H0507pm 05

H0507pm 05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 15, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 6553 Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 6553 Bill Hartley J.

MacPhail Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 6553 Hospice palliative care T. Christensen Child Care Month W. McMahon Merritt Mountain Music Festival D. Chutter Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6554 Funding for special needs children J. MacPhail Hon. G. Hogg Boliden mine operations in Strathcona Park J. Kwan Hon. J.

Murray West Nile virus I. Chong Hon. S. Hawkins Alaska tax on cruise ship passengers J. Bray Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt Simon Fraser University Surrey campus enrolment T. Bhullar Hon. S. Bond Boliden mine operations in Strathcona Park J. Kwan Cattle industry in B.C. W. Cobb Hon.

J. van Dongen Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 6557 Self-Governance in the Health Professions: The Ombudsman's Perspective, ombudsman special report No. 24 Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 6557 Community Charter (Bill 14) J. Kwan Hon. T. Nebbeling B.

Bennett Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6597 Community Charter (Bill 14) Point of Privilege............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6597 J. Kwan

6553 WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to introduce a group of visiting legislative interns from Washington State who are in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon. [1405] There are 13 interns from both the Senate and the House of Representatives internship programs that were established over 50 years ago. They are accompa- nied by Judi Best, the Senate intern coordinator; Brad Hendrickson, human resource and accounting director for the Washington State Legislature; and the Senate intern assistant, Tanya Jones.

Please join me in bidding welcome to our young friends from across the border here to visit our legislative interns and compare our democratic systems. Tributes BILL HARTLEY J. MacPhail: I note with sadness the passing of Bill Hartley, who was an MLA in the '72-75 Barrett gov- ernment. Some of us worked with a younger Bill Hart- ley. Some of you also will remember Bill Hartley from 1972-75. He was an activist cabinet minister in the first NDP government in this province, and he grew old with dignity but with activism around Victoria. Many of us would see him promoting Victoria here. Mr.

Speaker, it is a day for all of us to join together and, I hope, send condolences to the Hartley family. Introductions by Members Hon. M. Coell: In the gallery today are 44 members of my community, members of the Probus Club of Brentwood Bay and their coordinator, Mr. Hurley. Would the House please make them welcome. J. Weisbeck: I have two introductions to make to- day. The first one is Noel Armeneau, raised in Kelowna, currently one of our newest additions work- ing for the Liberal caucus as the assistant deputy tech- nical coordinator. The second introduction is a good friend, Mr.

Chris Gibson, who is the regional manager of Autoplan operations. Would the House please make these two people very welcome. J. Les: Rumour has it the member for Nanaimo is celebrating his birthday today. Would the House give him a thunderous ovation. Mr. Speaker: I believe he's older than I am. S. Orr: When we undertake to do this job, we tend to lose contact with a lot of good friends and people that we've known; we get so absorbed in here. Today I had the great pleasure of coming across two very dear friends as part of the group that the member for Saanich North and the Islands just mentioned.

I was very happy to see them, and I'm very happy to see them in the House. Would the House please make Ina and Bill McGregor welcome. Thank you. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) HOSPICE PALLIATIVE CARE T. Christensen: May is Hospice Palliative Care Month, recognizing a very important part of our health care system. Those living with terminal and chronic illnesses and their loved ones depend on the invaluable services provided by palliative care facilities around the province. In my own riding of Okanagan-Vernon, the Vernon Hospice House is a shining example of just how effec- tive such facilities can be in providing medical, emo- tional and spiritual support to the dying and their families.

The staff and volunteers work hard to provide a compassionate environment in which patients' last days are made as comfortable and pain-free as possi- ble. Hospices such as Vernon Hospice House also make excellent use of resources. They rely on fundraising and donations from the community, and well-trained volunteers are a major part of their operations. But more is needed to ensure that this quality palliative care can continue to be provided.

I w o u l d l i k e t o c o m m e n d t h e M i n i s t e r o f S t a t e f o r Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care on her end- of-life discussion paper, which welcomed public sub- missions from all over the province on how to improve palliative care provision. I know that the Vernon Hos- pice Society welcomed the opportunity to have a voice in the dialogue, as I'm sure others around the province did.

The paper shows our government's commitment to expanding and bettering end-of-life care for patients all over the province by receiving input from those directly involved in and affected by the provision of palliative care. [1410] Currently, the majority of terminally ill patients die in hospital acute care beds, in a setting not very ac- commodating to the family and friends most of us would like to see in our final days. Acute care beds are also the most expensive resource in the health care sys- tem.

As the demand for palliative care service rises, it is important that society examine how the most appro- priate care can be provided. This last year was the first year that Vernon Hos- pice House received funding from government. That funding resulted from the health authority having the flexibility to determine the most appropriate way to provide palliative services. The services provided by hospices and palliative care providers are invaluable to the citizens of B.C., and it is important that government continues to rec-

6554 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 ognize their significance by working with them and the health authorities to ensure their success. CHILD CARE MONTH W. McMahon: I rise in the House today to recog- nize the month of May as Child Care Month in British Columbia. More than 4,500 licensed child care providers offer quality care for children in this province in a healthy, safe and nurturing environment. Child care is an eco- nomic issue; 61 percent of women with children under the age of six work outside the home, and 71 percent of couples with children have both parents working.

Child care is an essential support that allows parents to participate in the economy and children to receive early learning opportunities. This month the Minister of State for Women's Equality will meet with child care providers, early childhood educators, parents and children to recognize and celebrate Child Care Month. Our government is committed to creating a sustainable and equitable child care system for the future. In the past two days I have visited some child care centres in my constituency, and I was impressed with what I saw.

This year our government will provide $2.5 million in capital funding to build and renovate child care centres. That's $1 million more than last year. The new capital program recognizes the unique situations of rural communities by providing them with a greater share of capital funding than they have received be- fore. The new child care operating funding program came into effect this April. This program provides funding to assist in children's programming, wage compensation for child care workers and administra- tion.

About 70,000 child care spaces will be eligible for operating funding, up from 45,000 in the past. This means more options for parents in the type of care they choose for their children. Our government is creating a sustainable, equitable child care system that will help parents participate in the workforce and provide early learning benefits to children for the long term. This is something that all of us can celebrate during Child Care Month. MERRITT MOUNTAIN MUSIC FESTIVAL D. Chutter: Mr.

Speaker, 1993 was the first year of the Merritt Mountain Music Festival and the beginning of a new opportunity for the city of Merritt. Thousands sat in the mud with rain pouring down and sang along with legends such as George Jones and Tanya Tucker. Merritt has always been a place that has prided itself on country living and hometown values. It is one of those places where real cowboys walk the streets, and on a dry summer day tumbleweed rolls through the surrounding grasslands. But the Merritt Mountain Music Festival has put this small western town on the national map.

We have now laid claim to the title of country music capital of Canada. The spirited and hard-working people of Merritt are taking advantage of the opportunities this gives their community. "Build it and they will come" has been proven true as attendance continues to grow. While last year's four-day festival brought 135,000 day visits to town and dropped $9.6 million into the local economy, there is a lot more to do to capitalize on the country music capital of Canada theme.

Plans are underway to create a walk of stars where the handprints of country music stars collected over the years will be bronzed and imprinted into local sidewalks. Tourists will stargaze on the streets of Mer- ritt and spend money in our small businesses. The Merritt Chamber of Commerce has a vision for a Mer- ritt country Christmas, a country-style celebration to attract tourists to downtown Merritt. We're going to get those country music fans who drive the Coquihalla Highway out of their motor homes and RVs and into Merritt.

I want to invite each and every member to the heart of the heartlands, the country music capital of Canada, for this year's annual Merritt Mountain Music Festival. The show takes place July 16 to 20, and so I ask you to dust off your cowboy hats, put on your jeans and become part of a fine country tradition. [1415] Mr. Speaker: Yee-haw. Oral Questions FUNDING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN J.

MacPhail: Parents and advocates for children with special needs are very worried that as a result of the Minister of Children and Family Development's botched transition to a new governance model, he is now going to cut special needs programs to meet his missed budget targets. The minister gave these parents a solemn promise that these programs would not be cut. Now he's waffling. These parents have asked me to put a simple question to the minister.

Will he recommit that not one single dime will be cut from programs for children with special needs, and will he put that verbal commitment he made to these parents in writing? Hon. G. Hogg: I can assure the member and I can assure the people of this province that we will ensure that all of the funding we have will go to those who have the greatest need. We will make sure we will allocate and will support and will respond to those who have the greatest needs with respect to health, with respect to safety and with respect to services.

