2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Bill Hartley

J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Hospice palliative care

T. Christensen

Child Care Month

W. McMahon

Merritt Mountain Music Festival

D. Chutter

Oral Questions

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

Self-Governance in the Health Professions: The

Ombudsman's Perspective , o mbudsman special report No.

Committee of the Whole House

Community Charter (Bill 14)

J. Kwan

Hon. T. Nebbeling

B. Bennett

Reporting of Bills

Community Charter (Bill 14)

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan

[ Page 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 accompanied 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

MacPhail: I note with sadness the passing of Bill Hartley, who was an MLA in

the '72-75 Barrett government. Some of us worked with a younger Bill Hartley.

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.

Weisbeck: I have two introductions to make today. The first one is Noel

Armeneau, raised in Kelowna, currently one of our newest additions working for

the Liberal caucus as the assistant deputy technical 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

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 effective such facilities can be in providing medical, emotional 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 possible. 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 would

like to commend the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care

on her end-of-life discussion paper, which welcomed public submissions from all

over the province on how to improve palliative care provision. I know that the

Vernon Hospice 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 accommodating 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 system. As the demand for palliative care service rises, it

is important that society examine how the most appropriate care can be provided.

This last

year was the first year that Vernon Hospice 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-

[ Page 6554 ]

ognize their significance by working with them and the health authorities to

ensure their success.

CHILD CARE MONTH

McMahon: I rise in the House today to recognize 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 economic

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 before.

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 administration. 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

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 Merritt and spend money in our small

businesses. The Merritt Chamber of Commerce has a vision for a Merritt 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

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 supplementary question.

MacPhail: I'm sure that waffling will come to the parents with absolute

shock and dismay, because he is

[ Page 6555 ]

reneging on his promise he made to them. He's reneging 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 services. The opposition

has now been told that after signing 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 breaking 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 respect 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 make sure we do it more efficiently.

To do that, we 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 possible

to them. That's exactly what we're doing.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Yesterday we learned that this minister has wasted $25 million on

a botched transition plan. Today we learned he's cutting $30 million from

programs 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 result, 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 objectives 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 sensitive 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 letters 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 go and that this province is on the cutting edge of providing

services that are community based, responsive 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 working 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 Carwithen

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 siphoning of water from Carwithen and Greenview lakes in

Strathcona Park, B.C.'s oldest provincial park. The Ministry of Water, Land and

Air Protection has yet to receive either an application for a permit or an

environmental report on the proposal, as the minister has just admitted. Can the

minister tell this House and explain 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.

[ Page 6556 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

WEST NILE VIRUS

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.

Chong: British Columbians are becoming increasingly worried about the

effects of West Nile and the possibility 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 vigilant and be prepared. Certainly,

our experience with SARS has shown that if we take a coordinated approach, 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 several 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 Disease 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 people 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:

My question is to the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. Each

year cruise ships en route to Alaska stop in my community and leave millions of

dollars in the local economy. However, it has come to my attention that the

state of Alaska is considering a $100-per-passenger tax on all cruise ship

passengers 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 community. 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 committee on economic development, trade and tourism. I've been in

contact with the chair of this committee, representative 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

Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Advanced 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 students 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 growth over the next number of years. So, it's a great 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

[ Page 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 Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Earlier

this session we in the House had the opportunity 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 number of ranches and one of the largest cow-calf operations 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 agriculture

industry expand and prosper?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: We do see significant potential for expansion of the cattle

industry in British Columbia, and we are working on a number of fronts to

facilitate that. We do have a small but effective program 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

productivity 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 development lands in the Vanderhoof area into agriculture. We're

looking at grazing lease renewals and facilitating 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.

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

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 message on

March 11 announcing the current legislation stated that the charter replaces the

tradition of legislation — an intention to replace

section 92(8) of the

Constitution 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-

[ Page 6558 ]

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 advocates 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 government," by confirming and

qualifying whether or not this legislation intends to establish municipal

governments as an independent order of government?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: As I said before, by including the statement in the principles of

the Community Charter, 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 challenging 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 of government? If that's the case, we should be clear about that, because

the legislation actually says that municipalities and their councils are

recognized as an order of government within their jurisdiction.

