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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003

Morning Sitting

Volume 14, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Petitions

Hon. R. Thorpe

Second Reading of Bills

Community Charter (Bill 14)

Hon. T. Nebbeling

B. Lekstrom

B. Bennett

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

Hon. S. Santori

B. Suffredine

S. Orr

J. Les

W. McMahon

H. Bloy

L. Mayencourt

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued)

Hon. S. Bond

P. Nettleton

J. MacPhail

[ Page 6295 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003

The House

met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Petitions

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Today I am tabling a petition on behalf of 40 of my constituents in

the Pine Hills mobile home park regarding the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy

Act.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Hon. S.

Santori: I call second reading of Bill 14, and in the Douglas Fir Committee

Room I call estimates debate for the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Mr.

Speaker:

Section A will be Committee of Supply.

Second Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY CHARTER

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I move that Bill 14, entitled Community Charter, now be read for

the second time.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: It's an honour and privilege to be here today as we move forward

with the most empowering local government legislation in the country. The

charter goes further than any other legislation of its kind in Canada in

treating local government as an order of government based on principles of

municipal-provincial relations. The charter is based on principles of mutual

respect between the province and municipalities and of public accountability,

principles that are enshrined in the Community Charter itself.

The

Community Charter is a result of more than a decade of work and effort beginning

in 1991 with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I would like to take

this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and determination of everyone

involved in bringing the charter forward. Following this vision, we have worked

to build a new relationship between the province and local governments based on

respect and increased autonomy of local governments.

recognize that local governments are the level of government closest to the

citizens, and the Community Charter reflects that. Municipalities are in the

best position to make local decisions for their citizens and for their

community. The Community Charter reflects that as well. However, to make

effective decisions for citizens, for businesses and for the community,

municipal government must have the appropriate tools. Local government must have

the tools to pursue opportunities for innovation and flexibility and to benefit

local governments, communities and taxpayers by cutting red tape and out-of-date

regulations. Innovative local governments are key to a solid economic base for

our entire province. Strong local governments are key to the revitalization of

British Columbia, both economically and in spirit.

I'll be

discussing the charter shortly, but first I would like to take a few moments to

discuss how this legislative framework for local government came about. To say

the least, this is a historical moment. Municipal governments have long been a

part of the economic and social fabric of British Columbia. In fact, the

municipalities of New Westminster and Victoria predate British Columbia's

joining Canada in 1871. Just after this, in 1873, the first municipal

legislation was enacted, to be followed by two further generations of

significant legislation in 1914 and 1957.

approximately 100 years, the province and the local governments have had only

three significant generations in municipal legislation. This was in the face of

the province's growth and changing national and international dynamics. In 1991,

keeping in mind it was over 125 years since B.C.'s first municipality was

established, local government presented a bill of rights for local governments.

This was led by the then Vancouver mayor and president of the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities, Premier Campbell.

In the UBCM

bill of rights, local governments sought the legal recognition as an order of

government, but the work was to continue for another decade throughout which the

UBCM continued to lobby for such things as title to municipal roads and

mandatory consultation. They wanted to replace restrictive provincial approvals

and red tape that incurred with provincial advice. The UBCM sought ability to

expand financial resources and enhance municipal powers. They wanted a hand in

their own destiny and a chance to help shape the community's future.

[1010]

In 1995

Premier Campbell, as Leader of the Official Opposition, presented the first

community charter as a private member's bill. The charter was to establish a new

relationship between the provincial government and municipalities. It called for

the prohibition of provincial government downloading. It called for eliminating

unnecessary provincial interference in strictly local matters. For example, why

do municipalities have to go to Victoria for permission to close a municipal

road? With Bill M222, local governments would be more accessible, more

accountable and more affordable. There would be less bureaucracy and less red

tape, assisting and benefiting both citizens and businesses.

A year

later the UBCM and the provincial government of the time signed the protocol of

recognition. This resulted in the Local Government Act. While there were some

improvements over the previous Municipal Act, we know the act did not go far

enough in addressing the needs and the requests of local government. It

[ Page 6296 ]

did not address all it could with regard to local governments.

We as a

government made the new-era commitment to give local governments more control

over their affairs and their operations, enabling them to select the ways to

meet the needs of their communities and their citizens. Last May I had the

honour to present a draft community charter to the House. It is important —

and please keep in mind — that this draft was not prepared in isolation. We

worked extensively with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and other

stakeholders. Their input was actively sought and was invaluable. At this time I

would also like to acknowledge the Community Charter Council. This joint

provincial-municipal government body oversaw the development of the draft

charter. Their work and efforts were remarkable and appreciated.