We're going through a process using evidence-based research and using a sound set of principles to ensure that we do focus those dollars where they have the greatest need. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a sup- plementary question. J. MacPhail: I'm sure that waffling will come to the parents with absolute shock and dismay, because he is

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6555 reneging on his promise he made to them. He's reneg- ing on his promise he made to thousands of parents and children who rely on programs delivered by this minister and which are now, by his very own words, at risk because of his own incompetence. Six weeks ago this minister signed contracts with child development agencies across the province. Those are contracts for foster care, for adoption services, for at-risk sexually exploited youth and for other vital ser- vices.

The opposition has now been told that after sign- ing these contracts, this minister has gone back to the providers and asked them to cut $30 million from their programs. That's about the same amount of money that this minister has wasted on a botched transition. Will he stand up and confirm the $30 million cut, and will he then explain to parents and children why he's break- ing his promise to them? Hon. G. Hogg: There are no secrets. Everything has been in our service plan, and everything that we're following through with is consistent with the service plan that was put out.

The member has made reference to the money that has been used with re- spect to transition — and there is $25 million that has been used over two years — to help communities develop capacity, to help communities respond to and provide services. I've said many times that we have inherited the largest bureaucratic service delivery model in Canada to provide services to children and families. We need to ensure we do that more effectively, and we need to m a k e s u r e w e d o i t m o r e e f f i c i e n t l y . T o d o t h a t , w e have to involve the communities to be a part of that.

This is about the most vulnerable children and the most vulnerable adults in this province, and this is about ensuring that we provide the best services possi- ble to them. That's exactly what we're doing. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a fur- ther supplementary. J. MacPhail: Yesterday we learned that this minis- ter has wasted $25 million on a botched transition plan. Today we learned he's cutting $30 million from pro- grams for kids with special needs.

It is clear to perhaps everyone but this minister that his plan is failing, that millions of dollars are being wasted and that as a re- sult, big budget cuts are coming to kids at risk. I wonder what the member for North Coast has to say about that. The minister thought it would be easy to arbitrarily meet a 20 percent reduction for children in care imposed upon him by the Minister of Finance, but he has discovered it's just not that simple. Now his budget, his service plan — indeed, his whole grand scheme — is in absolute chaos.

Yesterday the minister was forced to admit that he was at risk of not meeting his budget targets. Will he promise children and families in need of support today that he'll sacrifice his salary bonus instead of sacrificing programs for kids to pay for his own incompetence? Give up the salary bonus. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You have asked the question. Now let's hear the answer. [1420] Hon. G. Hogg: Mr. Speaker, the goals and objec- tives of this ministry have not changed. We are taking time to make sure that we do this exactly right.

We have learned a lot over the past two years, and we want to make sure we apply that in ways that are sen- sitive to and responsive to the needs of the children across this province. The member has made reference to people being concerned about it. We had 2,300 people involved in community living looking at that, supporting the initiatives and directions we've taken. We have let- ters of support from across this province, from the chairs of different committees who are all in support of this governance model.

We have research from around the world saying that this is the right way to g o a n d t h a t t h i s p r o v i n c e i s o n t h e c u t t i n g e d g e o f providing services that are community based, re- sponsive to and involved with communities. We are engaged with a community that wants to do things differently, and we are going to be able to provide a service which is different, which is more responsive and more respective to the communities we're work- ing with. BOLIDEN MINE OPERATIONS IN STRATHCONA PARK J.

Kwan: Can the minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell this House if Boliden-Westmin Mines received a park use permit to siphon water from Car- withen and Greenview lakes? Hon. J. Murray: No, they did not. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: Well, then let me share some information with the minister. Recently hikers discovered the si- phoning of water from Carwithen and Greenview lakes i n S t r a t h c o n a P a r k , B . C . ' s o l d e s t p r o v i n c i a l p a r k .

T h e Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has yet to receive either an application for a permit or an envi- ronmental report on the proposal, as the minister has just admitted. Can the minister tell this House and ex- plain why she's allowing a mine to siphon water from lakes in B.C.'s oldest park in violation of the Park Act, which she is entrusted to enforce? Hon. J. Murray: This government and my ministry have not received any formal proposals from Boliden, so there has been nothing to make decisions on. This project has not been considered and will not be until the proposal is received.

6556 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. WEST NILE VIRUS I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, there is a risk that the West Nile virus could soon be here, and I understand that the B.C. Centre for Disease Control has begun the process of testing crows found within the province. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, so that we may hear the question. I. Chong: British Columbians are becoming increas- ingly worried about the effects of West Nile and the pos- sibility of contracting this virus.

To the Minister of Health Planning: can she let us know what is being done to identify the presence of the West Nile virus and what is being done to reduce the risk of transmission here on Vancouver Island and throughout British Columbia? Hon. S. Hawkins: The West Nile virus hasn't been identified in B.C. to date, and the provincial health officer has advised that the risk of getting infected is low. However, he does advise that we need to be vigi- lant and be prepared.

Certainly, our experience with SARS has shown that if we take a coordinated ap- proach, if we work together, we will be successful in controlling public health risks such as this virus. We are taking a coordinated approach. There are sev- eral ministries that are working together: the ministries of Health Planning; Health Services; Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; Water, Land and Air Protection; and Ag, Food and Fisheries. Certainly, we're working with our provincial health officer, the B.C.

Centre for Dis- ease Control, the health authorities and the municipalities to coordinate a response to the threat of West Nile virus. Basically, our strategy involves testing mosquitoes and dead crows for West Nile infection, providing West Nile testing for patients through the BCCDC and raising public awareness to prevent mosquito bites, because that is the way it is contracted. We want peo- ple to know that breeding grounds in their back yards are ways of making sure…. If they reduce that, they're making sure the risk is reduced.

We're making sure we're planning appropriate mosquito control programs with the municipalities. [1425] ALASKA TAX ON CRUISE SHIP PASSENGERS J. Bray: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t he M i ni s t e r o f S t at e f o r Intergovernmental Relations. Each year cruise ships en route to Alaska stop in m y co mmunity and l eave mil- lions of dollars in the local economy. However, it has come to my attention that the state of Alaska is consid- ering a $100-per-passenger tax on all cruise ship pas- sengers arriving in Alaska.

If this bill goes ahead, it has the potential to severely decrease cruise ship traffic through B.C. en route to Alaska, which would have a devastating effect on small businesses in my commu- nity. Can the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations tell me what he is doing to fight this tax? Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: The member is quite right.

The Alaskan and B.C. cruise ship industries are directly linked, and anything that adds a cost to that industry on those cruises through British Columbia is certainly going to have a negative impact on our ports and our coastal communities, including the city of Victoria. The bill that would impose this head tax has not yet become law. It's currently before the Alaskan commit- tee on economic development, trade and tourism.

I've been in contact with the chair of this committee, repre- sentative Cheryll Heinze in Juneau, and she assured me that this bill will not be passing the Legislature, that she and many of her colleagues in their government are opposed to it, and that, as a matter of fact, it may be contrary to federal law in the United States. Despite these circumstances I want to promise the member that my ministry will continue to monitor this situation in Alaska, because obviously our government and, I'm sure, that of Alaska are committed to growing the cruise ship industry here in British Columbia.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY SURREY CAMPUS ENROLMENT T. Bhullar: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f A d - vanced Education. My question is on the progress of the SFU Surrey campus. How many students are currently enrolled, and what do you anticipate the annual growth of stu- dents to be? Hon. S. Bond: One of the really exciting things we've managed to do as we looked at what to do with Tech B.C. and the challenges we faced there was to transfer that program to Simon Fraser University.

I'm pleased to be able to tell you — I don't have the specific numbers — we are ahead of the target growth that we expected there. The number we anticipated was 400. We think that for '02-03 it's approximately 490. That would include some graduate students. We're on

schedule to see an increase there to 600- plus in the next year and probably 890 or so by the year after — very exciting growth patterns. We're working on a coordinated strategy right now between Simon Fraser University and Kwantlen to look at increased g ro wt h o v e r t he ne x t nu m b e r o f y e ars . S o , i t 's a g re at success story, and one that we're going to continue to see bring great things for that area of the province. BOLIDEN MINE OPERATIONS IN STRATHCONA PARK J. Kwan: Does the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection agree with the Attorney General that the

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6557 hikers who witnessed this illegal act should call the police to report it? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. CATTLE INDUSTRY IN B.C. W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of Agricul- ture, Food and Fisheries. Earlier this session we in the House had the oppor- tunity to highlight the value of cattle ranching in B.C.'s economy. This is a growth industry and a significant source of revenue for jobs in British Columbia.