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 democratically

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 constitution 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 provincial 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 recognized as an order of government within their

jurisdiction."

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 baffled 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 different process. We have no intention of starting any

other process. In the principle we are clearly recognizing local governments as

an order of government within their own jurisdiction in order to set a benchmark

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 challenge. 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 Municipal 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

[ Page 6559 ]

counsel, and they found another way to address this issue without challenging

the constitutionality in recognizing local governments as an order of government

in legislation in itself, which is why I asked the question.

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, recognizing that local

government is an independent, responsible and accountable order of government

within its jurisdiction" — exactly the wording that she's arguing….

That was the act passed during the time the member was a member of cabinet of

the previous government.

J. Kwan:

The point is that the recognition was actually 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 legislation 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

minister, though…. What he's saying is that even by putting in the words

"an order of government," it does not recognize 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

recognition was already established in 1996 by the former government.

What we are

doing here is, as I said before, recognizing local government as an order of

government within its own jurisdiction. We as a provincial government are

determined to go as far as we can under the constitution of Canada with this

particular statement.

J. Kwan:

Then, for the record, this legislation does not establish municipal governments

as an independent third order of government. If I don't hear the minister

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 government governance and the principles of

municipal-provincial relations in the second part of it.

J. Kwan:

What is the definition of "adequate powers" 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 defined "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 governance has been established. Based on local

circumstances, 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 governments 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:

So is it to say, if the powers are not prescribed 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 sections of this act.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: The quickest answer is that the powers are in this act or in

other acts.

J. Kwan:

I just want to be clear about what adequate powers mean and what the scope is.

So that is to say: if it's not described in this act or any other legislation,

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 another 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

[ Page 6560 ]

time they are needed. As I said before, as well, there 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 recognized? 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 communities that will be the driving

force behind identifying 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 future 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 prescribed within this legislation, then the

adequate powers 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 principles of municipal governance.

Future needs will be dealt with in part because the principles reflect an

adequate 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 accommodate future needs that, as the member said, will be

different 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 prescribed within this act,

does local government then have the adequate powers — the power and the

authority — to meet their needs? It's contradictory. You can't have both.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Obviously, if in the future something develops in a community

that requires action 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 amendments, 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 foundation 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 powers 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 governments 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 governments 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-

[ Page 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

minister 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 "balance 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 framework. 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 certainty 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 legislative framework that supports balance and certainty in

relation to the differing interests of their communities"?

Perhaps

another question that the minister can better answer is: why aren't these terms,

then, to be defined in the legislation so that we understand them clearly?

Obviously, in my view, they have huge ramifications 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 intention 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

governments 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 exercised. 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 balance

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:

part 4 the

section and the only reference, then, to deal with the notion of

balance and certainty, and if not, what other section…? I don't want just to

know generally where it is. I want to know specifically what sections refer to

that, because the minis-

[ Page 6562 ]

ter says balance and certainty will be enforced in different sections of the

act.

What

section of the act would actually enforce that? How does one go about enforcing

this principle? I actually 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 provincial

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

Community Charter sections.

J. Kwan:

It's interesting, because the Attorney General 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 government should

not be in the position to do that. I disagree 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 promotion of human rights — how can this minister

through this legislation enforce and ensure that local governments provide for

balance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of communities?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: What this legislative framework does is provide the powers for

local government, but it also provides the limitations. That's, again, reflected

in this particular section.

[1515]

J. Kwan:

That's only a part of it. It says: "…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." 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 communities? 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 established 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 the tool for that balanced

power. As I said before, throughout the Community Charter that framework

certainly includes powers but also limitations without being specific on how to

enforce these powers and limitations.

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 certainty in relation to differing

interests? If the Attorney General says it's too Big Brother for the Liberal

government 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 principle 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 looking 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 relation 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 interests

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

[ Page 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 adequate 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 circumstances of a

community. It depends on the involvement of a community in pursuing programs.

