to inform the House that we committed to doing that — to appointing a seniors advocate — yesterday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FAMILY FARM TAX CASE

M. Sather: Enno Pate and his family have farmed the same land in Pitt Meadows since 1951. Enno's dad died in 1979, and his mom passed away in 2008 after two months in hospital and three months in hospice.

Enno inherited the farm, and he was shocked to discover that he's not going to be receiving the family farm tax exemption simply because his mother died in hospital. Mr. Pate is also being nailed with a $90,000 tax bill.

Will the minister address this issue today? Will he assure Mr. Pate that he will get his tax exemption?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I think probably the appropriate thing to do is to share the information with my office. I'd be happy to look into that in further detail for the member.

Generally speaking, the rules are fairly clear with respect to how we treat a farming property. If there was farming that was taking place on that property prior to an incident, a very unfortunate incident like the individual that was deceased, it continues to be treated as farm property.

But I would be very happy to get all of the details from the member opposite and clarify that for the member and try and settle this for the family in a manner that is respectful of the loss they've obviously suffered.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: Well, I e-mailed my letter to the minister on January 9 or 10 and sent it to him, as well, by mail. I haven't received a response.

Now not only has Mr. Pate lost his mother, but he's being assessed with a huge bill that he can ill afford. This government decision is ridiculous. Why should a farmer have to be on their farm when they die in order that their family can get the tax exemption?

What about if they go to hospital and they die the next day in hospital? The family is not eligible for the family farm tax exemption? What about if they're on holiday for a couple weeks and they die? The family is not eligible for the family farm tax exemption?

I'd like to know how the minister — first of all, that he would become up to date on it — could justify this blatant tax grab and this miscarriage of justice. And I need him to get up to speed and commit today that he will do the right thing and restore Mr. Pate's tax exemption.

Hon. K. Falcon: That

interpretation is just so incredibly irresponsible. The member should at least know that this and decisions made by the tax department of the ministry are made in accordance with legislation. It is not individuals that just individually can make their own decisions on each case. It is legislation.

I would also point out the exact same legislation that existed back in the decade in which they were in government. I imagine that there may have been the occasional case that came forward then, too, that they would have had to look at whether that required a legislative change. None was made.

Now, as I've indicated to the member….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: And he keeps yelling out, "Read your mail," and of course I do read my mail, as I'm sure all members of this House do. We get a large volume of mail, and I do my very best to get back as quickly and as efficiently as we possibly can. And I will do that in this particular case too.

[1425]

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT

PORTABLE USE AND FUNDING

H. Bains: Surrey school district has grown by over 2,700 students since 2005-2006, the last year the school district received any government approval for capital to add any school space.

We now have more than 7,000 students in over 250 portables because of this government's failure to invest in new schools in this fastest-growing community. That's why it's so disappointing that four months after hosting a photo op promising new schools for Surrey, we're still waiting to deliver on that promise.

My question to the minister is this. It takes years to build a school, years that our students will be forced to spend in portables rather than real classrooms. Why are Surrey families still waiting for this government to deliver on school funding that was promised last October?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I'm very pleased to advise the member that I had a very good meeting just last week with the board of education of Surrey school district. We talked about the capital projects. They were very, very grateful for the over $100 million investment in Surrey

[ Page 9161 ]

that was announced. That was part of a $353 million investment across this province in new education facilities, including two new schools in Surrey, two new additions in Surrey, three new school sites in Surrey. And we look forward to working with Surrey on this.

I must say that one of the things we don't want to do — because I appreciate the member's reference to portables and to parents being anxious that their kids are not always in portables…. The one thing we wouldn't want to do is get back to the 1990s when 363 portables were in operation in Surrey school district alone — 363 portables.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Ministerial Statements

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Hon. H. Bloy: I am pleased to inform the House that the government has proclaimed the month of February 2012 Black History Month in British Columbia.

We are a culturally rich and diversified society, and people of African descent have been a vibrant part of British Columbia since at least 1858. During this time they have made notable contributions to cultural, economic, political and social development in the province.

I am proud as minister responsible for multiculturalism that we are able to recognize and commemorate these contributions by people of African heritage by proclaiming February 2012 Black History Month.

A. Dix: I think it's fair to say…. Of course, as you know, hon. Speaker, ordinarily in this House when ministerial statements are made they are shared with the opposition and so on. And sometimes people forget, and that's okay.

But this is a really important issue in British Columbia. I really advise people — and the minister, I think, will have some information on his website — that if they look up on the Internet, Black History Month, the number of events during this month, people can go to and learn about the history of British Columbia.

This Legislature is part of that history, because of the extraordinary contribution of a former Speaker of the House, Emery Barnes, who made just an enormous difference. He came to British Columbia to play professional football and stayed and made an enormous difference. Rosemary Brown, who did the same, and so many others.

So I really recommend to people that they get involved in just what the minister is talking about. We should get involved and attend the events of Black History Month. It will make, I think…. The learning experience for all of us would be one to follow.

I'd like to cite just the works of one author, Wayde Compton, who's written about these books. I recommend those books. They're available here in the Legislative Library to all people to British Columbia.

[1430]

I think it is very important that we take the opportunity to learn about the history of our province and to ensure, hon. Speaker, that some of the mistakes in our history that have been made in the past aren't repeated and that we celebrate the extraordinary history of British Columbia, especially during Black History Month, the history of black Canadians in British Columbia.

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Chong: I rise to table a report. I have the honour to present the 2011 annual report for the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

J. Horgan: I seek unanimous consent to move second reading of Bill M203, the Representative for Seniors Act, 2011, in the name of the member for Kootenay West.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, it has to be by leave. Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we'll continue second reading of Bill 20, intituled the Auditor General for Local Government Act. Should we complete second reading, we will move to second reading of Bill 18, intituled Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. And should, on the very outside of possibilities, we finish second reading on that, we would then move to second reading of Bill 15, the Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

Mr. Speaker: Members, hurry off to your other commitments.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — AUDITOR GENERAL FOR LOCAL

GOVERNMENT ACT

(continued)

G. Gentner: I rise to address the Auditor General for Local Government Act, Bill 20.

[ Page 9162 ]

It's certainly been a wonderful time over the last couple of months for me and my family, relative to the newborns that have entered our domain, so to speak. I rise to speak on a very important bill which I believe is going to affect the relationship, the well-known good relationship, that senior levels of government have had and have tried to have with local government for several years.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

You know, hon. Speaker, I do sit on Public Accounts, and I have to tell you that there are different

interpretations of auditing and what it all means. Frankly, auditing is indeed a numbers game. How you play those numbers can be interpreted many different ways. Of course, what auditors general try and do most importantly…. They don't deal necessarily with the policy of government; they deal with performance based on the criteria set out, namely through budgets, etc.

Now, we on this side endorse accountability, and we also endorse, of course, performance audits. They are what make us representative and accountable to the people we represent. But it's very important that we have a third opinion to look at how government and governments are dealing with their day-to-day taxes. But you know, if only the present government would take heed of what the present British Columbia Auditor General reports, there might be some hope, some optimism, within this bill — optimism for the so-called new Auditor General for Local Government Act or, as formerly referred to before, MAG, the municipal auditor for local government.