Following

presentation of the draft legislation, we were clear in seeking feedback. Since

last May we've received a tremendous amount of feedback on the charter. For

example, there were over 43,000 downloads from our website. Over 1,500 printed

documents were distributed around British Columbia. Extensive meetings and

seminars with local governments and other groups were held throughout the

province. We also received submissions from business groups, associations, trade

unions and individuals. These submissions, almost without exception, were

thoughtful and thorough. We wanted to take them into account before moving

forward with the new legislation.

I am well

aware that some people questioned the extra time spent on the Community Charter.

It's quite simple. The extra time spent working on the charter was for the best

possible reason imaginable. While we were committed to implementing the

Community Charter in a timely fashion and remain steadfast to that commitment,

we would have been remiss if we didn't take the constructive consultations and

submissions of those months following the draft legislation into account. We are

building the best possible legislative framework for the future of local

government, the future of our economy, the future of British Columbia and the

future of the communities.

As I

discuss the Community Charter further, there is one important thing to keep in

mind. The Community Charter is the only local legislation in Canada — the only

legislation across ten provinces and three territories — that legislates the

principle of municipal governance and municipal-provincial relations. Local

governments have long spoken about their common desire to have a real say about

the present and the future of their communities. With the Community Charter,

municipalities will have the tools and that flexibility to better answer the

needs of their citizens, taxpayers and businesses alike. Municipalities will

have the tools and flexibility to work with each other effectively to shape the

future of their communities.

As we enter

this new relationship between the province and municipalities, barriers and

restrictions, including some exceedingly petty barriers, are being removed. This

is part of a new era, a new rapport between governments and the recognition that

innovative and solid local governments are key to revitalizing British Columbia.

They are essential to the building of a strong local and provincial economy now

and for the future.

To achieve

these goals, the concise legislation of the Community Charter embodies three key

elements of change: a new municipal and provincial relationship, enhanced

autonomy and powers, and public accountability. The first element of the

Community Charter is a new era in provincial and local relations. The

relationship is based on principles that are enshrined in the charter.

Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government

within their jurisdiction. In other words, the province commits to treating them

as such.

[1015]

We know

that British Columbia, its citizens, its businesses and its economy are best

served when there is a mutual respect between the governments and autonomy of

local governments. As part of this relationship, the provincial government will

not assign responsibilities to municipalities unless there is provision for the

resources required to fulfil that new responsibility. For example, with this

principle you will not see the downloading of responsibility for social service

and social housing to municipalities, as happened in Ontario.

As well,

the Community Charter provides that the province will work to consult with local

governments and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on matters of

mutual interest. This means that we will work with municipalities in the

development of the economy of this province in areas like tourism, agriculture

and forestry.

Under the

charter, we will consult with the UBCM before acts and regulations directly

relevant to local governments are changed. We will not be arbitrary, and we will

not be capricious. We understand the importance of local government as an order

of government. We will not change local government grants or the Community

Charter without consulting with the UBCM.

That is not

to say that there won't ever be disagreements. As we all know, there are

differences of opinions and viewpoints, and we recognize that disagreements or

disputes may occur from time to time. This can happen between municipalities and

other local governments or the provincial government.

Traditionally

disputes had the potential to escalate into adversarial situations, which were

not the best use of time and were certainly detrimental to the taxpayer. The

Community Charter promotes alternative dispute resolutions, negotiation,

mediation and arbitration — but only where necessary. The charter seeks the

resolution of difficulties without municipalities becoming adversaries. We

believe that the local governments would willingly resolve disputes without

waiting for a provincial decision or going to court, both of which are

time-consuming and very expensive. We believe that

[ Page 6297 ]

municipalities look forward to resolving matters over such things as

intermunicipal highways and bridges without excessive, expensive wastes of time.

The second

key area of the Community Charter is the broader powers the municipalities will

have to carry out their responsibilities and achieve their goals. It is hard to

believe that traditionally municipalities were restricted in making decisions on

such things as buying, holding and selling lands. They were limited in the

contracts and settlements they could enter into. They were restricted in how and

what they could negotiate. They simply could not operate in the best interests

of the communities. In other words, they were restricted in carrying out

functions that any other group or government could. Often municipalities had to

go through a long and arduous process to get permission from the provincial

government on matters of local concern. An obvious example is closing a

municipal road.

Now

municipalities will have the power to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements

on local issues such as municipal services, trees and public nuisance issues.

Municipalities will be able to respond to new issues quickly, knowing they have

the tools to take action, for example, to respond to graffiti, disturbances in

public places or unsightly nuisances.