Again, this is not a statement of the tool — how to adequately finance

community needs and interests. This is just the principle upfront where we say

that if a local government is involved in an activity, then they must have the

tools to finance these activities. Again, it's not a statement 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 resources.

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. That adds pressure onto the local

government, and that's off-loading all those things onto local governments, 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 incredible

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 communities' needs are not

being met adequately if people are sleeping under bridges or on the street, as

an example. 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 focus 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 happening 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 government — 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 government. It's hypocritical for the government to actually have in

legislation to say to local government: "Our intention is for you to have

the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to

support 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 relation 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 available.

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-

[ Page 6564 ]

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 taxpayer, 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 government 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 allowing 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. They will have to face the problems that

surface as a result of the cuts in services from the provincial government. 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 resources 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 discussed under

section 2. Those are the words of the minister. 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 municipalities?

[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

different 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 principle (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 questions 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-

[ Page 6565 ]

ery of services in a manner that is responsive to community 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 municipalities' concerns are addressed in interprovincial, national

or international discussions that affect municipalities?

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 asking

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 questions 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 section…. 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 minister under

section

Section 1

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

The questions I asked the minister previously are under this section, he said.

So will the minister 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

municipality?

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 between the local

government and the provincial government on that aspect, then there is a dispute

resolution process, and that is in

part 9. That is part of the 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

assignment of responsibilities to local government when, as an example, the

provincial government stops funding 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 service 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 expectation that local governments will pick

up the bill to continue providing that service.

No, there

is no mandate by the provincial government 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 provincial government walking away from

providing a specific service is no reason for local governments to think that

they have to take it on. That would be a local decision.

[1540]

J. Kwan:

The minister says that there is no assignment 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

government, in its process of finding the funds for important 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

[ Page 6566 ]

grass cut, and they did it themselves. Or the communities 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 service that is no longer provided by the provincial

government, 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 Columbia

— and the impacts will be felt by the municipalities, towns and cities across

British Columbia…. When the provincial government does not say, "You have

to take up this responsibility," then the local governments 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 relationships 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 government…. So the

minister's advice then, when local governments 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

government. 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 provincial 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 government to say that they're not

off-loading to local governments because they are not specifically assigning

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

respective communities.

When women

who are fleeing abusive relationships, 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 Community 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 principles. 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 principles of municipal-provincial

relations: "The relationship between municipalities and the Provincial

government 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 matters of mutual interest, including

consultation by the Provincial government on (

i) proposed changes to local

government legislation, (ii) proposed changes to revenue transfers to

municipalities, and (iii) proposed changes to Provincial programs that will have

a significant impact in relation to matters that are within municipal

authority."

[ Page 6567 ]

So it would

be reasonable — would it not, Mr. Chair? — to ask the question: with whom

will the minister consult regarding proposed changes to local government

legislation within the definition of these principles? 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 principles, 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 consult 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 consult? 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 consult

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 people

are properly consulted and that consultation takes place not just with the UBCM.

The consultation requirements, 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 UBCM. It's every community, with many people and 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 section. 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 responsibilities to the particular local

government. When the impacts 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 Community 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 municipalities

in different areas of British Columbia?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Let me, first of all, give a brief background for the member's

benefit about consultation. 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 received

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 organizations.

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 future, 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 they serve and know best

what's happening in their communities, what the community's desires are and how

to fulfil these community desires. That is the essence 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 parties. 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 inclusive process.

J. Kwan:

If the intention of the consultation process is as broad as the minister has

outlined it to be, then

[ Page 6568 ]

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 consult

directly through municipalities.

J. Kwan:

Let's just be clear what this

section says. These are the principles that

the minister says he's intending to follow, and I am canvassing with the

minister 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

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

section 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

impact 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 discussing.

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

government.

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 commitment 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 government 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 basis, and I have no doubt that that will continue to happen.