[1435]

I don't know why we changed, shifted gears here. I guess it came from MAG, and I guess the acronym now is AGLG, the auditor general for local government. Perhaps the spin doctors opposite decided that referring to it as a MAG seems to cheapen it. Maybe we're talking about a magazine or a tabloid or something of that nature.

The auditor general for local government had to be spun a little differently. I mean, is it really the auditor general for local government? I think in many ways, when you read the document, it's the auditor general for the Liberal government — AGLG. That's really it, isn't it?

This is a bill that's being presented in order to deal with this government's

interpretation of how to look at municipal books. When you decipher the code, I think that's what it really means. It means a bill that's really set up to be a whipping post of local government and the blame game to defer this government's own mismanagement into municipalities, who are in many ways more transparent than this government will ever know.

I know that from personal experience because I did sit on municipal council for a number of years, and it's quite an arduous process in order to present a budget. The process starts in October. You go through it thoroughly. You go through it publicly. You have the meetings in front of the public. The public has a right to examine it. It goes through arduous oversight. So I think it's very much for us to dig a little deeper into what's being presented here in Bill 20.

Now, let's begin by looking at the auditor general for local government and its definition of "local government" within the act. Local government "means (

a) a municipality, (

b) a regional district, (

c) a greater board, (

d) a board, a commission, a corporation or another organization that…is…controlled by one or more municipalities, regional districts or greater boards." I want to keep that in mind — "greater board" or a board "controlled by one or more municipalities."

Which brings me to TransLink. A municipal board or another independent Crown? Or is it like B.C. Ferries? It's sort of in this grey area that we haven't been able to decide. The government opposite has put it in limbo. And according to the definition, is it a board that had some control by municipalities, or is it another nefarious Crown corporation?

In the aftermath of this uncertainty, we're hearing quite recently from various mayors and their belief that TransLink, which is a huge organization, should be audited. We heard from the mayor of Surrey that an audit should be conducted on TransLink, and Mayor Jackson of Delta has referred to the board as nothing more than a board that spends money like drunken sailors.

The question is: is there an independent audit that can be conducted on TransLink? And most of the mayors are saying to this bill: "Well, if that's what this bill is all about, bring it on. Bring it on. Yeah, we're for it."

On October 27, 2011, the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation, also known as the Mayors Council, in a public meeting called the government's bill by challenging how far the municipal auditor general would go regarding municipal expenditures in governance including a performance audit.

They met and resolved that the government was set to go ahead with MAG, as it was called. If there's an independent agency that wants to audit local government, let's begin with the biggest elephant in the room — TransLink. Makes sense.

[1440]

The resolution was: "Whereas the Premier of the government of British Columbia has indicated the intention of the government to forthwith appoint a municipal auditor general to review matters involving value for money…." The municipalities and regions called the government, therefore, on its intent. And what is the intent? I believe it's a whipping post to blame municipal governments for misrepresenting the taxpayer — to open the books, so to speak.

However, we have to do the comparative analysis. In my years on municipal council versus the years in this House, I would trust the local government's accountabil-

[ Page 9163 ]

ity any day over the shenanigans of the government opposite. We've gone through the HST. We talk about the brochure that went out to support it, the lack of transparency. There seems to be hesitancy, hiding, sneakiness. We still wait for a bill to rescind, with an honest discussion about the accounting of our own revenues and taxation. Yet here we are today debating how we're going to go after municipal governments.

Now, the Mayors Council challenged the fortitude of this government by saying: "Okay, bring it on. Let's have it." I have the letter, a receipt from the minister herself relative to the letter sent. In many ways what the council said was: "Therefore

be it resolved that the Mayors Council…request the Minister of Transportation and the province to include TransLink under the eye and umbrella of the new municipal auditor general…." The eye and the umbrella — they requested that. I think the eye is really being poked by the umbrella.

The request went to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development early in November, and the minister's decision was not received until January 11. Why so long for such a decision? Because I think the ministry had already made up its mind and really wasn't going to change it.

In the letter from the minister back to the Mayors Council, this is what the minister said regarding auditing TransLink: "I appreciate the resolution from the Mayors Council as a vote of confidence that the auditor general for local government will provide real value by helping local governments identify ways to get the best value for money for their services and operations." The government is saying: "You want to play? That's really nice. That's really wonderful, but…." Ah, the old "but" — that conjunction of hypocrisy, if you will.

The letter goes on to say, "However, the resolution raises a number of questions" — a number of questions. "For example, how would a role for the auditor general for local government work in relation to TransLink's unique governance structure…?" Interesting — unique governance structure.

Suddenly maybe it isn't under the purview of municipal government — a structure that was put in place, however, by the former Minister of Transportation and minister of megaprojects, who now, of course, is the Minister of Finance. You know, we've created a lack of accountability by creating this new governance model, and they're saying now that it's unique. Well, you're not auditable after all. We can't audit you because you are, after all, a rare species created by us, the government. That's interesting, isn't it? It's unique, and maybe because it's unique, we will not use this new tool to look at the biggest elephant in the room, which is supposedly represented by municipal government.

I go on. "For example, how would a role for the AGLG work in relation to TransLink's unique governance structure, wherein the Mayors Council itself plays a key oversight role in reviewing and approving transportation plans developed by the board of directors?" That's rich. No, hold it. The mayors — suddenly it's agreed upon — play a role, a key role in the B.C. Liberals' downloading onto their decisions. I mean, they're now saying: "You are the players, municipalities. You control the oversight. You review. You approve transportation plans."

[1445]

But hang on a second. This instrument of government, this new auditor general, will not have the ability to do the proper audit. I mean, I find that quite astounding. You know, plans. Here it says, "You have the ability for transportation plans, municipalities' plans developed by our process of selecting who we want on the board" — we the government. Yeah, they're saying to municipal governments: "You're all players, but let's not audit the books under this new type of system." I think that's hypocrisy. That's hypocritical.

It goes on to say: "Additionally, the mandate of the provincial Office of the Auditor General includes scrutiny of provincial money provided to TransLink." The provincial Auditor General can audit the money we so graciously give to TransLink. We're going to allow him to go 100 percent on the capital money we send to the regional system of TransLink. Interesting. We'll let him do it.

When it comes down to performance, well, he can't just do a complete job. I mean, how can you audit TransLink if you're going to just look at maybe a third of the expenditures of the revenue relative to capital? But when it comes on the operational side — no, sorry. The provincial auditor won't do it. He can't do it. No wonder he won't do it. He has to look at the whole enchilada.

The government says in the letter here — the minister: "Oh, the provincial auditor can audit, but only a portion of it. The rest we cannot audit relative to, of course, this new mandate of ours, the local government auditor who will not be allowed to do so."

The letter goes on to say…. I also have to ask the question of property taxes. And we know what the new organization and structure of TransLink is: the ability to raid money from property tax holders in order to pay for the infrastructure and the operation of TransLink. That was something that was foisted upon by this government, a new shift on revenue. The provincial government had their hand in certain tools, able to find moneys. However, when it came down to property taxes, it was generally accepted that that would be looked after — given to, of course — by the local government.

But that's what the government did. It endorsed this new ability to take money from property homeowners to pay for TransLink. That's fine and dandy. But now the government says: "But it's not our fault where the money is coming from and how it's spent." You know what? That's up to the B.C. Auditor General's domain, who is limited on what he can do. They're also saying, of

[ Page 9164 ]

course, when it comes now to this new auditor, he's not going to be responsible at all for TransLink. It's no wonder the B.C. Auditor General won't touch this TransLink, because we know that's really quite a political mess created by the Liberals.