I'm sure we have all heard the question: where's the beef? Well, Cariboo South is the home of a large num- ber of ranches and one of the largest cow-calf opera- tions in Canada. Expansion would provide opportunity for a number of my constituents. Can the minister tell us what is being done to help the heartlands agricul- ture industry expand and prosper? Hon. J. van Dongen: We do see significant poten- tial for expansion of the cattle industry in British Co- lumbia, and we are working on a number of fronts to facilitate that.

We do have a small but effective pro- gram to encourage expansion of the cowherd in British Columbia and to retain more calves, rather than have them go to Alberta. We're working on a number of fronts with other ministries to seek expansion of the land base available to the cattle industry, as well as improving the produc- tivity of that land base. So we're looking at things like stumpage policy on agricultural leases. We're looking at transitioning agricultural lands or agricultural de- velopment lands in the Vanderhoof area into agricul- ture.

We're looking at grazing lease renewals and facili- tating new grazing leases. [1430] We're also looking at the water resource. Water is a critical resource for watering cattle and for producing forage. This is combined with a lot of other issues, with a lot of other small impediments that we're working on collectively with other ministries to expand the land base. I appreciate the member's support and all of the members that live in the B.C. heartlands. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the ombudsman's special report No. 24, Self- Governance in the Health Professions: The Ombudsman's Perspective. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of committee stage debate on Bill 14. Committee of the Whole House COMMUNITY CHARTER The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:31 p.m. The Chair: Members, we're going to take a five- minute recess. The committee recessed from 2:32 p.m. to 2:38 p.m. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] Hon. T. Nebbeling: Mr. Chair, before we proceed, I would like leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. T. Nebbeling: Mr. Chair, I just noticed three ladies in the gallery: Marijke Edmondson, Meagan Curdley and Cecilia Chandler. They have been working within the ministry responsible for local governments on the charter as well. So to recognize they're here to watch the proceedings and make them welcome. Debate Continued On

section 1. J. Kwan:

Section 1. We have, in this legislation, the Community Charter. In this section, a statement is made with respect to the order of government thus being recognized, and at the outset the minister had actually made a statement: "Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government." Furthermore, a careful reading of the minister's mes- sage on March 11 announcing the current legislation stated that the charter replaces the tradition of legisla- tion — an intention to replace

section 92(8) of the Con- stitution Act of 1867. [1440] Can the minister please advise: has there been some consideration given to the constitutionality of this piece of legislation? Hon. T. Nebbeling: Well, let's first of all say that the Community Charter does not change the constitu-

6558 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 tion of Canada. What we are doing by including the statement recognizing local government as an order of government is allowing them to determine the best interest of their own communities as far as we can go within the legislation and the constitution of Canada. J. Kwan: I think it should be pointed out that advo- cates of the earlier drafts of the Community Charter, who include the Premier, have pushed for establishing municipal governments as an independent third order of government.

In fact, the Liberal caucus chair once pushed for "the overt recognition of municipalities as a bona fide order of government, which would elevate municipal governments to appropriate recognition in the scheme of governance of this country." Therefore, can the minister clarify the statement in the first sentence in the legislation establishing the Community Charter, which states, "Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of govern- ment," by confirming and qualifying whether or not this legislation intends to establish municipal govern- ments as an independent order of government? Hon. T.

Nebbeling: As I said before, by including the statement in the principles of the Community Char- ter, we intend to recognize local governments as far as we can within the constitution of Canada. J. Kwan: Yes, I heard that answer, but the question is: is that intention to establish municipal government as an independent order of government? Hon. T.

Nebbeling: We are recognizing, as I said before, local governments within their own jurisdiction as an order of government being democratically elected, autonomous, responsible and accountable, but not in any way are we saying thereby that we are chal- lenging any other legislation, including the constitution of Canada. J. Kwan: Is the minister saying and confirming for the record, then, that this legislation does not establish municipal governments as an independent third order o f g o v e r n m e n t ?

I f t h a t ' s t h e c a s e , w e s h o u l d b e c l e a r about that, because the legislation actually says that municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government within their jurisdiction. I understand the point from the minister that they're trying to go as far as they can in recognizing local government, and, yes, of course they're democ- ratically elected, and so on and so forth. But keep in mind that the Premier as well as the caucus chair of this government have lobbied and advocated for local governments to be recognized as an independent third order of government.

And I quote once again that "an order of government will convey to those who believe in the establishment of municipal governments as a bona fide independent third order of government that have established this objective…." So is that the intent? If it's not the intent, will the minister simply make it clear and say it's not the intent to establish municipal governments as independent third orders of government? Hon. T. Nebbeling: In order to change the constitu- tion of Canada in this respect, there have to be certain steps taken that are obviously not intended.

We are expressing our intent to local governments, how the relationship between local government and the provin- cial government will be in the future to the recognition of local government as an order of government within the jurisdiction. [1445] J. Kwan: If it's not the intent of the minister and therefore this legislation to set out the recognition of local governments as an independent third order of government, then the words that have been chosen for the legislation, which states….

I quote once again from the act: "Municipalities and their councils are recog- nized as an order of government within their jurisdic- tion." Why is the word "order" chosen? I think the word "order" creates confusion or ambiguity, if you will, in that context. It could be interpreted to mean what the Premier and the Liberal caucus chair had advocated for, which is to say that local governments should be recognized as a third order, an independent order of government. Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, I'm a little bit baf- fled by the member's insistence on bringing this same subject back.

The Local Government Act today has in its

preamble exactly these wordings. That was in the Local Government Act that was introduced by the member opposite. The ultimate, at the end of the day…. If we want to change the constitution of Canada, that's a whole dif- ferent process. We have no intention of starting any other process. In the principle we are clearly recogniz- ing local governments as an order of government within their own jurisdiction in order to set a bench- mark of the relationship between local governments and the provincial government as it will be under the charter. J. Kwan: Well, no, actually, the previous act does not have in the legislation "an order of government." It's in the

preamble but not in the legislation. It is very different from what the minister understands it to be. The issue that I want to convey to the minister here is this. I don't want there to be a constitutional chal- lenge. I want to be clear from legislative counsel that the minister has consulted with legislative counsel to make sure this does not create that impression. Quite frankly, when I was the Minister of Munici- pal Affairs, we attempted to address some of these issues, and legal counsel advised us at that time that you could not go further than what we had already done in the

preamble. Hence, I now ask the question. Perhaps with a new era, a new government, there is a new way of doing things within the legislative legal

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6559 counsel, and they found another way to address this issue without challenging the constitutionality in rec- ognizing local governments as an order of government in legislation in itself, which is why I asked the ques- tion. Hon. T. Nebbeling: Yes, we have had legal advice on all the sections. Let me quickly show the member opposite

part 1, the purpose and principles of the Local Government Act of 1996. "The purpose of this act, rec- ognizing that local government is an independent, re- sponsible and accountable order of government within its jurisdiction" — exactly the wording that she's argu- ing…. That was the act passed during the time the member was a member of cabinet of the previous gov- ernment. J. Kwan: The point is that the recognition was actu- ally in the

preamble of the legislation, not within the legislation itself. As I mentioned to the minister…. The minister well knows this, because he advocated for it to go further than that when we first brought the legisla- tion forward. We were advised by legal counsel that we could not go further than that, and that's as far as we could go. Now things have changed. But even with how things have changed, I'm still hearing from the minis- ter, though…. What he's saying is that even by putting in the words "an order of government," it does not rec- ognize local government as a third, independent order of government.

Will the minister confirm that? Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to go any further on the Local Government Act of 1996. It was not in the

preamble. It was actually in

part 1 of the act. The rec- ognition was already established in 1996 by the former government. What we are doing here is, as I said before, recog- nizing local government as an order of government within its own jurisdiction. We as a provincial govern- m e n t a r e d e t e r m i n e d t o g o a s f a r a s w e c a n u n d e r t h e constitution of Canada with this particular statement. J. Kwan: Then, for the record, this legislation does not establish municipal governments as an independ- ent third order of government. If I don't hear the minis- ter refuting that, then for the record, that's what this is.