The

principle that is needed is to establish a vehicle for local government access

to the provincial government 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 programs — 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 individuals who need

those services and the families and children 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

prescribe it in legislation to say that these other stakeholders 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 Government 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.

[ Page 6569 ]

These are

the principles that establish the relationship between the provincial government

and local government, how we deal with issues that have to be discussed. As far

as any other issues, the doors are always open for other individuals to come in

if they feel the 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 legislation." 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,

including 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 government 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

government would be based on the principle that consultation would be required

on matters of mutual interest, including consultation by the provincial

government on — I'll just pick one area here — proposed changes to

provincial programs that will have a significant impact in relation 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 programs," whether it be

cuts to children who are sexually abused, as the Ministry of Children and Family

Development is doing; cuts to education, as the Ministry of Education is doing;

cuts to the Water, Land and Air Protection 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 programs" 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 consultation 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 engage 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 who else should be consulted. It is not clearly prescribed. 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 question. When I asked him the question earlier under

section 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 different 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 different areas of British Columbia…." That will be reflected, and

dealing with the uniqueness of different communities will be dealt with through

the principles that have been established. How we will communicate and work

together with the UBCM or…. UBCM is the best word to say for dealing with

local issues of interest.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer the question. The question is: how will the minister

attain and ensure that objective is met?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: We're dealing with the principles of the charter. It's the

principles here. There are in different other sections, again, aspects of how we

deal with unique situations, enabling bylaws and other opportunities for local

governments to have their situations dealt with.

One of the

things that drives the charter, as well, is that we do not believe that one

solution fits all situations. The need for recognizing unique situations in

different communities is recognized through a series of other elements within

the charter, including

part 9 as well.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer the question. He keeps on saying: "Well, these

are the principles." Well, the principles speak to the intention. The

intent of

[ Page 6570 ]

the legislation is critical in terms of how it is being carried out. To get

clarity on that is simply impossible from this minister, because he refuses to

answer the question. He simply refuses to answer the question. The minister

won't answer the question in terms of how the provincial government would

respect the varying degrees of needs and conditions of different municipalities

in different areas of B.C.

How will

the province ensure that municipalities' concerns are addressed in

interprovincial, national and international discussions that affect the

municipalities?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: The same applies here as it has applied with the other areas the

member has been trying to raise. These are the principles. The tools are in

part

9. I hope that the member will remember all these questions when we get to

part

9, because by that time we can give the answers.

J. Kwan:

It's an interesting approach from the minister. For every single question that's

been asked under

section 1, he says: "Go to

section 2." When the same

questions are being asked under

section 2, he goes: "Oh, go to

part

9." Then he goes: "I hope the member remembers to ask those

questions."

The issue

here really is that I hope the minister actually will have the answers for those

questions, because so far we have spent — what? — about an hour and 15

minutes, and we have basically obtained no answers from this minister on any of

the questions that have been canvassed.

The other

area that I want to canvass under

section 2 from this minister — and he said,

"Ask me under

section 2" — so here goes again…. I suspect he

probably won't answer the question, but here goes again anyway. Under 2(1)(b),

are there any immediate or future plans for harmonization?

[1615]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: In (1)(b): "The citizens of British Columbia are best

served, when, in their relationship, municipalities and the Provincial

government work towards harmonization of Provincial and municipal enactments,

policies and programs…." It's a statement of principle that is also a

call. There are no tools in the principles, obviously, on how to achieve that.

That will be part of the discussions that are ongoing between local governments,

through the UBCM, and the provincial government. So, again, this is not

something that an example can be given of how it works. It is an intent and a

statement that the best way for the local government and the provincial

government to achieve harmonization in these areas is to the best benefit of all

of British Columbia.

J. Kwan:

Are there any immediate plans or future plans for harmonization?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Like I say, there are not specific plans on the table to say,

"Okay, here are areas where we could harmonize," but local governments

are already involved with that whole process of harmonization. We see it here

right now in the greater Victoria regional district, where municipalities work

together in the issuing of business licences and building permits. That not only

saves a lot of money for the communities, but it makes it much easier for

builders, developers and people who do renovations to get their permits in

place. That's just an example of how harmonization of policies and regulations

is already working. We expect, with the charter, that we're going to focus more

attention on how we can harmonize municipal, provincial and regional issues as

well. So this is almost a statement of intent.