With the

Community Charter, municipalities have natural person powers. This legal term

simply means that municipalities will have the power accorded to any citizen in

British Columbia. Municipalities will have the power to enter into contracts, to

make agreements, to delegate powers and to establish commissions. For example,

they can assign responsibility for day-to-day management of an animal regulation

and control service to a commission, giving citizens more involvement and

clearing the council agenda to deal with the big picture.

[1020]

I say, Mr.

Speaker: why shouldn't municipalities have the choice to sell land to a

particular buyer if that is in the interest of their community? Why shouldn't

they be able to pursue affordable housing or recreational opportunities for

their community? Why shouldn't they have the power to revitalize neighbourhoods?

Municipalities can do these things today but only if they have the appropriate

powers like the power to enter into agreements, be it with individuals,

companies or organizations.

Municipalities

can provide municipal services for their communities if they have the freedom to

do so. Municipal councils will decide which services they want to provide and

how to provide those services. They can help ensure services are sustainable and

help reduce pressure, thereby, on property taxes. Municipalities will now have

more ability to work together. They can negotiate and enter into agreements with

one another, seek opportunities where they can save taxpayers' money and cut red

tape for businesses and organizations. This will facilitate municipalities to

work together — for example, to develop and implement a tourism strategy for

an area.

Municipalities

can work together to establish services amongst themselves. For example, it will

be easier for one or more municipalities to jointly operate a fire department.

With the Community Charter, local governments can create opportunities for their

citizens, businesses and the community as a whole. They will have the power to

work with businesses in providing services. Streamlined procedures in the

Community Charter allow for innovative public-private partnerships. For example,

municipalities can seek electors' approval early in the P3 process before

lengthy and expensive negotiations take place. This will save time and

taxpayers' dollars. These opportunities are about improving our economic climate

and municipal infrastructure for the long term. Victoria is a perfect example

with the demolition of the Memorial Arena and development of a new multiplex —

public land and financing through the Municipal Finance Authority combined with

the private sector expertise in project management, operation and marketing.

These factors combine to increase recreational opportunities for citizens in

Victoria, enhance the city's cultural life and strengthen the regional economy.

These

opportunities are about the future. It is also important to keep in mind that

the Community Charter is a balance — a balance of interests, a balance of

present and future. With the broad powers of the charter, we must remember there

must be equilibrium in those areas that are both local and provincial in scope.

The Community Charter spells out these areas of concurrent authority — areas

where local and provincial interests intersect. With concurrent authority,

municipalities will have the powers they need to deal with local interests,

while provincial interests or the public good is uncompromised — for example,

public health and the protection of the environment and wildlife across

jurisdictional lines. They affect all of us and must be dealt with as

appropriate, be it at the local or provincial level.

Municipalities

will have enhanced general powers. For example, they will be able to provide

services outside their municipality. Of course, these will go with the consent

of the host jurisdiction. This allows municipalities to use their expertise in

delivering services, like fire protection or water for neighbouring

municipalities or rural areas. They can also establish intermunicipal systems

pertaining to licences or permits. For example, municipalities in the greater

Victoria area are already leading the way with a common business licensing

system that can be a model for other regions that wish to make regulations less

onerous for business.

There are

also further specific powers in the Community Charter. For example,

municipalities can give the fire chief powers to evacuate public buildings and

even close them if they are a fire hazard. Currently, only the fire commissioner

has that authority. Municipalities can deal with declared nuisances. For

example, municipalities will have a streamlined and effective process for

dealing with dangerous structures. It is important to note that these broad

powers answer the

[ Page 6298 ]

longstanding requests made by local government, while maintaining a

respectful balance with the overall good of the province of British Columbia.

[1025]

The theme

of balance continues in the Community Charter with public accountability.

Municipalities now have enhanced autonomy, broad powers and a new relationship

with the provincial government. But it is important to note that these new

elements are complemented by the third element of the Community Charter —

accountability.

The

Community Charter contains quite a number of provisions in this area that call

on the public to take

part in local government. How do we do a move beyond the

outdated traditions in this area? How can a local government be more accountable

to the public and community it serves? It begins with the principles in the

Community Charter. Under those principles, municipalities are recognized as an

order of government that is democratically elected, autonomous, responsible and

accountable.

Under the

charter, municipal governments must prepare and present an annual report. This

annual report is one-stop shopping, as it were, for citizens and those

interested in the finances and operation of the municipality. The annual report

requirements and the requisite public forum to present the report are at the

heart of the charter's third element of accountability. In the annual report,

items like audited financial statements are public information, along with

reports on services and operations and the progress made on previously set

goals.

The annual

report also looks to the future, setting out objectives, the strategies for

achieving those objectives and how progress will be determined. Just as

important as producing an annual report is public access to the report. A public

meeting is required at which the municipality presents its annual report. The

public has the opportunity to ask questions of the council, and the public will

also be able to provide submissions and feedback to council.