To continue, the minister says: "How would it work to have two different auditors general with different mandates looking at this one unique entity?" Hello? We're not going to do two audits. We're not even going to allow one audit. I guess I'm missing something here. This is a government that rants and raves about the need for accountability, but it's not even willing to step in and audit, help the local governments in the region who are supposed to be partners of a major corporation called TransLink. They're not going to allow them to do what's right through this instrument that's here today in Bill 20.

What they're really saying is: "Gee…." Let me read that again. How would it work to have two different auditors general with different mandates looking at this unique entity? "Gee," the government is saying, "We really don't know what to do." Two audits. We've got one that is independent, arm's-length, called the B.C. Auditor General, who's accountable to this House, and the other one that's our so-called in-house auditor general. It won't work. So we won't have an audit at all. Wow. And you wonder why the mayors are upset.

[1450]

The litmus test, the elephant in the room, is TransLink. We want accountability, and this government is introducing a bill today that's excusing any audit on TransLink — the runaway train itself. Let me continue with this lovely soft letter from the government, from the minister: "These are just two examples of the issues the province would need to think through in looking at the Mayors Council resolution." La-di-da. "We're going to think it through." In other words, it's negligence. "We are going to neglect an audit on TransLink because that criteria does not fit into our new bill."

You have to ask yourself why. How would it work to have two different auditors general with different mandates looking at this one unique entity? In other words: "We've messed it up so bad, this entity, that we won't audit it. We created a problem, but local government, you deal with it, because we're not going to put the instruments to do so in this bill relative to the governance and accountability of local government and regions."

I mean, this is a very condescending letter. It's irresponsible to treat local governments this way — and, of course, the taxpayers. The province is going to have to think it through. Aw-shucks. Golly. You're unique, but not that unique. You're not a municipal or local government entity.

But this is what the minister of the day — who's now, of course, the Minister of Finance — said about the incorporation of TransLink, the changeover. This is what he said when he introduced the TransLink board and handpicked the TransLink board itself. "This will allow politicians" — municipal politicians — "to do what they do best — determine the strategic vision, approve long-term strategic plans and set future directions." The minister of the day said: "There will be no confusion about who's making decisions on their constituents' behalf."

Okay, so what do we have? TransLink sits in limbo. The minister now says: "Well, it's a unique situation. These people will not be allowed to force us to do an audit through this new auditor general." Yet the previous minister said: "No, no. TransLink is yours." Talk about doublespeak. Talk about poppycock.

I mean, this is a huge entity that's getting away, and because it's unique and the government refuses to deal with it, we have no idea of performance. We know why the mayors are screaming. We hear about the fare evasion, the runaway costs. No wonder people are upset.

The government, in its vision, has decided to create a bill that's going to deal with local government. The former minister said: "Well, this is attached and a partner of local government, and the definition makes it very clear that a board that's partnered with local government should be part of this act."

Well, how credible is this act? There's no accountability because the government's hands are tied, so to speak. Yes, let's call it what it really is — the auditor general Liberal government act. It will not create oversight, and it is deemed, as I said earlier, somewhat unique.

Now, we have two different auditor general processes going on. We have the independent current B.C. Auditor General and the other, new auditor general, who is handpicked by the minister indirectly. The auditor general for local government will be accountable to the minister, but not to this Legislature. Let's make that clear.

It'll report. Its reports will not necessarily come to this Legislature. These reports could easily be sanitized, and they can be ready for execution. They can be fired when ready with no defence. So I want to ask: what happened to the process and the appointment — this fair and open and honest government, supposedly?

Unlike the B.C. Auditor General, the new auditor general for the government will pick its own from the government's handpicked audit council. It's sort of similar to what happened with Transit board — isn't it? — where the mayors have got to choose candidates handpicked indirectly by the government.

[1455]

The selection of our Auditor General comes through a rigorous process based on openness and consensus-building. Pursuant to subsections 2(2) and (3) of the Auditor General Act, a special committee of the Legislative Assembly unanimously recommends to the House the Auditor General.

The process is rigorous, open and fair. A special committee is appointed from Public Accounts that represents a balanced proportion of government and opposition.

[ Page 9165 ]

From Public Accounts, the Chair is from the opposition in order to give a watchdog approach to government and, above all, the spending of money — a watchdog not on policy per se but strictly on the money itself or the numbers.

So when you look at the methodology behind picking an auditor general for the province…. I'm reading, basically, the criteria. It said that it should meet the requirements of openness and fairness. The recommendation, therefore, comes to the House unanimously.

But this process is not unanimous. It brings me back to the accountability of the Local Government Act, as we're seeing here. It won't be accountable to this assembly. The auditor general is not an independent agent of government but an instrument of government. The local auditor general is not accountable to municipal leaders. So what happens when you have a quasi–politically appointed auditor general?

Well, we went through it before. We had an Auditor General. His name was Mr. van Iersel. He got the job as the Auditor General. He was not the unanimous choice of the committee members, as he had held a series of senior financial jobs within the government.

You know, I remember when that happened. It came to Public Accounts. We couldn't agree. He had previously been a comptroller general, and there was some discrepancy between agreement about all sides. It was a controversial appointment. As an independent officer of the Legislature, the Auditor General is supposed to have all-party support. The Liberals and the NDP failed to agree on the candidate, so the government, with its majority on the Public Accounts Committee, appointed Mr. van Iersel in an acting role within an indefinite period. They rammed it through.

Now, in the interests of accountability, the House should have unanimously agreed on the candidate and the process of selection with input from municipalities, I believe, as well. That's the role we've been going…. It should be an all-party selection process that is accountable to this House. And yes, we should also consult with the local governments to find ways that they can be included in the selection process.

But that's not happening. Consequently, it became a problem for the government and for Mr. van Iersel to continue to sit as acting Auditor General. He started to lose the confidence. It wasn't his fault. It was the process itself that skewed the office. There were questions around having someone who came from government — again, the comptroller, no less. You were going from being the auditee to the auditor.

The same can be said regarding the integrity of the process behind this bill. However, no one — I want to make it very clear — on this side of the House ever questioned Mr. van Iersel's competency or integrity. But perception is everything, and because of the Liberal politics behind the appointment, Mr. van Iersel was questioned.

He was a good and competent servant, but because he was pushed through by the government without going through due process — which is the same flaw in this present bill —

whereas all parties were unanimous in the selection, he didn't have a chance. So the office itself was in question.

Now, the body that regulates chartered accountants across the province also raised concerns about the independence of B.C.'s acting Auditor General of the day. They were worried about what was going on. I'd certainly like to see what the Institute of Chartered Accountants is going to say relative to this new appointment. I mean, Mr. Arn van Iersel caused a potential problem because he could be in a position of auditing work he did as B.C.'s longtime comptroller general. That was from, of course, the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

[1500]

So I just want to put up the cautionary flag that while the government continues to believe that this is going to be open and transparent, I think it is damaged already. I feel for the new so-called auditor general, because I don't think that he's going to get the confidence — not of this House and certainly not from local government.

I think the real intent here is, again, that we're setting up a system whereby the government can choose certain municipalities as their whipping posts, to blame municipal governments for misrepresenting the taxpayer, to open the books, so to speak. However, any analysis is a comparison analysis, and I have to tell you that in my years in municipal government I believe that we had a very good representation and transparency and were under the eye constantly of those who elected us.