J. Kwan:

On the issue around dispute mechanisms, there is a whole notion about

arbitration, mediation, attempts to get an officer to come and mediate, etc. Is

it the intention, under the principles of this

section of the act, that

municipalities can have a veto power over the provincial government in the case

where there's a disagreement, or is it the case that the provincial government

has veto power over the municipalities where there is a disagreement?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling:

Section 2(g). Again, it's the principle.

Part 9 sets

out how consultation, negotiation and arbitration are offered, how they will

work and what goals we try to achieve by using the alternate dispute resolution

processes. This particular statement is purely the principle that the government

and municipalities should attempt to resolve their disputes through an alternate

dispute resolution rather than what happens now — going to court to find their

way.

J. Kwan:

Yes,

part 9 talks about arbitration, mandatory binding arbitration, voluntary

arbitration, final proposal arbitration, etc. But the question here…. The

intention of the act under the principle of the act talks about "the

Provincial government and municipalities should attempt to resolve conflicts

between them by consultation, negotiation, facilitation and other forms of

dispute resolution." The dispute resolution forms of how to settle issues

are dealt with under

part 9. My question is this: is it the intention of the

government, under the principles of this act, to allow for any one party to have

veto power over the other when there are disagreements?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: There is no veto power here on the discussion. This is a form of

dispute resolution where we find, or try to find, two partners to come together

to find mutual grounds to solve an issue. So it's nothing to do with veto.

[1620]

J. Kwan:

In other words, the provincial government can unilaterally cut funding to

municipalities and off-load programs to them even though the municipalities may

disagree. The provincial government can do that

[ Page 6571 ]

unilaterally, and the municipalities cannot veto that decision.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I have explained to the member before why her statement is wrong.

J. Kwan:

I'm seeking a confirmation from the minister that in the case where the

provincial government off-loads a program and cuts funding for a particular

program for the municipality or impacts the municipalities, the municipalities

will have no say if they disagree at the end of the day with that decision. They

would not be able to veto. Will the minister confirm that the provincial

government can unilaterally, then, cut funding to municipalities and cut their

programs?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: As I said, the member was wrong before, and she continues to be

wrong.

J. Kwan:

I wish the minister would actually listen to the question and then perhaps

answer the question. His answer to the question is that I am wrong and that I

continue to be wrong. I asked the minister: can he confirm that it is the case

that the provincial government can unilaterally cut funding to the

municipalities? Is he saying, then, that the provincial government has no

unilateral power to cut funding to municipalities if the municipalities

disagree? Is he saying I'm wrong?

The

Chair: Shall

section 2 pass? Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on

section 2.

J. Kwan:

I'm waiting for an answer from the minister. I think that it's not just me who

would want to know what the answer is. I think every single municipality would

want to know what the answer is. Can the provincial government unilaterally cut

funding to municipalities? Can they unilaterally off-load programs to

municipalities? If municipalities disagree in their discussion with the

provincial government on the funding cuts, can they have a veto power?

The

minister says they don't have a veto power. Does that mean the provincial

government has unilateral authority to cut funding? I don't think it's good

enough for the minister to just sit there and not answer the question.

Municipalities want to know, and I would expect the people who live in our

communities want to know, because this has huge ramifications for each and every

one of our neighbourhoods across British Columbia.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Okay, Mr. Chair, I'll try one more time. If the member looks at

subsection (2)(c)(ii), if there are proposed changes to revenue transfers to

local municipalities, there is a requirement to consult with municipalities. How

that process will be triggered and how the process will develop is in

part 9,

where it can be discussed in more detail.