I do want to make sure that there is no confusion with respect to the constitutionality of this issue. [1450] I would like to ask the minister this question, then: what does this

section do? And how is it different from the act from before? Hon. T. Nebbeling: What is different is the fact that in

section 1 we established the principles for local gov- ernment governance and the principles of municipal- provincial relations in the second part of it. J. Kwan: What is the definition of "adequate pow- ers" under

section 1(2)(a)? Hon. T. Nebbeling: It's not defined. J. Kwan: Yes. It's not defined, which is why I'm asking the question. Well, maybe the minister can ask his staff: what does "adequate powers" mean under this section? Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I stated, we have not de- fined "adequate." One of the reasons is that there are 100 to 150 different municipalities in the province, and each province will look at the principles under which the new relationship is based and the municipal gov- ernance has been established. Based on local circum- stances, they will decide what adequate is. J.

Kwan: Well, I mean, that's a very broad sort of description of what adequate powers are. Are there limitations within what adequate powers are? To what extent would adequate powers enable what local gov- ernments do? What are their limitations? Are there any? Hon. T. Nebbeling: The powers are established in a broad manner. Where the control mechanisms come in place when necessary will be dealt with in future or in other sections that we will be dealing with when we go through the Community Charter. J.

Kwan: S o i s i t t o s ay , i f t he p o we rs are no t p re - scribed within this legislation in other sections of the act, then those powers would not be entitled to the municipal governments? So the scope of adequate powers is only what is described within different sec- tions of this act. Hon. T. Nebbeling: The quickest answer is that the powers are in this act or in other acts. J. Kwan: I j u s t w a n t t o b e c l e a r a b o u t w h a t a d e - quate powers mean and what the scope is.

So that is to say: if it's not described in this act or any other legisla- tion, then those authorities or powers, if you will, are not entitled to local governments? Hon. T. Nebbeling: The scope of powers that local governments have will have to be in one way or an- other in a form of legislation. As I said, it may be the Community Charter. There will be other powers that are established in different acts. So that's how the whole scope is covered. J. Kwan: Could the minister please also advise: how will future community needs be determined? [1455] Hon. T.

Nebbeling: The fact that the principles of municipal governance are broad are indeed done for the purpose of recognizing that in the future, things will be different, and communities must be allowed to deal with future community needs. A broad sense of the powers will allow the making of adjustments at the

6560 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 t i m e t h e y a r e n e e d e d . A s I s a i d b e f o r e , a s w e l l , t h e r e are many different communities with different needs. Again, accommodating the broad needs of different communities and different needs will be done through the broadness of the governance, so it is open-ended in the sense of dealing with future needs. J. Kwan: The minister's answer basically talked about that there will be future needs — a recognition of that — and that things change over time. Everybody knows that. Things do change, and there will be future needs.

The question is: how will those needs be recog- nized? How will those needs be determined? Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, the reason that the principles we have established under the municipal governance are the principles and have the flexibility to adapt to various circumstances…. It will be the com- munities that will be the driving force behind identify- ing different needs in the future. We are creating here the tools, through principles, to accommodate these future needs. J. Kwan: Given that we don't know what those fu- ture needs are and that this

section of the act allows for the identification of future needs, does that mean to say the identification of these future needs must meet what is prescribed in this legislation? And if it's not pre- scribed within this legislation, then the adequate pow- ers that have been talked about in the legislation would not allow for enactment to meet these needs by local governments. Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said, these are the princi- ples of municipal governance.

Future needs will be dealt with in part because the principles reflect an ade- quate system to deal with future needs, as well, even if they're not identified today. As I said, there is a true sense of flexibility in the principles that can accommo- date future needs that, as the member said, will be dif- ferent in different communities and not necessarily identified today. J. Kwan: If the scope of adequate powers is only what is prescribed within this act and other legislation, the municipalities could not exceed that scope.

They could not exceed that scope, so if they identify down the road some other future community needs, and if those community needs violate or even contravene this act or if those future needs are not identified or pre- scribed within this act, does local government then have the adequate powers — the power and the au- thority — t o m e e t t h e i r n e e d s ? I t ' s c o n t r a d i c t o r y . Y o u can't have both. Hon. T. Nebbeling: Obviously, if in the future something develops in a community that requires ac- tion under the Community Charter, the beauty of this document is that it's a living document.

No doubt through a process of change in legislation and amend- ments, these future needs will be addressed. That is the simplest way I can say it. This is not something that will now establish forever and ever what the scope of power is. It will, over the years that it will be in place, see changes. The existing Local Government Act had its founda- tion in the Baldwin Act, which was in 1849. Since 1849, quite a number of changes have been made to the Local Government Act to reflect what is there today.

That it does not reflect the needs of communities today and the charter is just a testament that things will, over the years, change. It's not copacetic. It is not that once it is created, that will be it forever. I feel very comfortable that the tools to adjust and make amendments in the broadest sense of the word, if needed in the future, are covered here. [1500] J.

Kwan: It's interesting, because it would appear to me that by the minister's own admission, adequate pow- ers to local governments are only what is prescribed within this act and other existing legislation and that local governments could not exceed beyond that scope. In the future, if other requirements are identified by local governments, they could not actually exceed their authority under this same clause of the act to meet their needs. Really, you can't have it both ways.

I mean, it sounds very nice to say it will be recognized that local governments require adequate powers and discretion to address existing and future community needs. If we don't know what those future needs are, and given that the scope of adequate powers is limited, then those needs would not be met unless there's legislative change. In due course, then, I would expect there will be new legislation in order for those needs to be met. Hon. T. Nebbeling: Of course, there will always be need of changes, and that is recognized. The thing is, of course, that we are talking in this

section about the principles. We're not talking about the specific powers. Legislation has always been the tool for local gov- ernments to get powers. It is the case today, and it will be in the future. So I don't see the problem the member has, unless maybe she can provide me with a specific example of the reflection of her concern. J. Kwan: As I've mentioned, the issue here is this. The principle, as the minister would like to call it, is that there's limited scope within the adequate powers which this act gives local government.

The minister just admitted that in my earlier question to him when I asked him about what "adequate powers" means. He advised that they are powers afforded to local govern- ments contained within this act, in other sections of this act and in other legislation. There's limited scope within the powers given to local governments. Given that future community needs can only be identified in the future, we don't know what those are and whether or not they are being addressed in this act or any other act. Nobody can anticipate that. On the one hand….

I'm trying to point out to the minister that you can't say that here are adequate pow-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6561 ers for you to meet all of your needs, including future needs, recognizing that there is limited scope within the adequate powers for one to exercise. That's the point I'm trying to make, and so it would appear to me that this

section of the act, particularly (2)(a), has two contradictory messages for local governments. I don't want to belabour this, because I expect that the minis- ter is going to say the same thing over and over again, and we don't need to keep hearing him repeat the same thing. I want to ask the minister this question, then. Under subsection (2)(b), it references "balance and certainty." Can the minister please advise this House: what does the "balance and certainty" in this

section mean? Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, we establish here the principle that local governments will have the power to deal with circumstances that may well be different in different communities. It is not a specific power we're talking about here. We're talking about the principle that local governments have this tool available to react to their specific needs in their specific communities. J. Kwan: Let me just read this

section of the act into the record, because I don't think the minister answered my question. It reads: "In relation to subsection (1), the Provincial government recognizes that municipalities require…(

b) authority to determine the public interest of their communities, within a legislative framework that supports balance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of their communities…." My question is: how does the minister define "bal- ance and certainty"? What does that mean? [1505] Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said, this

section is clearly the establishment of a principle of how, in the future, local governments will have the authority to do the things that are in the interest of their communities but still within a type of framework, a balanced frame- work. That is very important, of course. There will be sections throughout the book that will show examples of how that accountability and balance is being achieved with other stakeholders and interested parties in the communities, be it the business community or be it organizations. This is not a specific power.

This is the principle that will drive how we find all the community interests to come together in a direction that is balanced and accountable. That's the purpose of this section. J. Kwan: The word "certainty" is often used with aboriginal title, for example, to ensure that there's cer- tainty to rights, and so on and so forth. The words "balance and certainty" are chosen in this context. Does it have legal ramifications?

What is the meaning when the minister says in this legislation: "…within a legisla- tive framework that supports balance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of their communities"? Perhaps another question that the minister can bet- ter answer is: why aren't these terms, then, to be de- fined in the legislation so that we understand them clearly? Obviously, in my view, they have huge ramifi- cations in terms of how they're interpreted and their meaning for our communities as well. People should know what it means.