As a result of the accountants institute, they had to have ongoing discussions with the Auditor General to make sure it meets all the independent standards of the day. "There is clearly a potential problem," said the institute's chief executive officer of the day, Richard Rees, "but we will look at whether there's a problem in the context of a very complex set of rules." A complex set of rules — rules whereby the watchdog isn't governed by a political agenda.

That's what the essence of this bill is. We are seeing interference, I believe, in the integrity of an auditor general, where they should be accountable to this House and accountable to municipal leaders and, of course, in this case, TransLink — the partners, the mayors, who want to know what's happening with their transportation systems.

Now, how does this government really treat auditors general? Well, we know. When we talked to Mr. Doyle recently…. He went to the Finance Committee and suggested that their budgets are limited. You know, I'm saying: why don't we take the $2.6 million and put it into our proper Auditor General and put together a sub–auditor general that is accountable to this House? But that didn't happen.

[ Page 9166 ]

Currently, when you go to his office in Bastion Square, what do we find? They're not putting any money into that infrastructure. In fact, there are rats running around the corridors of our Auditor General, and they're now going to go ahead and open up a new AG — I mean, heaven for these furry little guys. We're talking about big rats. They've got names for them. Big rats. The former Premier — I can see him standing right now with his hands out. This is how it would go. He'd say: "Big rats." And you know, with his protégé, Mini-Me, who is now the Minister of Finance. He'd go: "Oh no, they're big.

They're bigger rats. They're even bigger." But this is what the government should call…. This is big stuff. That's in the brochure.

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to stand up in support of Bill 20, the Auditor General for Local Government Act. Following the previous speaker…. With the initial rant on TransLink, I was kind of thinking that he might have gotten a little off the track, but then he went off and ranted about the provincial Auditor General. I was kind of wondering when he would actually get to talking about what's really in the bill and the facts there, but he managed to dance around that. I understand that's kind of the way they like to go about doing those sorts of things.

I want to start talking about something that I saw, just a little story in the past about an incident I happened to notice in a community. I was working one day in a community, and I happened to be overlooking a park. The night before there had been quite a windstorm, and some branches had fallen down off of some big trees. The city did a great job, and they came out to clean that up. But I want to describe just how that happened.

In the morning around 9:30 or so a truck showed up with a nice chipping facility attached to the back, and two people got out, one with a power saw and one, I guess, that was going to be running the chipper. The guy that was going to be running the chipper sat and watched while the person was operating the power saw and went out and bucked up a few of the branches that had fallen down and took down a few other ones that looked like they were dangerous. Then he kind of shut down awhile, and the guy fired up the chipper and started putting some of these pieces through the chipper.

Before long it was lunchtime, and off they went. They came back after lunch and proceeded with this.

[1505]

Sometime in the afternoon they had to go and empty the back of the truck of the stuff that was in there and came back. Ultimately, what ended up happening is that this process of going back and forth with one person doing stuff ended up taking all day for two people in something that, marginally, you could probably look at and say that maybe that could be a couple hours' worth of work. I'm sure there were legitimate reasons for why this process took that long, but the question is: was that good value for taxpayers' money? Was that good value for how taxpayers' money should be spent in the community?

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Well, there may be…. The member opposite here just said that there were legitimate reasons for that. Maybe it was part of a union contract. Maybe it was a safety concern — whatever it may be. But the question is: is there value for money?

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The member opposite just says: "This is not about Bill 20. This is about union." That leads me to wonder why anybody would oppose accountability? Why would anybody oppose respect for tax dollars?

I have in my office a poster that I have up there. I've had it up since the day I was elected — sorry; just after I was elected, because it took me a while to actually get it framed and posted and put up. "Think like a taxpayer" is what the poster says. I have that in my office because every day I go into my office, I look at that, and I think about the fact that individuals, families, struggling to get by, are paying taxes for services. I know when I go through my communities all across through the north and I talk to individuals, they want to know that their dollars are being respected and that their dollars are being spent wisely.

What this is designed to do is to do just that. It's a tool that will be able to provide local governments with some opinions as to whether or not certain projects, certain things, are getting value for money. That's a very important key in terms of everything.

Now, I want to raise a thought with this, and that is that some of the communities we have seen in the United States today are bankrupt. They have gone…. Whether it's signing too generous contracts and benefits or whether it's how they've spent money, whether it's their inability to be able to raise taxes — however it may be — they're bankrupt. They're finding it difficult. They're giving out IOUs because they can't meet their needs and their commitments.

So the question I have is: did they have a local government auditor that was doing value-for-money audits? Would that have been able to help that situation, to protect those taxpayers from that situation, to give taxpayers a sense that they're getting value for the money that's being spent and that what is being spent can be sustainable?

When I think back on it…. I am going to throw something out from the member for Stikine that was just ranting a little bit about maybe this is about unions or not. Look, there's no question that there is a component to this around the cost structure. When you look at municipalities, the most significant cost structure is wages and benefits. So what we're talking about is: are those dollars

[ Page 9167 ]

being spent efficiently.

But it's not a coincidence that CUPE, for example, spends…. I think about 30 percent of the mandatory union dues that they collect are spent on non-union activities — in particular, political activities. Why wouldn't they? They get to support local political campaigns. They get to try to push through and elect local individuals, and maybe they're going to get a better contract out of it. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose. That's within the law. Some people may say it is wrong. Some people may say it isn't. But the question is: are those contracts that come through and the way things are being done the best value for money?

I know some municipalities where there are more people now working earning more than $100,000 a year in wage and benefits than there are less than $100,000. It's great. I'm glad people are earning a good wage and they're able to do things. But the question that really remains for me is: is that the best value?

There are other communities of similar size that have three times the workforce, and yet they're still able to do the same things and take care of the same issues. Which one has the better value for money? I don't know those answers. I don't, but it would be nice to know.

I know, for example, in many of my communities…. I have very small communities in northern B.C. They haven't got a large budget. They can't afford to do a lot of things, but they try to be as efficient as they possibly can. Is there something other communities might be doing that they could look at and copy? How do they know? How can they find out about that?

[1510]

They have their organizations — the Union of B.C. Municipalities and their northern groups — and they're able to get together with other councillors and mayors and talk from time to time. But how can you really measure things as to whether the water costs in one community versus another community…? Somebody is doing something a little different, and there's a better value in it.

That's really the value of having an auditor general for local governments. It will look at the value for money, it will look through at the details of everything that's being done, and it will try to get to the bottom of what the best way is to do things. What's the best way to be able to move forward on projects, to be able to see things through, and ultimately, what is the best value for a taxpayer?

I do wonder, when the opposition stand up — and they go on a rant, and they come at this — why they won't support that. Why don't they like the idea that we should be getting value for the taxpayer? Why don't they think like a taxpayer?

When I go back and I think about the various communities that I represent and communities that I've been in, there's no question that there's more than one way to do things. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there is more than one way to get to an answer. So one community takes one path, and one community takes another. Both aren't wrong in terms of what they're doing, but it would be nice to know, certainly, when I pay my municipal taxes…. When I pay my regional district taxes, that is, since I don't actually live in a municipality, I want to know that those dollars are being spent well — the things that are important.