J. Kwan:

The minister can try and sidestep all he wants. He giggles when I say that he's

sidestepping these questions that I would expect the municipalities would want

to know. I would expect every citizen in their respective communities would want

to know, because it has huge ramifications for them. For the minister not to

answer the questions that are being posed and to giggle in his seat is simply

unacceptable.

We're

talking about the principles of

an act that go to the intention of this piece of

legislation, which deal with the notion of cuts or, as the minister likes to

call it in this legislation, proposed changes to provincial programs that equate

to cuts in programs. Yes, there is a reference to the need for consultation,

and, yes, it refers to arbitration for dispute as a dispute mechanism —

whether it be voluntary, mandatory or otherwise.

[1625]

But the

question is this: is it the intention of this minister under this act, under the

principles of this act and in this

section of the act, to give the provincial

government unilateral powers to cut funding to municipalities where there's a

disagreement with municipalities?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: No.

J. Kwan:

I'm glad the minister answered that question and it is now on record. The

provincial government does not have unilateral power to cut programs or cut

funding to municipalities.

When the

municipalities disagree with these cuts, they then have veto power. When the

municipality comes forward and says, "No, provincial government, I do not

agree with that cut in programming; I do not agree with that cut in funding that

impacts my municipality," the provincial government then has to back off,

because they do not have the unilateral power to cut it. They must then seek the

agreement of the municipalities.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Just for the record, Mr. Chair, because the member is beginning

to play with words again, as she has done before in other sessions. She asked,

"Is it the intention?" and I said no. Her response is: "So now it

is confirmed that it will not happen." The member is putting a different

scenario on the table in her response than the question she was asking. She

asked, "Is it the intention of the provincial government?" and the

answer was no to that part.

J. Kwan:

You know what? When we deal with the intention of legislation, it is critical,

because the intention of legislation is the

interpretation of what the

legislation is. When people understand what the intentions are, the intention

ought to translate into action. It follows that the intention must be complied

with.

When I ask

the minister the question — is it the intention of this legislation and this

minister to allow the provincial government unilateral authority to cut funding

and programs to municipalities? — and when the answer is no, then the

interpretation of the intention of this act is that provincial government has no

authority to do that and that local governments, when

[ Page 6572 ]

they do not agree with those cuts, could say no. Another translation of that

is that municipalities do have veto power over the provincial government. Isn't

that so?

It's

logical. I hope I'm being logical. I know I'm a bit sleep-deprived. I only had

four hours of sleep last night with a newborn, and I know I'm a bit

sleep-deprived. But I think that's a logical argument, following what the

minister has said in his answers to my question.

The

Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on

section 2.

J. Kwan:

Given that there's no response from the minister, then I can only interpret that

non-response to mean concurrence — that the minister actually agrees with the

arguments that I have laid out. If the minister doesn't, I ask him to rise in

this House and dispute it now.

The

Chair: Shall

section 2 pass? The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on

section 2.

J. Kwan:

Good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Then there

is no dispute. I will be asking my staff to send a letter to every single

municipality to advise them it is the intention of this government and this

minister that the provincial government have no unilateral authority to cut

funding or programs to municipalities that impact them.

If the

minister is not disputing that, then we're going to send that out in Hansard

and make sure every municipality understands the authority and the voice they do

have in speaking up for their communities, because these cuts are taking place

in the province and more are to come, and the municipalities will be impacted.

I'll give the minister one more chance to say that I'm wrong.

[1630]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Mr. Chair, the member is wrong — again.

J. Kwan:

If I'm wrong, then I would ask the minister to correct his answers. Which part

of it is wrong? I asked the question: is it the intention of this minister and

this government under this

section of the act, where it speaks to the principles

of the act, to allow for the provincial government to have unilateral powers or

authority to cut funding to local governments or to cut programs that impact

local governments? The minister's answer is no. It was a clear-cut answer. He

said no. We'll verify it with Hansard . I'm sure that's what the minister

said.