Broad, general understanding of words is one thing, but when it needs to be applied in the local government context, people need to know what scope they have and what the definition and in- tention of this legislation is. Hon. T. Nebbeling: My answer that I gave the first time stands for this one as well, but I should also say that there is no relationship with any type of wording that is used when we deal with first nations and land settlement issues.

The word "certainty" here is really created, as I said before, to make sure, first of all, as a principle — not as a specific power — local govern- ments will have the opportunity to find, in dealing with local issues that are of interest to citizens, balance in a solution that reflects the needs of the community as a whole. That is the people, the businesses, as I said before. It also has an element that indeed, what the local governments create to deal with an issue, with the interest of the community as a whole in mind….

That aspect has a level of certainty so that what is being done is indeed certain for the community as a whole. J. Kwan: That's what one hopes would be achieved, but how does one enforce that principle then? Hon. T. Nebbeling: The member will see when we get through the other sections that from time to time there are sections that deal specifically with the powers — not the principle but the powers — that are given under these principles and how these powers are exer- cised.

The aspect of accountability to all stakeholders is part of how these powers are going to be used by local governments to serve their communities and identify the needs of their communities specifically. [1510] J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can advise this House which sections of this act, then, deal with the notion: "…within a legislative framework that supports bal- ance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of their communities." Hon. T. Nebbeling: Well, first of all, there are throughout the charter elements of accountability woven into a number of sections.

If the member wants to start somewhere,

part 4 includes the accountability provisions. That would give her some more clarity on how we feel that this principle(2)(

b) was needed and will be the tool for local governments to work for the best interest of the community as a whole. J. Kwan: Is

part 4 the

section and the only refer- ence, then, to deal with the notion of balance and cer- tainty, and if not, what other section…? I don't want just to know generally where it is. I want to know spe- cifically what sections refer to that, because the minis-

6562 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 ter says balance and certainty will be enforced in dif- ferent sections of the act. What

section of the act would actually enforce that? How does one go about enforcing this principle? I ac- tually see it will be very difficult for it to be enforced. How does one give and recognize local government as a third order of government in this legislation and then at the same time define for them in legislation how to balance and provide certainty in balancing different interests of their community? Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I can't start identifying specific sections, because the accountability aspect is really, as I said in my first response to the question, woven through many of the sections if not all of the sections. It's a concept of accountability that we instil into the whole system of the Community Charter and the new relationship between local government and the provin- cial government and between local governments and their citizens and all stakeholders. It is in

part 4, as I said before, where the accountability tools are really described. You can't identify an individual

section to say: "Here's an example of how that principle is included in a particular section." It's throughout the whole Com- munity Charter sections. J. Kwan: It's interesting, because the Attorney Gen- eral at another debate, when we were talking about the human rights legislation…. When I asked the question, "Why would this government take away the right, the responsibility of the government, to promote human rights within British Columbia?" the Attorney General's response was that it was too Big Brother and that gov- ernment should not be in the position to do that. I dis- agree with the Attorney General.

The reason I bring that example up is this. In this context, the principle here that the minister is talking about is to make sure that local governments balance and provide certainty in relation to differing interests of their communities. My question is: how does the minister expect that principle will be followed by local governments?

If the government can't even enforce something that could be easily prescribed — the pro- motion of human rights — how can this minister through this legislation enforce and ensure that local governments provide for balance and certainty in rela- tion to the differing interests of communities? Hon. T. Nebbeling: What this legislative frame- work does is provide the powers for local government, but it also provides the limitations. That's, again, re- flected in this particular section. [1515] J. Kwan: T h a t ' s o n l y a p a r t o f i t .

I t s a y s : "…authority to determine the public interest of their communities, within a legislative framework that sup- ports balance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of their communities." So the question is: how do you ensure that local governments actually go and balance the differing interests to ensure that there's certainty in the differing interests of their communi- ties? How do you enforce local governments so that they are, in fact, doing that? How do you measure that they are actually doing that?

Those are the questions where I fail to see the principles this minister has estab- lished in this legislation that could be followed. Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said, this is the legislative framework that allows local governments to act, as the

section says, to support or to find balance and certainty in relation to the different interests of the communities. This is not a

section that is focused on enforcement. It is t h e t o o l f o r t h a t b a l a n c e d p o w e r . A s I s a i d b e f o r e , throughout the Community Charter that framework certainly includes powers but also limitations without being specific on how to enforce these powers and limi- tations. J. Kwan: Well, the minister has failed to understand the point altogether. It isn't just about enforcement; it's about the definition of it. How does one define that the local governments are balancing and providing cer- tainty in relation to differing interests?

If the Attorney General says it's too Big Brother for the Liberal gov- ernment to go and promote human rights, how could this minister claim that he could go and make sure, in principle, that in legislation — in this legislative framework — local government is providing balance and certainty in relation to differing interests of their community? The fact is that I don't believe the minister can do that. I don't believe they can do that. You can say it's your intention, but I don't think the minister has any ability whatsoever to follow through with this princi- ple in this legislation. Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Well, I can't add a lot more to what I've said before except that if the member is look- ing for the values this principle represents, she has to go back again and wait till all the sections come up where these tools are described. Again, I'm talking about balance and limitation and accountability. These are the values that will be part of achieving these goals that are established here within the principles. The answers are in many other sections throughout the Community Charter for the member to find. J.

Kwan: Well, as I said, I actually fail to see how this minister can go and enforce and adequately define the notion of balancing and providing certainty in rela- tion to differing interests of the communities. I fail to see how this legislation could do that, even in the other sections of the act. It simply cannot meet that objective, I think, because different people define different inter- ests differently. Who is to decide when that is balanced or not, and how could one put in legislation that that is the principle behind it when you can't even define what it means?

I'm going to move on to sub-subsection (c), because here's another area that needs to be canvassed with

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6563 respect to the intention of this act. Sub-subsection (

c) states: "…the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs." This sub-subsection talks about the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are ade- quate to support community needs. What ability is that, and to what extent does this go? [1520] Hon. T. Nebbeling: Obviously, the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs depends on the circum- stances of a community. It depends on the involvement o f a c o m m u n i t y i n p u r s u i n g p r o g r a m s .

A g a i n , t h i s i s not a statement of the tool — how to adequately fi- nance community needs and interests. This is just the principle upfront where we say that if a local govern- ment is involved in an activity, then they must have the tools to finance these activities. Again, it's not a state- ment of identifying what type of areas resources are needed for. It's purely a principle to say that if you're involved, then there have to be adequate financial re- sources. J. Kwan: The issue that I take in this

section is not just with the words "ability to draw on financial and other resources" — not just the word "ability" but also the word "adequate" — "that are adequate to support community needs." Again, what are the limitations of what's adequate and what's not adequate? I'll give broad examples of what's happening right now in the province. We have community services that are being cut all over the place. Women's centres are being shut down, and that's off-loading the pressures onto local government. Housing programs are being eliminated; affordable housing is not being built.

There are no new housing programs from this government. T h a t a d d s p r e s s u r e o n t o t h e l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t , a n d that's off-loading all those things onto local govern- ments, just to use a couple of examples. The ability of local government to meet the off- loading pressures as a result of this government's other policies is going to be incredible. They will have in- credible financial needs in order to meet and support their community adequately.

People, including this minister, will often say: "We don't have the funds; therefore we cannot meet the need." But it does not mean, for local government, that their needs have been met adequately, because their resources are limited. They have limited resources. What ability is this government, under the principle of this act, giving local governments for authority to have the financial resources to meet the needs of their community adequately? I would argue that the com- munities' needs are not being met adequately if people are sleeping under bridges or on the street, as an ex- ample.

If women who are being battered have no women's centres to go to, their needs are not being met adequately. So how can the minister say that within this act, in the legislative framework of this act, their intention is to ensure that local governments have the ability to draw on the financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs? Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said in my first response, this is the principle; this is not the description of the tools, of how adequately financial needs are being taken care of.

There are other parts in the Community Charter that deal with financial tools and various forms of creating revenue for a local government, and to fo- cus on specific issues or areas is not an issue that is related to the principles. J. Kwan: The way I see it, the reality of what's hap- pening out there is that local governments in the era under this government — where they're faced with off- loading left, right and centre from the Liberal govern- ment — will find it increasingly hard to have adequate resources to meet and support the community's needs.