I need my garbage taken away. In a municipality you've got to worry about sewer and roads and dealing with potholes and water. You want to make sure all those things are there. You want to make sure they're sustainable.

That's another big question. As infrastructure ages, communities have to put money aside so that they're able to try to renew that infrastructure when it comes up. The question is: are communities doing that? Is there a liability that's out there for taxpayers that isn't being addressed? Perhaps an auditor general will be able to answer some of those questions and be able to help communities through their planning and the processes they go through.

I'm very proud of the communities I have in my riding and the way that the mayors and councils have been able to respond to crises like we have seen in Burns Lake or other types of issues that have come up. I'm very proud of what they've been able to accomplish.

I also am very proud of the fact that they engage the public. They engage, and they have these discussions as best they can. However, also in my travelling across the province, I know that some municipalities are not as engaging as others, so there isn't quite as much opportunity for input. But I do believe that there is a true value in making sure that everything that is being done has that opportunity to be able to know and that second look to say: is there value for money?

In the province we have this done by the Auditor General, and sometimes we don't like the answer. Sometimes we don't agree with the answer, and we decide that we're going to do things a little bit different. But there is value, whether we implement the recommendations or not. There is value in knowing what somebody else is looking at, having those comparisons, having that value for money and being able to stand up and be accountable for it. Ultimately, I think that's what this is really about: being accountable for tax dollars.

I'm very pleased to be standing up and supporting this. This is something, after I was first elected in 2005, that I started talking to my colleagues about. I was on Public Accounts, I believe in 2006, and I was talking to the provincial Auditor General about: would it be possible at that point for the provincial Auditor General to be able to take on some of those roles? We talked about what would have to happen in legislation and stuff.

As this has progressed through, I'm very pleased that our current Premier has brought this forward as a priority, that she wants to see this sort of thing going for-

[ Page 9168 ]

ward, because I know for a fact that many people I talk to would like to see this. I also, from my own personal perspective, have a bit of satisfaction on an issue that, when I was elected, was something that I wanted to see, and I'm very pleased that we're moving forward on it.

With that, I'll take my place. I want to thank the members opposite for making it clear what their perspective is, particularly where they stand, which is clearly not with taxpayers. I want to thank the members on my side of the House for their standing and supporting something that I believe will add true value to local governments and to our province.

[1515]

V. Huntington: I'd like to thank the members of the opposition for their kindness in letting me move up the speakers list. I really do appreciate it today.

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill 20, the Auditor General for Local Government Act. Much has already been said, and I hope to add a somewhat different perspective to the debate. Like most members in this place, I heard the corporate community demanding something be done with property tax rates — the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Fraser Institute, the B.C. Business Council, Catalyst Paper, and the list goes on — and I have sympathy for their demands.

Like most members in this place, I heard the leadership contenders of the Liberal Party respond "yes" to a question at an all-candidates meeting, a question that seemed to come from nowhere: if elected, would you appoint a municipal auditor general?

No discussion with local governments, no discussions of the pros and cons, no consideration of what should be a respectful relationship between provinces and municipalities. A promise with no thought, no information, no studies and no reviews. A promise in the face of no issue except corporate complaints about property taxes. A promise in the face of no problem except the corporate complaints about property tax. No wonder the UBCM claimed it was a solution looking for a problem.

Nobody likes their property taxes, and almost all of us would like to see them lowered. But that needs careful analysis, a review of how all governments account for their mill rates. Is it true that a municipality needs to keep up with the annual inflation rate? What is the real relationship between the residential and commercial and industrial rates? What impact do labour rates and benefits have on the delivery of services? Does industry really pay much more than they get back in utilities and services? Should industry be at par with the commercial and residential rates? Is that fair?

Do provincial downloads affect the economic delivery of services? What is the total cost of those downloads? Does the value of industrial land taxed at a lower or even residential rate really cover the costs of the services? What is an equitable tax distribution?

Should taxation cover only services — isn't that the big question: water, gas, sewer, police, fire? What about all the esoteric services that make up community? Should industry help pay for our libraries and recreational centres and parks and rural roads, or should industry be above a contribution to social well-being? And if it should not be above that contribution, what should a reasonable expectation of contribution be?

These are the questions, and so many more, that need to be discussed in this province, but we avoid them. We go to court. We let special interests force us to precipitous, inexplicable reactions, and I have to ask why. Why Bill 20? Why the Auditor General for Local Government Act? Nobody except industry asked for it. Almost nobody but industry has said anything good about it. But here we are, debating a bill that is spending at least $2½ million of our tax money in a time of serious deficit and debt to create a power that already exists within government. Why? And how did this happen?

It happens because someone needs to save face. It happens because special interests want it. It happens because we haven't asked the right questions or spent the time discussing the right answers. It happens because government is arrogant. Most of all, it happens because I think government and industry need a public relations scapegoat, an independently reviewed and accused scapegoat.

They need that scapegoat before they can step into the real purview of local government, the setting of municipal property tax rates. To do that, they need to show that the legislated requirement to balance budgets isn't enough. They need to show that gross waste and mismanagement are the real tax culprit. By Jove, we need an auditor general for local government. He or she will save the day.

Regardless of my skepticism, I do have to admit that it's difficult to argue against an office that is charged with the conduct of a performance audit. The extraordinary work of the provincial Auditor General has made me an ardent believer in the wisdom of that office, so I originally was willing to overlook what I think is a sorry and unprofessional reason for the introduction of this legislation.

[1520]

But then I read the legislation. I would hope that in this House we could all agree that critical to the success of any auditor general is a rigid independence that must be afforded the office. There must be no opportunity for retribution within the term of office. The value of the audit is in its professional honesty. What is discovered must be reported. The recommendations must be free of interference and free from the fear of interference.

But Bill 20 does not create an independent municipal auditor general. It creates a flawed structure that is ripe for political and special interest interference or, at a minimum, influence.

[ Page 9169 ]

The minister recommends the appointment of an audit council to cabinet. He determines membership on the council by consulting with UBCM and representatives of business, taxpayers or local government "professionals." Hear the chamber of commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the B.C. Business Council. He must choose from people with knowledge of accounting — good; auditing — good; provincial or municipal governments — good; and any other "subject area set out in the regulations." Cabinet appoints the chair.

So first off, we have an appointed council and chair. The council is already beholden and moulded by government. This council not only recommends who should be auditor general; it also gets to recommend the removal or the suspension of the auditor general. The council also reviews the auditor general's service plan and can recommend changes to that plan. It can review the performance audits, and the auditor general must consider the comments and recommendations. It can comment on the proposed final audit reports and comment on the proposed final annual report.

This means that the goals and objectives of the service plan can be manipulated by the audit council. The proposed performance audits and final reports are subject to review and comment by the audit council. Because this council can recommend the suspension or removal of the auditor general, can this auditor general truly feel free of interference or influence? The answer is a resounding no in my opinion.

The issue is not that the above scenario might happen. The issue is that the above scenario is possible and is written into the legislation. The structure of the auditor general's office is flawed from the start.

No one can quarrel with the benefits of a performance audit. Examining value for money should be a requirement of every government. Actioning the recommendations of a performance audit should also be a requirement. Government efficiency and effectiveness are critical now as never before.