So when you

interpret that answer, what it means to me is that the municipality has veto

power. They could say no to the provincial government, and it cannot

unilaterally off-load these programs, make these cuts. On which part am I wrong

here?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I'll say it one more time: these are the principles. If there is

any intent of reducing revenue transfers to municipalities, in

part 9 it is

described how there is a requirement to consult with local governments, and

that's it.

J. Kwan:

We dealt with the consultation issue. The requirement under this act is for this

government, this minister, to consult with the UBCM. The issue is where there is

a disagreement through that consultation on cuts to the programs. Does the

provincial government have the unilateral authority to cut these programs? The

minister's answer was no. So he's not disputing that part. He's saying they will

consult, and they will do all of that. Fine. I'll just leave it and move on to

another question. We'll look back in Hansard . It will say very clearly

what Hansard says.

The

section

of this act which deals with interprovincial, national or international

discussions is

section 2(2)(e). Since the consideration of municipal interests

is needed when the province participates in interprovincial, national or

international discussions, does this mean that the municipalities will have some

say in the provisions in international trade agreements, including areas such as

NAFTA, which are causing concern about municipal purchasing powers?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: What this

section says is that when participating in

interprovincial, national or international discussions on matters that affect

municipalities, the provincial government, indeed, must be thinking about local

governments or municipalities. In

part 9 it describes how we can, through

consultation with local government, include the voice of the local governments

in that process.

J. Kwan:

So the intention here under this

section that deals with the need to…. Let me

use the exact words: where "consultation is needed on matters of mutual

interest, including consultation by the provincial government on" and

"consideration of municipal interests is needed when the Provincial

government participates in interprovincial, national, or international

discussions on matters that affect municipalities."

So the

intention under the principles of this

section of the act is simply to have the

provincial government think about the municipalities, and then that's it. It

stops there?

[1635]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Yes. This requires the provincial government to think about

municipal interests. If there is a mutual interest, then we can, in

part 9,

arrange how a consultation process would take place.

J. Kwan:

Yes, and so when those discussions take place or when discussions take place

where there are disagreements or concerns raised, such as the issues around the

provisions in international trade agreements, including NAFTA…. What happens

when there are disagreements? Is it under

part 9, then, that an arbitrator will

be brought in either voluntarily or mandatorily?

[ Page 6573 ]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: As is said in the principle, the provincial government must

consider the interests of local governments.

J. Kwan:

Then all they have to do is just take that into consideration. "Well, thank

you very much for your thoughts," and then that's it. Then the provincial

government can do whatever they want. Is that right?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: The principle that the provincial government keeps in mind or

thinks about the interests of local governments when dealing with national or

international…. International discussions are a requirement as principle. In

part 9 there are some tools for how that interest can be represented through

consultation or other forums. If there are other forums, maybe it is

consultation. That's the essence of the principle, yeah.

J. Kwan:

Well, actually, under

part 9 the only authority there is really just for

consultation to take place. The issue is this. Where consultation does take

place and where there's a disagreement, or where concerns are raised and the

government is just sidestepping or bypassing those concerns and still moving

forward with whatever decision they want — even though the municipal

governments don't agree — then in essence the municipal governments have no

authority whatsoever to try and influence the provincial government to change

that course of direction at all.

I suppose

one could say, then, that the majority of this

section of the act…. While it

may be well intentioned, the act does not actually have any teeth. It gives no

powers to the local government. In this area here — where there may be

concerns raised with issues that are interprovincial, national or international

— all the provincial government has to do is think about it in terms of the

municipal interests, go and talk to the municipal government and then shelve

what they say if there's disagreement and then move on. There are not a whole

lot of teeth in this legislation to that end.

Section 2

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Actually, we can move on to

section

Section 3

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise: what is the purpose of this section, and what

is his intention?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: This

section is not unlike a similar

section in the Local

Government Act. It is a message to the courts that the

interpretation of this

act should be done in a broad way. Courts in the past have often interpreted

local government regulations in a narrow type of form. This is an indicator of

the intent of the provincial government that we'd like to see this or that we

expect these acts to be interpreted by the courts in their broadest way.