The

provision for an annual report, along with the objectives and measures and

public involvement, is augmented by other provisions in the charter. The charter

also outlines the alternative approval process, meaning that electors may

require that certain proposed municipal decisions, such as a new multiplex or

art gallery, be put to a vote prior to action by council. A public vote is

required if 10 percent or more of the electors ask that one be held.

Rounding

out the accountability provisions are new ethical standards for elected

municipal officials. Traditionally, there have been restrictions on

participating in council's decisions if the councillor is in conflict. The

Community Charter goes further in defining ethical standards. There are

restrictions on using elected office to influence decisions of a municipal

officer, employee or delegate when the council member has a financial interest

in the matter being decided upon. It would not bar councillors from engaging in

business but would restrict councillors from using their office to further their

private business interests — for example, in a real estate development.

Outside

influence is also restricted to ensure that council members who have a financial

interest in decision-making by another body or person do not use their office to

influence that decision. For instance, the mayor of a municipality cannot

influence the regional district board or administration to take actions that may

favour the mayor's business. There are restrictions on accepting gifts, fees or

personal benefits connected with council members performing their duties in

office. Benefits such as gifts received as part of protocol are to be disclosed.

We are

working to meet our new-era commitment of a community charter, but as mentioned

earlier, this is not a process that happened overnight. Just as we wanted to

ensure that this was a constructive process in cooperating and balancing the

needs and requests of many different stakeholders, we must also acknowledge that

implementation will not occur quickly, as it will take time for municipalities

to adjust.

This type

of innovative legislation simply does not happen in a vacuum, and it cannot be

enacted as such either. There are many people involved — many communities and

many factors — thus there will be an implementation period before the charter

takes effect. This is to ensure that municipalities and others interested in the

charter and its new way of doing business are brought up to speed on the new

provisions. Municipalities, in particular, must have this time to prepare for

and institute these changes effectively and efficiently both for themselves and

also for their constituents and their citizens.

During this

time, ministry staff will be distributing detailed information on the many

aspects of the Community Charter. The ministry will be preparing comprehensive

information material, which will be mounted on the website. We know that small

communities will need special attention, and we will be responding by placing

special emphasis on small communities and the Community Charter.

We will be

meeting and working with local governments to ensure this is as smooth a

transition as absolutely possible.

[1030]

With these

education and implementation processes in place, the Community Charter will come

into effect on January 1, 2004. As well, there will be legislation to make all

the necessary consequential amendments that arise from the Community Charter and

to ensure that there is a smooth transition between the current rules for

municipalities and the new authorities under the charter.

We're also

looking forward to the next phase of the charter. The first phase presented

today will, in time, expand to include regional district and land use issues.

The municipal legislation presented today balances our commitment to the charter

while working towards balancing and resolving complex issues such as regional

district and land use in the latter phase. I would like to reiterate some points

discussed today. We are

[ Page 6299 ]

committed to the Community Charter, as it answers local government's

longstanding priorities to have a principled basis for the treatment as an order

of government. This municipal legislation is unique in Canada in that regard.

Today we

are successful in meeting the challenges issued over a decade ago by Premier

Campbell and his UBCM colleagues and their subsequent work to build relations

between the province and local government based on respect and increased

empowerment of local government. The Community Charter builds upon the draft

legislation and input we have received over the last number of months from local

governments, from business sectors, from labour groups, communities and

individuals. From the beginning we have worked with the UBCM and other

stakeholders. Their input has been invaluable, as has the work of the Community

Charter Council.

The

Community Charter is concise legislation balancing broad municipal abilities and

increased public accountability while protecting provincewide standards in key

areas like the environment and public health. Local governments will have more

autonomy to make decisions, and to make those decisions they will have the

appropriate tools to efficiently and effectively deliver municipal services for

their communities, benefiting local government, communities and taxpayers.

Strong,

innovative local governments are key to British Columbia's growth and

well-being, both economically and socially. With the charter, local governments

can promote economic development, pursue opportunities for infrastructure and

answer the need of the communities and citizens to better prepare for the

future. No longer are municipalities hamstrung by narrow legislation that does

not take their individual local situations into account. No longer do local city

halls have to go to Victoria for decisions on simple local matters.

Municipalities will handle local matters without involving another level of

government, saving time and money. With the charter, procedures will be

simplified, allowing councils, business, industry and citizens to work together

in a timely fashion. Opportunities to harmonize regulations — for example,

common licensing procedures — and the ability to work together amongst

municipalities will again save time and money. There will be opportunities to

improve municipal infrastructure and to improve the economic climate. Red tape

will be reduced, public accountability and responsible management of tax dollars

will be enhanced, and innovation will be rewarded. In short, municipalities can

be responsible and proactive. They are now active participants in shaping the

destiny of our province.