The fact is that they would not be able to meet that demand with the ongoing off-loading from this gov- ernment. It's hypocritical for the government to actu- ally have in legislation to say to local government: "Our intention is for you to have the ability to draw on fi- nancial and other resources that are adequate to sup- port community needs." It's hypocritical, because they would not be able to meet their needs with the ongoing off-loading. That's the reality of it. The words "ability" and "adequate" are not clearly defined in terms of how one could go and achieve the goals that are required.

I want to ask the minister another question in rela- tion to the issue around the ability to draw on financial and other resources. What ability is that, and to what extent does this go for local governments? [1525] Hon. T. Nebbeling: Well, at this time, of course, the abilities today for local governments are numerous. Taxation is one; charging fees is one. Provincial grants are tools to deal with needs and adequate funding for local governments. There are a number of grants avail- able.

So local governments have tools today to deal with the financial needs that they experience in serving their communities as well as they can. I know in the future there will be other tools — although that's not part of this Community Charter — that will be established through a process of consultation with various other institutions, including UBCM. Once that work has been done, that will come to the House, and we can have another round on the financial tools with the member. J. Kwan: Would the minister agree that for any level of government, there's only one source, and that is the taxpayers themselves? Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Mr. Chair, I don't understand the point. J. Kwan: If you're taxing somebody, you're taxing the same person, whether it be from the local, the mu-

6564 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 nicipal, the provincial or the federal government. There's only one taxpayer. Is that not right? Hon. T. Nebbeling: I still don't get the point. J. Kwan: The point is this: There is only one tax- payer, and when the government says it's going to give them more authority or the ability to draw on financial and other resources — authority for the local govern- ment to do that…. The minister mentioned taxation and fees as two options to go after. You know what? That's just simply off-loading.

That is the point, when this government actually outlawed off-loading in their promise, and here we are. What this government is doing in legislation is al- lowing for off-loading onto local governments. When services are being cut, the impacts are being off-loaded onto the local governments. They have to deal with it in their municipalities, in their cities and in their towns. T h e y w i l l h a v e t o f a c e t h e p r o b l e m s t h a t s u r f a c e a s a result of the cuts in services from the provincial gov- ernment.

When that off-loading takes place and the minister says, "But we will ensure that they have the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs," then all the government is doing is off-loading the taxation onto the local government so that they will tax the same source, the one taxpayer that exists. Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to correct the member. She stated that taxes and fees are an option. I mean they are the existing tools today. We are looking at new tools as well, as the member knows, but it is not part of the Community Charter.

But local governments, in general, are in a much better situation with the Community Charter, for example, to work together with partners, which has financial consequences in the positive. Without belittling it today, this principle establishes the continuation of local governments having the tools — be it taxes, be it fees collected at the local level rather than by the other forms of government — to be in place to support community needs. J.

Kwan: Well, if the minister says there are no new authorities given to governments to have financial re- sources that would be available to them, then how could they meet the community needs when there is increased off-loading? The numbers don't add up. Hon. T. Nebbeling: If the member wants to talk on that subject, I would suggest we wait until we get to

section 2, where off-loading is being discussed. J. Kwan: Yes, we will get into the discussion around off-loading, as the minister admits that

section 2 allows for off-loading from this government, and we'll engage in that discussion. To use the minister's words exactly, he says that off-loading is being dis- cussed under

section 2. Those are the words of the min- ister. By the minister's own admission, this government is indeed off-loading onto local government. It's not just the accusation of the opposition who says this is happening. It's not just local government who's saying this is happening. It really is happening. The intention here is this. "The ability to draw on financial and other resources" means off-loading onto local government, and therefore it also means off- loading taxation and fees onto local governments. We're clear on that

section there, on sub-subsection (c), and to what extent this ability to draw on financial and other resources actually means. [1530] Then let's move on to another question around this. I'm interested to know: are there any limitations on setting the level of taxation under this section? Hon. T. Nebbeling: No. This is just the principle. It is not the tools of how to establish or collect. This is merely the principle that is driving the abilities of local governments dealing with the financial issues. J. Kwan: Is there a dispute resolution process if the provincial government assigns responsibilities to mu- nicipalities? [H. Long in the chair.] Hon. T. Nebbeling: That is dealt with in

section 2. J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise: with whom will the minister consult regarding proposed changes to local government legislation? Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, this is an issue that falls under

section 2. So if the member wants to move on to

section 2, we can deal with these issues she's beginning to raise now. J. Kwan: Okay. I'll ask these same questions again under

section 2. I would like to ask the minister this question: how will the provincial government respect the varying needs and conditions of different municipalities in dif- ferent areas of B.C.? Hon. T. Nebbeling: Are we on

section 2 or not? That, again, is a principle in

section 2, and that is prin- ciple (d). So if we want to start discussing

section 2, we should call the question on

section 1. The Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on

section 1. J. Kwan: Yes, on

section 1. I know the minister would like to say, "Well, this is being dealt with in

section 2," and I can ask those ques- tions again in

section 2. But the reality is this: under

section 1 the principles, purposes and

interpretation of the act are enlisted in this section. The act actually goes on to talk about — as an example,

section 1(2)(e) — "authority to provide effective management and deliv-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6565 ery of services in a manner that is responsive to com- munity needs." The questions I'm asking are within the context of these principles that are broadly laid out, so I can ask them here and I can ask them there. It doesn't matter to me; I can ask them later as well. I'm going to keep on canvassing them. Just in case, when we get to

section 2, the minister may say, "Well, you know, that should have been dealt with in

section 1," I don't want to miss the opportunity to ask my questions. I'm marking these questions the minister says he'll deal with in

section 2. So let me ask another question relating to the issues in

part 1. How will the province ensure that munici- palities' concerns are addressed in interprovincial, na- tional or international discussions that affect munici- palities? Hon. T. Nebbeling: Sorry, but again that is an issue specifically addressed in

section 2. So the last four questions the member has asked, and sometimes ask- ing questions whereby she quotes verbatim the

section in

section 2…. I really think we have to call on

section 1, because I can't answer any of these issues, as they do relate to

section 2 and come from

section 2. J. Kwan: As I said, I'll be happy to ask these ques- tions again. The principles do deal broadly with a whole range of issues, including the questions that I've asked. I don't want to miss the opportunity to ask the minister the questions. [1535] Well, then let me ask the minister another question. Under

section 2(1)(b), which states under this sec- tion…. Are there any immediate or future plans for harmonization? Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, that is in

section 2. J. Kwan: Then I'll ask all these questions to the min- ister under

section

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. Kwan: The questions I asked the minister previ- ously are under this section, he said. So will the minis- ter answer the questions that I've asked? Hon. T. Nebbeling: Can the member repeat each question? Then we can deal with each question. J. Kwan: For the minister again, let's start with this first one: is there a dispute resolution process if the provincial government assigns responsibility to a mu- nicipality? Hon. T. Nebbeling: The provincial government cannot and must not assign responsibilities to local governments without providing the necessary tools to fulfil that new responsibility.

If there is a dispute be- tween the local government and the provincial gov- ernment on that aspect, then there is a dispute resolu- t i o n p r o c e s s , a n d t h a t i s i n p a r t 9 . T h a t i s p a r t o f t h e charter to deal with disagreements between local and provincial governments. J.

Kwan: When the minister says that the provincial government must not assign responsibilities to local government, would the minister categorize the as- signment of responsibilities to local government when, as an example, the provincial government stops fund- ing to women's centres that exist in municipalities, and municipalities are no longer able to provide for and meet the needs of women who need the services of women's centres? Is that an assignment of provincial responsibilities to municipalities?

While one may not call that an official assignment of responsibility to local governments, is the net effect the same — the off- loading of those services onto local government and therefore the impacts onto local government? Hon. T. Nebbeling: In general, if the provincial government decides to stop providing a particular ser- vice or providing assistance to a particular service, that service is not at the same time told by the provincial government to be absorbed in the local government structure. There is no off-loading.

If the government will no longer provide funding for a particular service, there is no commitment, no requirement and no expec- tation that local governments will pick up the bill to continue providing that service. No, there is no mandate by the provincial govern- ment to order local governments to take on a service. If they did, then it could not happen without the financial tools to take on the new responsibility. But the provin- cial government walking away from providing a spe- cific service is no reason for local governments to think that they have to take it on. That would be a local deci- sion. [1540] J.

Kwan: The minister says that there is no assign- ment of responsibilities to local government when a service is being cut by the provincial government. The municipality is not required to provide for that service. The net effect, though — would the minister not agree? — is that the impacts are on the local governments. Would they not have to deal with it in some way, or do they just ignore, then, the problems that surface as a result of the loss of those services in their community as a result of provincial cuts? Hon. T. Nebbeling: It's totally a local decision. Let me illustrate for the member.