[1640]

J. Kwan:

Section 4 deals with…. Its heading is "Broad

Interpretation." It

reads as follows: "Section 4(1). The powers conferred on municipalities and

their councils by or under this act or the Local Government Act must be

interpreted broadly in accordance with the purposes of those Acts and in

accordance with municipal purposes."

Subsection

(2) reads: "If (

a) an enactment confers a specific power on a municipality

or council in relation to a matter, and (

b) the specific power can be read as

coming within a general power conferred by or under this Act or the Local

Government Act, the general power must not be interpreted as being limited by

that specific power, but that aspect of the general power that encompasses the

specific power may only be exercised subject to any conditions and restrictions

established in relation to the specific power." That's a whole lot of

specific and general powers and conditions that are under there.

This

relates to earlier when I asked a question under

section 1, which deals with

adequate powers and the authorities within which…. Is it to mean that under

section 4, adequate powers are the broad powers within which there are specific

powers that are being prescribed within the act, and those specific powers will

then generally stipulate the scope of what those broad powers would be?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling:

Section 4 is identical to

section 3 in the Local Government Act,

so there is no change there.

It's a

highly technical answer — not being a lawyer — that I'm going to try to

give. The

interpretation of broad powers — for example, animal control powers

— should be interpreted in the broadest sense of the word. The specific powers

applying to cat control do not mean that, by being specific, they interfere with

the broader powers. One does not exclude the other. One power does not eliminate

the other power. So in this particular case, animals and a cat — different

types of power. But they do not exclude the broader power to apply to a cat, I

believe — right?

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry. Actually, I didn't understand a word the minister said. Maybe he can

try it again. I'm sorry. I'm not being facetious. I just didn't get it.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: If we take a broader power — for example, an animal control

power — and we take a specific power, which is a specific animal like a cat,

the terms are different because there is a specific power on that cat. It

doesn't mean that the broader power that would apply to animals as a whole does

not apply to that cat as well.

[ Page 6574 ]

J. Kwan:

In other words, broad powers and specific powers both apply. Is that right?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: The purpose here is that if you only had a specific power for cat

control, without this

section the court would interpret that…. As you do have

a specific bill for cat control, which is a specific power, the broader powers

would apply on the specific powers as well.

[1645]

If we

didn't have this section, then if you had a situation with the specific power

related to a cat, you could not imply the broader powers on that cat control as

well, because the court would say no. Because you have a specific power for that

cat, it is excluded from the broader powers on animal control.

J. Kwan:

Thank you to the minister and to the staff who were nodding when I asked a

question.

Then in

that instance, what you're basically saying is that broad powers and specific

powers both apply, and that's the intention of this

section of the act — to

ensure that that is the case. I see the staff of the minister is nodding. I

understand that. If I'm not interpreting this wrong, then I have no further

questions for

section 4.

Sections 4

to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

J. Kwan:

section 7, which deals with municipal purposes, my question on this

section

is: in what circumstances can the municipality regulate an activity by bylaw?

Can the legislation prevent an independent homeowner from doing virtually

anything with their property, as an example?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: These are not specific powers for municipalities. These are the

purposes applied to providing for good government in its community — providing

for services and so on. How they provide these services and stewardship issues

is in other parts of the Community Charter — in other sections.

J. Kwan:

Is the question that I've posed — can this legislation prevent an

independent homeowner from doing virtually anything with their property —

being addressed in another section? Could the minister advise which

section

deals with this issue?

On that

note, as he's getting that information from his staff, let me also ask this

question: does this mean that a municipality can ask a homeowner to do anything

with their property at their own expense? Would that

section also deal with that

question?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Just for the member, the power to regulate is

section 8. We're

going to get to that very soon. That's where the answer will be found.

J. Kwan:

Okay. Then I will ask these questions under

section 8. But I'd also like to

perhaps ask for a five-minute recess.

I know that

the member for East Kootenay, before we began the discussion, had said that he

wanted to ask the minister questions on

section 8. Perhaps he could take the

floor and ask t