Enshrined

in the legislation discussed today are principles of local decision-making and

accountability. The Community Charter balances broad municipal abilities with

increased public accountability. Individuals and organizations will have a

chance to voice their concerns. They can step up to the plate and be an active

partner with local government. The public will have more opportunities to hear

presentations from municipal councils, check the books and consult on the

matters that are important to them. But as already said, the work continues. The

charter will expand to work with regional districts in the next phase.

Consultations and discussions will be integral to the next phase of the charter.

[1035]

British

Columbia is a large and diverse province. Our communities reflect the diversity

from large urban to small rural and everything in between. Municipalities and

the provincial government have long recognized that one-size-fits-all solutions

do not work, economically or socially. Strong, innovative local governments are

key to a solid economic base for all our communities and the province as a

whole.

The

Community Charter is the means to those goals. The Community Charter is an

integral part of our new-era commitment. The Community Charter is a key to

strong and innovative governments, both locally and provincially. I ask all

members to lend their support to this important piece of legislation.

Lekstrom: It's certainly a pleasure today to stand in this Legislature and

pass my support for Bill 14, the new Community Charter.

This

Community Charter has been a long time in the making. It has evolved for many

years. I have a history in local municipal government, at which time — once

you're elected — you go in and start to learn the ins and inner workings of

your job as an elected politician at the local level. One of those jobs is to

take the Municipal Act, as it was in the day when I was first elected, and learn

what your abilities are and what your responsibilities are. That progressed

through the years to a Local Government Act, and through that work — an

initiative of our Premier and the minister for the Community Charter — we have

evolved today to a document that I think is an excellent document. It is going

to allow our municipal governments across this province to deliver on the

services and commitments they make to the people that have elected them.

Simply,

what this is about is allowing local government to do the job they were elected

to do without having the provincial government in their way. People put their

trust in the people that they elect at the local level. Many people put their

names forward to run for office because they believe they have something to

offer their communities. They have the ability and the time, and certainly they

have the heart to make their community a better place. Many times, with all the

best intentions, they were stifled due to a regulatory regime through the old

Municipal Act, which was a permissive piece of legislation that really made it

very difficult in some cases to initiate new initiatives for the municipalities

and new services that would deliver and increase the quality of lifestyle.

So it's

certainly a privilege, as I indicated earlier, and I think this is a very

important day for British Columbians — for the people. I've had many

discussions with many of my colleagues over the years and certainly now that I

hold this position on this document, and many are very excited about the

opportunity to be

[ Page 6300 ]

able to deliver and drive the services in their communities without having to

go through the red tape and the problems we've seen in the past.

The

accountability issue. This is truly a banner day. Many people talk about the

importance of accountability — whether it's local government, provincial

government or federal government — and what those government regimes should be

doing for the people and, when they do something, how they should report out.

The minister spoke on the issue of our reports that will be put forward by

municipal councils each year on what they've done and what they plan on doing.

It's taken place to a degree, but this really broadens that. I think anytime you

can improve on a piece of legislation, that's the job of every government, and

that should be their mandate.

The local

government consultation process was extensive. The Union of British Columbia

Municipalities, which represents all local governments in the province of

British Columbia, was extensively involved in this consultation. I would like to

thank them and my former colleagues for the work they've put into it. This isn't

a new concept, putting a piece of legislation together and enhancing the old

legislation to really allow people to do the job. It's quite simply that simple.

It's about allowing our local elected officials at the municipal level to do the

job unencumbered, to allow them to deliver on what they have committed to

delivering and do it within the bounds of this piece of legislation, which makes

it much easier. It doesn't make a local council less accountable to the people.

I want that to be very clear. That's a very important part.

Many

people, when they look at streamlining or elimination of red tape, think it's

going to jeopardize another portion. What this does is tell the people of

British Columbia, from our government, that you put your trust in the people you

elected as local government representatives. You've cast your ballot. They've

won a democratic election, and now we're going to let them govern your

municipality as they wish under the guise of this piece of legislation within

the laws of British Columbia. We're going to step back and quit telling them, on

every single thing, what they have to do and how they have to do it. They are

the people who were elected. They are the people that the people have put their

trust in, in their local governments, to deal with this issue.

[1040]

A very

important part of what we do in British Columbia is the recognition of local

government as a level of government. It's vitally important, and far too often I

think that was overlooked. We used to elect councils. We used to elect regional

districts, and never did it seem that they were a recognized level of government

at the provincial or federal levels. That was always, always a problem. Not to

be recognized as — what I consider and as the minister pointed out earlier —

the closest form of government to the people in British Columbia was certainly a

challenge. That was changed. We have built on that, and we continue to build on

it through the Community Charter.