Last year we decided not to cut grass along the highways. The provincial gov- ernment, in its process of finding the funds for impor- tant projects that we are working on, was looking for a saving of $5 million, so we stopped cutting the grass. Some municipalities wanted to continue to see the

6566 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 grass cut, and they did it themselves. Or the communi- ties just let it grow and had no problem with that. It's a local decision. That's within the spirit of the charter, very much so, because the charter is really driven by the principles of letting local communities make decisions that are of importance to the local communities themselves and the people they serve.

There is no direction from the provincial government to take on the new service without adequate funding under the no-off-loading provisions, but if a community wants to take on a ser- vice that is no longer provided by the provincial gov- ernment, that is totally a community choice. J. Kwan: So, then the option for local government is this. Where provincial government programs are being cut — and they are being cut throughout British Co- lumbia — and the impacts will be felt by the munici- palities, towns and cities across British Columbia….

When the provincial government does not say, "You have to take up this responsibility," then the local gov- ernments should just ignore the problems. Like the minister says: "Let the grass grow." Alternatively, for women's centres, let the women who need the services, who are fleeing abuse, be left on the street or perhaps go back to their abusive relation- ships or…. Well, I don't know. I don't know what the options are. Alternatively, I suppose, the local government can find funding somewhere, of which they have none — and has been off-loaded from the provincial govern- ment….

So the minister's advice then, when local gov- ernments don't have this money for a provincial service that's been cut, is that they should ignore the problem and just let it grow like the grass is growing on the boulevards? Hon. T. Nebbeling: It truly is a local choice. It is up to the local community, the local council, to make that decision. It is not mandated by the provincial govern- ment. It is a local decision, and that's what the member has to recognize. J. Kwan: Another analogy I would like to draw is that it would be like the Minister of Education, who has frozen the education funding.

There's not enough money in the education system. Trustees are saying that, parents are saying that, children are experiencing that, but the Minister of Education is saying: "Don't blame me; it's the local authority who gets to make that decision to cut that program. I'm not doing it." The same principle is being applied here under the Community Charter. The only difference is that it's far greater in its scope, because it applies to every single service that would impact the local government at the local level when a provincial service is being cut. The option, then, for these local governments is to ignore it.

Just let the problems proliferate sort of like grass that grows on the boulevard and ignore it. It's their choice to do that. It's not the choice of the provin- cial government's, which has caused this problem for the municipalities. That's in essence, then, what the minister is saying. [1545] Well, by the silence from the minister, one can only assume that that is what it means. So then I would say to local governments, "Heads up," because this act allows for off-loading.

For the Liberal gov- ernment to say that they're not off-loading to local governments because they are not specifically assign- ing that responsibility to the municipalities…. But at the same time we know that those services are being cut and that those impacts are being felt in their re- spective communities. When women who are fleeing abusive relation- ships, as an example, are piling up in their community, then by the analogy the minister had used by way of comparison, it's their choice how they would deal with it — sort of like watching the grass grow. Interesting.

That's the new-era approach and the principles in the legislation that are defined in this act, the new Com- munity Charter. Let me canvass this question. With whom will the minister consult regarding proposed changes to local government legislation? Hon. T. Nebbeling: The sections that the member brought up about consultation, again, are the princi- ples. When we get to

part 9, we will be able to identify who the partners will be in the consultation process, including the UBCM, of course. The member seems to be confused about what the intent is of these issues. These are not active…. That's maybe not the right word. These are not directions how to proceed in the process of negotiations or consultations. These are the principles that demand or require consultation. That's the explanation for this. J. Kwan: This is fascinating, because earlier I asked these questions under

section 1, the same questions that I'm asking. Now the minister says: "Ask them in

section 2." We're now dealing with

section 2, so I'm asking the minister these questions, and he says: "Oh, ask me in

part 9." Perhaps the strategy here is this: don't answer the questions. Then he thinks he might be able to get away with it. Maybe that's the strategy here. I don't know. It's simple. Under

section 2, it deals with the princi- ples of municipal-provincial relations: "The relation- ship between municipalities and the Provincial gov- ernment is based on the following principles." Then under (2)(

b) it says: "…the Provincial government must not assign responsibilities to municipalities unless there is provision for resources required to fulfill the responsibilities." Then (2)(

c) says: "…consultation is needed on mat- ters of mutual interest, including consultation by the Provincial government on (

i) proposed changes to local government legislation, (ii) proposed changes to reve- nue transfers to municipalities, and (iii) proposed changes to Provincial programs that will have a signifi- cant impact in relation to matters that are within mu- nicipal authority."

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6567 So it would be reasonable — w o u l d i t n o t , M r . Chair? — to ask the question: with whom will the min- ister consult regarding proposed changes to local gov- ernment legislation within the definition of these prin- ciples? Isn't that a logical question to ask? Hon. T. Nebbeling: The member reads out clearly what this

section does. I will read it out for her benefit as well: "The relationship between municipalities and the Provincial government is based on the following principles…." Nothing more. It is not the

section that describes how these principles are enacted. It doesn't say in here what the necessary steps the provincial government will take or must take, based on the prin- ciples, in dealing with issues that are of interest to local governments. If the member wants to know who and when and where and how that process is started, I would suggest she take the time and actually read the Community Charter that she's debating here. Then she would have known that

part 9 deals with these issues. That's the best answer I can give on that section, and we can get back to the questions that the member has asked when we get to

part 9. [1550] J. Kwan: Well, that's the strategy that the minister has adopted: to not answer the questions and keep on deferring it to some other section. I've read the Community Charter. As far as I can tell, the only requirement for consultation is with the UBCM and with nobody else. But there are a lot of people that, I would argue, the minister needs to con- sult with. Maybe it's the minister who actually needs to look at the legislation. When you say that in principle there's consultation that needs to be done, then, in principle, with whom is the minister intending to con- sult? I would say that's a logical question to ask under this

section of the act. Maybe consultation works kind of like this, and it has been the case with this government, to date, on consultation. They campaigned that they would con- sult with the public, but what really happened is that they don't. They don't consult with the public. They think they have the power and authority to just ram things through, and then they do it. The difference here is this.

With the Community Charter there's a whole lot of ramifications for every single community across British Columbia, and the opposition wants to make sure peo- ple are properly consulted and that consultation takes place not just with the UBCM. The consultation re- quirements, in any definition…. The ramifications are huge as to what's being looked at, and changes to local government are broader than the impacts on the U B C M . I t ' s e v e r y c o m m u n i t y , w i t h m a n y p e o p l e a n d stakeholders who, in my view, need to be consulted.

We now know that the minister's strategy is to not answer the question but to move it on to another sec- tion. He has admitted that the government will off- load, and when that off-loading takes place…. You know, they can claim that they are not off-loading to the local government, because when provincial service are being cut, they've not assigned those responsibili- ties to the particular local government.

When the im- pacts are being felt by the municipalities, when those services are being cut, the minister's advice to local government is: "If you have the money, deal with it, but if you don't have the money, then just watch the problems grow like grass on the boulevard; just let it grow." This is what local governments can anticipate, in part, under the new and better, improved Commu- nity Charter with this minister, with this government, with the new era, with the Liberals. We've got that clear. Let me ask this question that the minister said to ask him under

section 2. He may well now refer me to another

section and not answer the question, because has done that already with the previous questions I've asked. How will the provincial government respect the varying needs and conditions of different municipali- ties in different areas of British Columbia? Hon. T. Nebbeling: Let me, first of all, give a brief background for the member's benefit about consulta- tion. We have taken two years to discuss with local governments, on numerous occasions and in different parts of the province, the creation of the Community Charter.

Approximately 1,500 submissions were re- ceived from local governments based on the various workshops we have had in the province. We created a draft that was sent to 1,500 different bodies, and 43,500 copies of the Community Charter draft were taken off the Internet. We have had further consultation, after the release of the draft, with various stakeholder groups — be it business, union, individuals or organi- zations.

We have gone through a tremendous process of finding out what local governments and citizens feel is the best way we can go about not only how, in the fu- ture, the relationship between local governments and the provincial government is developed but also how to work very much focused on the principles that local governments are the governments closest to the people t h e y s e r v e a n d k n o w b e s t w h a t ' s h a p p e n i n g i n t h e i r communities, what the community's desires are and how to fulfil these community desires.