But commanding a flawed and unwanted structure into legislative being is an arrogant and unreasonable approach. The lack of participation by elected representatives of the province is now typical and a favoured form of governance — the removal of elected oversight, consultation after the fact, decisions that respond to special interests.

There is a better way of doing things, but we seem to have forgotten what a better way demands of democracy. It is a shame, and it is worrisome.

R. Hawes: I stand today to support the legislation. Let me start by just saying I was a mayor for three terms. I think if I were a mayor today, I probably would not like this legislation. But you know, it all depends on whose ox is being gored, as they say.

I understand why most mayors and most councils don't want to see a municipal auditor general. Nobody wants somebody looking over your shoulder. Nobody wants anyone second-guessing the decisions you've made.

But I'm not a mayor now, and I'm looking at things from a different perspective, from a provincial perspective. I look at things from a taxpayer's perspective perhaps more than I did when I was a mayor. At the provincial level — or surely at the federal level — you begin to see that the different levels of taxation, piled one upon the other, really have great impact on families — much more than I think you see when you're at the municipal level and you're dealing just with property taxes.

[1525]

Let me just go over a couple of the reasons that I support this and where I think it's a valuable tool for municipalities. Let me first give a couple of examples from my own city, or at least one — from Mission. Mission received a grant from the government to build a path around a park. It was a substantial grant, about a million dollars, and it was a great program. It's a walking, hiking, biking trail.

They came in under budget, and they had some money left over. Rather than putting the money back to the provincial government or putting the money to some use within the city that would have been supported by taxpayers, they decided that what they should do, like other cities have, is do something about bike lanes.

Well, there are no bike lanes in the city I live in. What they've done is painted signs with bicycles and directional signals in the middle of the

[ Page 9170 ]

streets. Then they put signs about every 200 metres, saying "Bike route." Well, everyone who rides a bike in my city already knew that every street, really, is a bike route, because every street you can ride a bike on. It's a very hilly city, and riding up some of the hills is pretty much impossible, but they're designated with these signs painted on the street.

I can tell you that it was a source of huge anger among the taxpayers in the city that I live in; in fact, so much anger that that combined with a few other things resulted in every member of the council and the mayor being actually thrown out — all but one — in the latest civic election. The taxpayers got their revenge on the council for what they did.

Now, I'm not saying that is necessarily a healthy thing. I certainly wouldn't want to say that the solution to everything when taxpayers aren't happy is to just dump the council. What the city said about the bike lanes was that there was no cost to the taxpayer because this was surplus money from a government grant.

Well, as a taxpayer — I'm a property taxpayer — I was pretty angry about that. In fact, I wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper suggesting that, first and foremost, the rationale for these is pretty flawed because there are no bike lanes. Bicycles painted in the middle of the street make no sense to me at all. In fact, it might create some liability if a biker riding in the middle of the street gets hit by a car. But my point was that maybe we need — and I said that in the letter — a municipal auditor to come and speak to this council about the fact that there's only one taxpayer.

You can't say that when you embark on a program that's really kind of foolish and not at all supported, it costs nothing. That makes no sense, yet this is what the council said. I think the municipal auditor, in those kinds of cases…. I don't think that's an isolated case in British Columbia. I know these sorts of things go on in other places.

Frankly, we elect city councils all over British Columbia that many times don't have a whole lot of experience, sometimes no experience in business and sometimes no experience in handling money. I think the municipal auditor function acting as a guide can be very helpful for some of these councils. That's one of the examples from my city.

I know that some years ago there was great consternation about the tax levels of some of the ports in greater Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia. You know, if you're sitting at the local level and looking at property taxes and you're setting the tax rates, the targets that are the easiest are the ones that don't vote. Businesses, things like ports, don't vote and are not going to pick up and leave. They can't leave. So you have a captive victim really, and we were taxing ports, in some cases, pretty much out of existence. They couldn't compete with the ports in other parts of either British Columbia or….

In fact, in Canada we were driving some shipping to the United States because of our tax rates. Those are the kinds of places that a municipal auditor needs to come in and speak to those municipalities.

[1530]

Now, the municipal auditor is not going to have the power to demand change. The municipal auditor has the ability and would be expected to point out flaws, to point out errors, to point out where they could do things a little differently where what they are doing is perhaps hurting jobs or the economy or hurting other taxpayers within the city. The city councils can choose to ignore the advice. If they ignore the advice, and it will be public, I suppose they do so at their peril from the taxpayers.

Now, there's been a lot said about the provincial Auditor General and how the government deals with what happens with the provincial Auditor General. I have to say that from time to time the Auditor General puts out reports that, frankly, are not overly flattering to government. I mean, we all know that. And there are always recommendations in the Auditor General's reports.

Some of the members on the other side — actually, several members on the other side; Columbia River–Revelstoke, for example, or the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads or others — have intimated that we routinely ignore what the Auditor General for British Columbia says. That's just absolutely false, and I'm sure they would like to retract those statements. Certainly, if anyone were to ask the Auditor General or his office, the vast majority of recommendations made by the Auditor General are acted upon.

From time to time — and they are the rarest of times — those are not acted upon. The government will tell the Auditor General's department why we're not acting on them and we don't agree. But for the vast majority we do agree. We do implement the recommendations that are made, and we have always done so.

The Auditor General actually is an excellent tool for the government. We don't have to follow what the Auditor General says. We can decide not to follow his recommendations, and in a lot of cases, we would be doing so at our peril. There's no difference between what happens with the Auditor General for British Columbia and what is being proposed here — a source of advice.

Now, here's the part that galls me. Members on the opposite side should just hang their heads in shame as they stand up here and spout off about accountability and how we're attacking municipalities and our motives and we're interfering with municipalities.

Madam Speaker, I was a mayor in the 1990s. In Mission, where I live, there's a railroad bridge that goes across the Fraser River. It's a very significant piece of infrastructure. There are some railroad tracks there. The city itself gets zero benefit from the railroad. The trains pass through. They don't even stop there, and when they do stop, it's only to idle and spew a bunch of fumes that nobody wants. But they don't pick people up; there's no railroad stop. So property taxation was the only benefit the railroad gave the city of Mission — and for many other cities in British Columbia, the same thing.

The NDP in the 1990s introduced Bill 55. They said the tax rate is too high on the railroads. They removed railroad bridges and railroad tunnels from property tax rolls, and then they put a cap. They rolled back the tax rates on railroads that were on the property charged by municipalities, and they put a cap on what could be charged. There was about $16 million taken from the coffers of municipalities. It cost the city of Mission $550,000, which was over 5 percent of the tax collection at that time.

That was just an absolute interference, and at UBCM, just unanimously, the cities of British Columbia revolted. They carried signs with a big "55" and a line through them. In fact, it's the only time I'm aware of that a Premier of British Columbia was booed at his speech at UBCM. Premier Clark got a tremendous booing because of what the NDP did to municipalities with Bill 55.

When we went as a group, a committee of mayors that were selected to speak with the minister of the day that was responsible for this, we made a very impassioned plea. He just got up in the middle of the meeting and said, "I don't care what you say. This is going through," and that was the end of it.

[1535]

[ Page 9171 ]

So for them to stand up and talk about interference is like the height of piety. Words fail me when I think about what happened in the '90s. It is about as hypocritical…. Well, hypocritical is actually too polite a word.