I want to

go back to the issue of autonomy. When we elect — whether it's provincial

governments or federal governments, and in this case we're talking about

municipal governments…. They need the autonomy to do the job they think will

best suit the services needed in their municipalities. One-size-fits-all doesn't

work. It's been shown time and time again in our province that what one

municipality needs to deliver for services may not be what the next one needs.

The document before us today, Bill 14, allows the flexibility for councils to

work cooperatively with each other and, in cases, deliver individual services

that they feel are needed within their municipal boundaries.

We talk

about roads; we talk about water; we talk about sewer. It's quite interesting.

We have had some discussion over the last number of months and some concerns

expressed as to what this charter really means. I've had a couple of people talk

about…. They have raised a concern, saying it gives a lot of power to the

local councils.

Certainly

it does, and I'm proud of that. These are people that were elected by the people

of their municipalities to deliver. People run on a platform — all councils,

whether it be for the position of mayor or councillor. They run, and they

deliver a program that they think will improve quality of life. That's really

what government is all about at any level. The issue here, when we talk — and

I'll go back to the accountability framework — is very clear. I'm proud that

we have a document before us today that is going to allow our local governments

to deliver on their commitments and to deliver in a timely fashion — one that

isn't going to be held up through red tape.

The

commitment by the minister — and his dedication to this and the Premier's

dedication to the development of the Community Charter — is one that I

commend, and I thank them for the effort that they've put in. I thank all

British Columbians who took the time to evaluate the discussion paper on the

Community Charter. Particularly, again, I will point out my thanks to the Union

of British Columbia Municipalities who, I think, do a tremendous job in

representing all of the communities and regional districts across this province.

With that, simply put, this is about allowing local governments to do the job

they were elected to do and to do it in a fashion that will meet the needs of

their residents. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to what I think is a

landmark day in British Columbia with Bill 14.

Bennett: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Bill 14. I

personally intend to vote in favour of the bill and am pleased to be part of a

government that keeps its commitments. This was one of our commitments that we

made in our New Era document going into the last election.

[1045]

Bill 14,

the Community Charter, is a positive response to a number of requests over the

years from municipal governments across the province. They needed more

flexibility to operate and to service the

[ Page 6301 ]

people to whom they are accountable. In that sense, this is a very positive

statute.

I've been

lucky to be part of a government that, in addition to keeping its commitments,

allows its members to express themselves freely. Today I'm going to take

advantage of this opportunity and express one concern that I do have about this

statute — despite the fact that I do intend to support it and vote for it, and

think that generally it is long overdue and an excellent piece of legislation.

I do think

that the business community in this province has expressed some legitimate

concerns about the legislation — particularly, I think, with respect to what

they would refer to as the commensurate accountability that is required to

balance the additional powers and discretion given to municipal governments. It

remains to be seen, and I guess only time will tell as to what real impact that

flaw — if it is a flaw, in fact — will have. In any case, I think that as an

MLA, having spent a lot of time in small business myself and having been

involved with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce for a number of years, I have to

express this point of view.

Many small

business owners in British Columbia don't have the resources to go to court if a

municipal government decides to do something that hurts their business. They

really won't have much by way of practical recourse if this wider discretion

that municipal governments have is abused. That is the concern that I think

small business has, and that's the concern I'm trying to echo here in the House

this morning.

I should

also balance my comments by saying I'm aware that there are many, many municipal

leaders, mayors and civic officials who are quite pleased about the provincial

government's introduction of the new Community Charter. I think that the

implementation of the charter will tell the tale. It has tremendous potential to

be positive in the province.

understand that there will be a second stage. Perhaps in the second stage the

concern I've just expressed that small business in the province has about the

legislation can be addressed. Certainly, I want to offer my support. I want to

offer my time and my own personal resources to the minister and to the

government on that second stage to try and close the circle that we perhaps left

a little bit open with this first stage.

Having said

that and having discharged what I think is my obligation as an MLA in this

government and representing my constituents, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the

opportunity.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: I rise in support of what I believe is revolutionary and

groundbreaking legislation this morning. I congratulate the Minister of State

for Community Charter for his work and the ministry staff and local governments

around British Columbia for their contribution to this landmark legislation.

Why would I

call this legislation revolutionary and groundbreaking? It's because, for the

first time, it establishes communities around British Columbia as an order of

government with clear, independent powers. They are no longer the children of

the province. As members know, under the Canadian constitution there are only

two orders of government in Canada — the federal and the provincial. This bill

does all we can under our legislative powers to establish municipalities as an

autonomous order of government.