That is the es- sence of the charter: local decision-making based on local issues. That is for the member's information. [1555] As far as how we deal with this in the future, well, in principle we will always consult with affected par- ties. We don't know yet what the circumstances of these issues are, but that is, again, an issue or a way we will work directly with local governments under the Community Charter and with the UBCM and from time to time with other stakeholders as well, because I think it's important that this be a very inclu- sive process. J.

Kwan: If the intention of the consultation process is as broad as the minister has outlined it to be, then

6568 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 why is it that in this legislation the only requirement is that the consultation take place with the UBCM? Hon. T. Nebbeling: I think I made it very clear that the process we have gone through has been in order to create a Community Charter and in order to ensure that the Community Charter truly reflects how local communities in the future want to be in charge of their own destiny. I'm not talking about future legislation; I'm not talking about future direction. How that consultation process will take place is in

part 9. If the member will wait till we get to

part 9, she will see how we, in the future, will consult with local governments, how we will consult through the UBCM and how we will con- sult directly through municipalities. J. Kwan: Let's just be clear what this

section says. These are the principles that the minister says he's in- tending to follow, and I am canvassing with the minis- ter what exactly his intentions behind these principles are. Then the minister has referred me to

part 9 to say: "My intentions are clear under

part 9." When you go to

part 9, he says very clearly that in the legislation the only requirement for consultation is with the UBCM. It requires no other consultation with any other stakeholder. This is about future legislation, about future changes, and so, too, is the principle sec- tion which deals with future changes — proposed changes to local government legislation, proposed changes to revenue transfers and proposed changes to provincial programs — that will have a significant im- pact in relation to matters that are within municipal authority. It follows that these questions are being asked.

It follows that if the government would like to claim they are broadening their consultation process, then why isn't it in the legislation that it states they would be required to consult with other parties — a list of people that the minister just puts on the record — and not just with the UBCM. That is the issue here that we're dis- cussing. Hon. T. Nebbeling: Maybe the member should look at

section 2 again. This is about the relationship between municipalities and the provincial government and is based on a series of principles, including how, in the future, we will formally work together with UBCM to deal with issues that are of interest to local govern- ment. Let me also say that today we do exactly the same thing through a memorandum of understanding. We have a commitment with the UBCM — and a commit- ment was part of the member's former government's initiatives — to have consultation on an ongoing basis on issues of mutual respect dealing with local govern- ment issues.

That has never stopped us — and in the past, I hope, the former government — from meeting individually with community members or community leaders who have specific issues they would like to see discussed with the minister. That's on an ongoing ba- sis, and I have no doubt that that will continue to hap- pen. The principle that is needed is to establish a vehicle for local government access to the provincial govern- ment when these discussions have to take place on issues of municipal interest. That will have the form of body as is expressed in

part 9, and that we will get to much later, I take it. [1600] J. Kwan: The legislation says very clearly that the only party the government is required to consult with is the UBCM, when the minister knows — and if he doesn't, he ought to know — that the ramifications of many changes, including changes to provincial pro- grams — that is to say, cuts to provincial programs and services — will have significant impact in relation to matters that are within the municipality authority. It impacts the municipalities. It impacts community groups. It impacts the unions.

It impacts the individu- als who need those services and the families and chil- dren who need those services. One would have thought that a government that claims it's big on consultation and has committed to consultation with the public would actually prescribe in legislation that it would consult with these other stakeholders. That is the point. The legislation does not require that. This legislation does not mention any other stakeholder except for the one.

When the minister knows very well that these program cuts in services that are taking place — and more are to come — will impact their communities and the individuals, he ought to perhaps consult with them and be required to do so under the legislation. When he isn't requiring himself to do that work — this government to do that work — why isn't he? Is he afraid to go and talk to the public? Why doesn't he pre- scribe it in legislation to say that these other stake- holders must be consulted as well? Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Briefly, these are the principles that establish the new local government–provincial government relationship and how discussions will be happening on provincial issues that have an important element for local government or that impact on local government. That's what this does. That doesn't stop us from ever talking to other parties.

I'm really surprised that this member is bringing this point constantly to the front, considering that she was part of a government during the last decade that went through a local government review, and at no time did they ever introduce the principle that she is now standing up for and very seriously lacking in this document…. She was part of rewriting the Local Gov- ernment Act or the Municipal Act, and she had the opportunity at that time to introduce the principle that the public had to be consulted. They didn't do it.

For her to now stand here on a high principle that she so strongly believes in, I think she can only say to herself that she failed the public, if that is what she believes should be done, at the time she had the chance to do it.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6569 These are the principles that establish the relation- ship between the provincial government and local gov- ernment, how we deal with issues that have to be dis- cussed. As far as any other issues, the doors are always o p e n f o r o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s t o c o m e i n i f t h e y f e e l t h e need to discuss matters with individual ministers. J. Kwan: Let me get this straight. The reason the minister says he's not doing it is because we didn't do it.

He says: "Don't worry, because as the minister is the government, we have the authority to go beyond what the legislation says, and that's to go further than the consultation requirements as prescribed in this legisla- tion." So he says: "Don't worry." The reality is this. Yesterday, Mr. Chair, we debated a piece of legislation that impacts all British Columbia on the forestry issue. The Leader of the Opposition put forward a hoist motion to say: "You know what?

We need to go and consult the public, so let's put a hold on this legislation for six months so that we can do that." In other sessions there's been other legislation put forward where the opposition had advanced the notion that we should go out and consult with the public on the impacts of these changes and, of course, with the hope of finding better solutions to the challenges and problems that we're faced with. The government, in- cluding this minister, voted against every one of those motions — every single one.

Given an opportunity to go and do consultation broader than what is prescribed and in this instance what is prescribed in legislation, the government refuses to do so consistently. The gov- ernment rejected that opportunity at every turn. [1605] When we're talking about the Community Charter, where the ramifications of changes are enormous and where future changes are also significant, it states clearly under the principles — which then, of course, provide one with the understanding — that the intention of the government is as follows.

The intention of the govern- ment would be based on the principle that consultation would be required on matters of mutual interest, includ- ing consultation by the provincial government on — I'll just pick one area here — proposed changes to provin- cial programs that will have a significant impact in rela- tion to matters that are within municipal authority.

When you look at that one clause alone, you have to acknowledge the fact that when proposed changes to provincial programs are underway — which is, by the way, a euphemistic way to say "cuts to provincial pro- grams," whether it be cuts to children who are sexually abused, as the Ministry of Children and Family Devel- o p m e n t i s d o i n g ; c u t s t o e d u c a t i o n , a s t h e M i n i s t r y o f Education is doing; cuts to the Water, Land and Air Pro- tection area; cuts to the Advanced Education area; cuts to welfare, the Human Resources area — you name it — cuts to the health care programming area; respite beds, which I just asked questions about yesterday….

When all these cuts are taking place, they are called under this piece of legislation "proposed changes to provincial pro- grams" that will have a significant impact in relation to matters within the municipal authority. The consultation is only required in this act under

part 9 with the UBCM, but the impact is being felt by every individual, I would argue, in the local authority, whether it be the individuals or families or the children who need those services; whether it be the service agencies, the non-profit societies that provide for those services; or the businesses that operate within those communities. Everyone would be impacted as a result of these changes. Why doesn't the minister require con- sultation with these other members of the community and not just with the UBCM? The answer, the minister says, is: "Don't worry.

It's all in hand." Yet at every turn when the opposition puts forward the motion to en- gage in broader consultation, this minister and every government member vote it down. That is the record. I have no faith on the issue around consultation here in this legislation when it is not prescribed clearly w h o e l s e s h o u l d b e c o n s u l t e d . I t i s n o t c l e a r l y p r e - scribed. I have a lot of concern about that. We've established the government's intention on consultation. They will only consult with one party, and that is the UBCM and nobody else in legislation. All right.

I disagree with that, and I have problems with that, but I do want to ask the minister this ques- tion. When I asked him the question earlier under sec- tion 1, he said, "Ask me the questions under

section 2," so I'm going to ask the question under

section 2. How will the provincial government respect the varying needs and conditions of different municipalities in dif- ferent areas of B.C.? Hon. T. Nebbeling: If the member reads subsection (2)(d): "the Provincial government respects the varying needs and conditions of different municipalities in dif- ferent areas of British Columbia…

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0507pm 05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0507pm 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	63c125e7ebe64cbf095cbf21e0460bdd0d5657bd

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).