I remember that municipalities got grants all through the '90s. It was a pretty important part of the budget of every city — the municipal grant program. The NDP of the day said: "Well, we're going to slice that. We're going to cut those grants way back." But the Premier of the day, Premier Clark said…. That's Glen Clark.

Interjections.

R. Hawes: Cheer away, because the rest of us don't remember him too fondly. However, interestingly, the Premier said: "I'm not going to cut grants any further. This is it. This is the only cut you will receive. I want you municipalities to relax. Here is my promise to you. There will be no further cuts in grants."

A couple months later, whack, the grants were gone from almost every city in British Columbia. There was a meeting held in Vancouver, in a hotel downtown, where mayors and councils from all over British Columbia gathered to say: "What are we going to do about this Premier that has lied to us, that has deceived us? What will we do?"

And from that meeting the anger spread out, and we all know what the results were in….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please, your point?

Point of Order

D. Routley: Madam Speaker, the member is using unparliamentary language referring to the former Premier.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: I think….

Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Hawes: Madam Speaker, I'll withdraw that, just to make it easy on you.

Deputy Speaker: Member….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. The previous speaker was allowed some latitude. I am more than happy to cease offering that option.

Please proceed.

R. Hawes: I'm happy to…. If it upsets the members opposite, if the facts upset them, let me withdraw that.

Debate Continued

R. Hawes: I won't say that Premier Glen Clark lied. I think I'll say, then, that he was an extreme stranger to the truth when it came to the grant program. He promised not to cut the grants, all along knowing that that's what he was going to do, because the NDP government of the 1990s had zero regard for municipalities.

Deputy Speaker: Member, bring your comments back to the contents of Bill 20.

R. Hawes: I'm coming to the context of the bill, Madam Speaker. In fact, I am speaking about the comments, and I'm commenting on the comments that have been made by the members opposite on this very bill. Their comments are, frankly, pretty fallacious. They are not accurate statements.

We're in a political time; I understand that. I understand how the members opposite actually secretly support this bill wholeheartedly, but they know that because the municipalities aren't supporting it, politically they might score a point or two. So they're interested not in what's right but what they think is politically right.

Frankly, on this side of the House we've always thought that to be wrong. We should be doing first what's right. On this side of the House there is a strong belief that first you set principles, then you set rules and laws around those principles, and then you apply politics. Clearly, on the other side of the House the reverse takes place. It's: "Let's set politics and then build some policy, and let's build rules around politics first." That's absolutely the wrong way to rule. But that's what we're hearing from them here with what they are saying with this bill on the auditor general.

They've said that the inspector of municipalities actually could be doing this, and they've referred to this being a financial audit. The municipal auditor that's proposed here, first and foremost, will not be conducting financial audits. That is not the purpose. You can't get a layperson, though, to go in and do a performance audit, which is what's being proposed here.

[1540]

Value for money is what it's called. That's, I know, for many of the members opposite a very, very foreign concept. We saw that in the '90s.

It's interesting how the members opposite like to talk about the past 11 years, but they don't want to go any further than that. It's sort of edge-of-the-page memory. "We never want to remember the '90s when we were in power," because they know it was the worst of times, referred to by almost anyone you can think of.

Now the revisionism starts, and we've heard the revisionism from the Leader of the Opposition talking

[ Page 9172 ]

about how economically they were a powerhouse in the '90s, where statistically, every statistic out there defies that. But you know, I get it. It's politics. I get politics. I get that when you're in opposition, you oppose. That's what you do. But let's face it. Let's really face it. You support this. You know that it's the responsible thing to do, but you're playing politics here.

So speaker after speaker on your side is going to get up and continue to play politics. And you know, on this side we get it. We understand it. In fact, during the '90s, when we were in opposition, probably we would have acted the same. We didn't need to act the same. The people rose up; the municipalities rose up. And they rose up for good reason.

However, I think what we need to do here is understand that when we hear the opposition talk about why a municipal auditor general…. Speaker after speaker over there refers to the business community — you know, the B.C. Business Council, the chambers of commerce — those evildoers out there that are trying to earn profit and, coincidentally, provide some jobs, not that we really care about that. That was obvious in the '90s from their side.

I don't think there's anything wrong with listening to the business community if they say: "Hey, you know what? You're taxing us out of existence." In my city I can tell you that at times when property values were remaining fairly constant but there was a new assessment done on some of the commercial buildings in the downtown core area with businesses that were hanging on by a thread, the tax rates didn't really change but because of the value change — right? — huge, sometimes 300 percent tax increase on some businesses barely hanging on by a thread.

What happens in communities when that happens? Viable businesses — businesses like menswear stores or dress shops or hobby stores — begin to close. What takes their place? Pawnshops, moneylending places — you know, the quickie loan places. You start to see a whole other element move into the downtown core. A lot of that is because the municipality didn't understand that you're taxing businesses that you really want, to maintain a healthy core, out of existence. And we've heard that all over British Columbia from small business. Members opposite like to say that we're the friends of big business. Well, I tell you what. It's small businesses that are the engine.

We know that on this side. On that side I think what they talk about when they say "big business" is…. Mom-and-pop operations fall into that envelope for them, because in the '90s they taxed everybody out of existence — big companies, small companies. It didn't matter. They were leaving as fast as they could.

A great philosophy for them was: "Let's make the big companies small, and then the small companies…." Instead of saying, "Let's make them big," it was: "Let's just make them nonexistent." Every company that had an opportunity to move moved.

Cities in this province have some problems with the mix of tax rates. We hear that in the city of Vancouver. We hear the debates that are going on at their council. The industrial tax rates and the commercial tax rates are very high compared to…. Well, I won't say compared to the residential rate, but they're very high, and they're hurting businesses.

So now you want to try to balance it. But by balancing it, you've got to do something with that residential tax rate. Well, that's voters. So you're going to lose some votes. Do you want to do that? Well, maybe not. This is the argument that goes on back and forth in city halls.

[1545]

I sat there as a mayor for three terms. I know the kind of thinking that goes on. I know the pressures that are there from the residential sector, and I know the thinking of: "Gee, you know, I don't want to offend the people who vote for me." The easier target has always been the ones who can't vote for you — the businesses. But now I move to this level of government, and I start to see: "Well, wait a minute. There are families here in those businesses that have jobs that are going to be lost." There is a whole other element here to think about.

I can see that what's going on over here is not being applied. They're not thinking about that. They're not thinking about families. They're not thinking about jobs. They're not thinking about an economy. They're thinking about: "Gee, how can we get a few more votes? UBCM said this." They didn't think that in the '90s. When they had an opportunity to go out and speak to municipalities, to actually do something that would be helpful to municipalities, they stuck the knife in pretty hard with things like Bill 55, and they didn't listen.

That's what I can see. When you listen to the rhetoric over there, that's what's coming again if, God forbid, they ever get back into power. They like to now look at polling that shows that hey, they might have a chance. They get all excited.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the people of British Columbia must not forget what did happen in the 1990s. They must not forget the exodus. They must not forget that we were losing population, particularly the population that has some money to invest and create jobs. Capital just flew out of this province in the 1990s, starting with the corporate capital tax that was, again, a promise that wasn't going to happen by the first Premier of the NDP, Mike Harcourt, and then quickly we got corporate capital tax that stopped all of the Asian money coming in, in a big hurry.

Capital doesn't have loyalty. It goes to the friendliest market, and that's another thing these people don't understand. The municipal auditor is going to assist the municipalities of British Columbia to ensure that their taxpayers are getting value for money. That's what's key here.