Cities date

back to

an act of 1849 in Canada when they were limited to looking after pigs on

streets — and, more importantly, trying to keep them off the streets — and

controlling drunkenness and the keeping of bawdy houses. Under the British North

America Act of 1867, which united four colonies into Canada, the responsibility

of cities was left the same as in 1849, but they were transferred to fall under

the dominion of the provinces. They were called creatures of the provinces and

could only exercise those powers that provincial governments gave to them.

One hundred

and fifty years ago only a small percentage of Canadians lived in cities. Today

it is the reverse. Today over half of Canada's population lives in cities of

over 100,000 residents, and when you consider all Canadians living in organized

municipalities, the percentage is over 90. Cities today look after child care.

They look after housing, sewage and water treatment, community centres, the

environment and a host of other functions that were not even contemplated in

1867, but the constitutional status remains the same.

[1050]

Incrementally,

provinces across Canada have added new responsibilities to cities and towns

through continuous amendments to local government legislation. When I was first

elected to local government in 1981, we operated under the Municipal Act, which

had hundreds of sections and hundreds of — and I do say over 1,000 — pages.

It was overly prescriptive on what municipalities could do and could not do. The

language was equally obtuse and out of date.

I would

like to acknowledge the contribution of the Premier in starting the process of

greater independence and responsibility for local government. When the Premier

was mayor of Vancouver in the early nineties, he was instrumental in creating a

document called the local government bill of rights. I remember it well, as I

was mayor of Richmond at the time and supported its concept and content. When

the Premier became Leader of the Opposition, he introduced a private member's

bill entitled Community Charter, which again endeavoured to empower

municipalities to carry out their responsibilities as an order of government.

Bill 14,

the Community Charter, establishes cities, towns and villages across our

province as an order of government and gives them natural person powers.

Previously, they had corporate powers that were spelled out in detail in the

Municipal Act and, more recently, the Local Government Act. Natural person

powers mean that municipalities have the capacity, rights, powers and privileges

of a natural person rather than a list of corporate powers. The effect of this

change means that local governments will have a wider range of powers more

reflective of the responsibilities of democratically elected bodies.

[ Page 6302 ]

addition, the legislation sets out for the first time the principles that will

govern municipal-provincial relations. These principles address the relationship

between both levels of government; acknowledge and respect the jurisdiction of

each; work towards harmonization of laws, policies and programs; and foster

cooperative approaches to matters of national interest. In particular, the

provincial government will not assign responsibilities to municipalities unless

there is provision for resources to fulfil those responsibilities. In other

words, there will be no more downloading.

I want to

give a couple of examples. Formerly, all roads in a municipality belonged to the

province. Of course, the construction and maintenance of those roads was the

responsibility of the municipality, but the underlying property was owned by the

province in lieu of the Crown. Now these roads are to be owned by

municipalities. Road closures will not have to be approved by Victoria. Unused

road allowances can be used by municipalities for housing, parks or other

appropriate uses. No permission is needed from the province, and no compensation

is paid.

An example

I would like to reflect on is one in an area of Richmond we call Steveston,

which had a number of unopened road allowances. At the time, the city wanted to

put in a non-market housing project on those particular properties. There was

considerable difficulty in pursuing the closure of those roads, but the province

and the city and B.C. Housing came together to eventually put in a non-profit

housing project that today under this legislation would be much quicker and much

more simplified.

A second

example. Formerly, as we know, all parks dedicated as part of a subdivision

required provincial approval to be used for something else. Now, if such land is

not suitable for park use and the municipality has identified a better community

use for it, the electors of that municipality are the only ones that need to

consent to the change.

A final

example. Fine ticket amounts for fines will no longer have to be approved by a

Provincial Court judge. Formerly, before any bylaw could come into effect that

contained fine amounts for non-compliance, a provincial judge had to approve

them. The municipality did all the administration, the ticketing, the

enforcement and the prosecution, and the fines often bore no relation to the

seriousness of the offence. Now, at least, the municipality can establish the

amounts and defend them in court if necessary.

[1055]

Part

of the trade-off in giving municipalities more autonomy is that in return, they

are more accountable to their citizens. I believe the Community Charter fairly

sets out a balanced reporting mechanism to work toward that accountability.

Today municipalities must have an annual budget and a five-year capital plan.

This is a start. This new legislation requires an annual report that not only

includes the audited financial statement but also must include which properties

were previously tax-exempt and what the cost of a municipality is as a result of

that, a report respecting city services and operations for the past year and a

progress report on those services and operations, and a statement of municipal

objectives and the measures that will be used to determine progress respecting

those objectives for the current and the next year.