[ Page 9173 ]

Municipalities don't have to listen. That's also a very important consideration. The government has no interest in manipulating the auditor or trying to embarrass anyone. When he goes out and provides some advice to a municipality, the municipality can choose to take it or not take it. If they choose to follow the advice that's given, great. That's a benefit to the taxpayers of that municipality, to the economy of this province. If they choose to totally ignore it, well, I guess they do so at their peril.

There's no sanction from the government, but I can guarantee you there is likely to be a sanction from the property tax payers in that municipality. That's what's going to drive change here and, I think, change for the better.

So I hope that the members opposite are going to be really frank, forthright and honest about what they really believe. They know this is a good move — politically, from the UBCM standpoint, not the best. But I believe the taxpayers of British Columbia understand that this is something that's in the best interest of all taxpayers in British Columbia — that when there is something being done in their municipality that doesn't provide value for money and if they have a city that's rolling off the tracks, the municipal auditor can come and assist them in getting back on the tracks with a voice that is independent.

They don't think that it's independent, because it's not a creature of the Legislature; that it's going to report back to a ministry or work under a ministry. That doesn't mean it's not an independent voice for the municipality. That's what will be provided here. I can tell you it is a healthy thing. It is a good thing. It's an overdue thing. It's done in places like Toronto, in the Maritimes, in Quebec. There are municipal auditors general in jurisdictions right across this country. They're functioning well, and they'll function well here too.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to at least say a few words here. I am waiting with anxious breath — or holding my breath. I'll put it that way. I'm holding my breath that someone on the other side will have the integrity and honesty to jump up and say, "Yeah, this is a good thing for taxpayers," because it really is.

[1550]

With that, I'm going to take my place and listen to if there's any semblance of sanity that comes from the other side.

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to take my place in debate of Bill 20 in second reading, the Auditor General for Local Government Act. I want to put my comments in the frame, in the words of the minister who introduced this bill, of value for money.

Before spending $2.6 million, you need to know what the problem is that you're trying to address, and that's what the mayors are saying and councillors are saying about this act. They said it at the UBCM in September. They said it last month when I met with mayors of some of the major cities, and they said it just this past week when I met with mayors in the constituency of Stikine.

First, let's look at what the government says it isn't addressing in this bill. What it's not addressing, it says, is policy. It's not addressing the objectives of local government. In fact,

section 3 of the bill reads: "…the auditor general must not call into question the merits of policy decisions or objectives of a local government."

At the UBCM, the newsletter during the UBCM, when this topic was being addressed…. The newsletter wrote: "The province has promised that the auditor general for local government would not have any more authority than provincial or federal auditors general to probe into matters of government policy." This is what the minister has also said, and yet what we just heard from a previous speaker, the member for Nechako Lakes, on the government side is that cost structure of wages and benefits is what this is about.

Well, if cost structure of wages and benefits for employees such as CAOs of municipalities is not a matter of government policy, then I don't know what it is. Now we have the minister who introduced this bill and a caucus member at odds, saying opposite things about the purpose of the bill. So it's no wonder the mayors are confused and councillors are confused about what the purpose of this bill is. We also had, at the UBCM….

The minister committed that the auditor general for local government would not set or order changes to tax rates. In other words, industrial tax rates, for instance, were not under scrutiny by this bill and by the auditor general for local government. Yet here we had another speaker from the government side, the member for Abbotsford-Mission who just spoke, and his words were: "taxing businesses out of existence." This was one of the purposes that the auditor general for local government should address. So again, we have the minister and a member of the caucus at odds over what the purpose of this bill is.

It's no wonder mayors and councillors are saying: "What's the problem the government is trying to address with this bill?"

Some of the messaging from the other side is that this bill is about accountability. Let's be clear. On this side we're in favour of accountability and honesty and transparency with the public. But based on this government's track record, it's a bit of a credibility gap when they start talking about accountability.

We had a quote, and again we have a quote from the member from the government side — Nechako Lakes — who just spoke this afternoon, saying that taxpayer dollars must be respected and dollars spent wisely. Earlier the member for Kootenay East spoke to the purpose of this bill and said: "This is about making local government more responsive to the taxpayer, the way that the province has to be responsive to the taxpayer."

[1555]

Well, let's deal with the second half of that quote first: "…the way the province has to be more responsive to the

[ Page 9174 ]

taxpayer." That is a bit rich coming from this government. Responsive to the taxpayer by saying the deficit would be $500 million a couple years ago when in fact it was $3 billion — is that accountability? We're talking about accountability.

Or is it saying that they would not bring in the HST before the election, and then the HST was brought in after the election? This is in direct contrast to what the member on the other side previously said that Bill 20 is about: the way the province has to be responsive to the taxpayer and the way municipalities have to be more responsive to the taxpayer.

What's their definition of honesty and openness? Is it saying that you believe in balanced budgets, but then having to amend your own balanced-budget legislation because of the deficit after deficit, year after year, that this government has put on the taxpayers? It's a bit rich, the second half of the quote from the member for Kootenay East, so let's look at the first half of the quote that he spoke about earlier. This is about making local government more responsive to the taxpayer. This is apparently what Bill 20 is about, according to the member for Kootenay East.

Well, perhaps he's showing his lack of elected government experience. By legislation, municipalities must produce an external audit and must balance the budget every year — no deficits. Now, that's accountability. My experience in ten years as a municipal councillor was with the external audit process. It was thorough. It was a lot of hard work on behalf of the CAO and the external auditor to come in. There was also budget time, when we had to grapple with producing a deficit-free budget every year.

That's the accountability that's already in existence. When the member for Kootenay East is saying this Bill 20 is about making local government more responsive to the taxpayer, I think he's missing out on the fact that there are checks and balances, which exist today, that make municipalities far more responsible to the taxpayer than this government has ever demonstrated in its behaviour in the last 11 years.

Layered on top of that accountability is the inspector of municipalities. The inspector of municipalities may require a local government auditor to provide a report on any matter and may hold an inquiry into any local government matter and make recommendations to cabinet. So there's another layer of accountability.

Of course, we have the provincial Auditor General, who has the power to investigate any municipal project that involves any provincial funding. So let's talk a little bit about the Auditor General as an independent officer of the Legislature.

By contrast, under Bill 20 the auditor general for local government reports to the minister and takes direction from an audit council appointed by government. The same government that misled on the HST, lied on a promise not to sell B.C. Rail and does not follow its own balanced budget legislation is going to direct an audit council to investigate municipal affairs. Now, that's a bit rich, and even the cabinet….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I will ask you to withdraw that remark.

D. Donaldson: Oh, okay. I withdraw that remark, hon. Speaker.

Then we have a cabinet minister, who has the purpose of this bill that is at odds with two caucus members, on the purpose of the bill. You know, there's a bit of an accountability issue there. I will give….

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: I'm pointing to Nechako Lakes.

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the government on this bill in one aspect. That's the performance audit aspect and maximizing value for money.

Now, if you're really concerned as a provincial government in maximizing value for money, the $2.6 million, then wouldn't you look at whether the Auditor General could do this job? The Auditor General, who has the expertise in performance audits, who is efficient….

I'm Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance. The Auditor General presents his budget every year. He points out that he is the most efficient, cost-effecti