Today

measuring council's progress on what they said they were going to do is very

difficult. With a mixture of political parties and individuals at the local

level, with many different viewpoints, measurement is most difficult. Now, in an

annual report that must be approved by a majority of council at least, the

public will have a clear idea of what the objectives are of various municipal

departments and the municipality as a whole. The public can ask questions of the

council and hold them accountable as to progress.

Usually

when you get a new job or an assignment, there is a job description or terms of

reference to go with it. That has not been the case for elected councillors and

mayors. You went to seminars for newly elected people, and I would certainly

like to acknowledge the hard work of the Union of B.C. Municipalities for

putting on these seminars every three years for newly elected people in local

government, both in municipalities and in regional districts. You learn from

that, or you learn from council members who have perhaps served longer and look

to them for guidance.

This new

charter actually sets down what the roles and responsibilities of elected

officials are. When I was mayor, I was the chief executive officer of the city.

I could appoint committees, chair council meetings and declare an emergency, and

that was about it. Other duties you carved out for yourself as you met the needs

of your community and established a working relationship with staff and the rest

of council. Now the mayor, as spelled out in the legislation, must provide

leadership to council, recommend resolutions and bylaws, communicate information

to council, give general direction on behalf of council to municipal officers

and reflect the will of council. The last two points particularly are going to

prove interesting for many mayors in British Columbia. Giving direction to staff

and direction for the community generally must reflect the will of council. This

may create a healthy dynamic tension — on the one hand, to constrain the

individualistic tendencies of many mayors and, at the same time, to have the

power of council support behind their actions.

Clarity in

the charter around gifts, insider information and disclosure is helpful, as

local elected officials previously had to rely on shifting legal opinions. The

ability to hold special meetings electronically, audiovisually or just audio, or

to bring an absent council member in through electronic means is a great step

forward. Definite guidelines for closed council meetings, the ability to have

staff or a person other than staff attend a closed meeting and the ability to

have a closed workshop or a shirtsleeve session for the purposes of council

planning are all valuable clarifications to allow municipalities to work better.

The last

area that I would like to comment on is

part 9, intituled "Governmental

Relations." This whole

part is new legislation and is the first of its

kind, I un-

[ Page 6303 ]

derstand, in Canada. I know our local government colleagues will welcome for

the first time a legislative commitment that there must be — and I underline

that there must be — consultation with the UBCM before the amount of revenue

transfers are reduced or an amendment is made to this legislation that affects

municipalities. This charter spells out how extensive the consultation must be

and that all reasonable efforts will be made to reach agreement if differences

arise.

The

legislation outlines a dispute resolution process to be followed if a difference

arises between a municipality and another municipality, the province or a

provincial government corporation. This is the first time that a province has

been bound to a process to settle a difference with local government — truly

groundbreaking in Canada.

[1100]

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

conclusion, I had the opportunity to explore a dispute resolution process when I

was chair of the greater Vancouver regional district and mayor of Richmond.

There was a difference of opinion between Richmond and the GVRD on the growth

management plan — a disagreement between two different governments. Although

we only went a little way along the process before it was settled, I felt that

the process chosen was indeed fair. Nothing as daunting as binding arbitration

works as quickly and as efficiently to prod two parties to agree. Now a dispute

resolution process is extended to municipalities, the provincial government and

provincial corporations.

I would

like to again congratulate the Minister of State for Community Charter for

bringing this legislation forward and to thank all locally elected officials and

their staff for their ideas and help. I know all local governments across the

province welcome the changes it holds. We eagerly await

part 2, dealing with

elections, land use and regional districts.

Hon. S.

Santori: I want to take this opportunity, first of all, to commend the

minister on bringing forward something historical with respect to municipal

governments in British Columbia and something that has been long overdue. As a

former mayor of a community and having spent 13 years in local government, I

welcome this change. I welcome the opportunities this is going to provide to

municipalities.

I want to

comment, first of all, on the process. I believe this was a process that was

very inclusive, and it gave municipalities and stakeholders throughout the

province a good opportunity to look at what the charter was attempting to

achieve. I believe that the minister and his staff were very receptive and

inviting in terms of suggestions on how we could improve this revolutionary

change in how municipal governments work.

I want to

commend the minister for the inclusion of all stakeholders in developing what I

believe will be a charter that will serve municipalities. I think that for the

first time, municipal governments will be recognized in terms of the value that

they bring forth to their communities. For the first time, it is an appreciation

that local governments and the people that live in those local communities know

what is best for their communities and do not need a prescriptive act similar to

the Municipal Act that was there before.

I think

that on many occasions the Municipal Act stifled creativity. It did not allow

communities and those elected officials who were trying to make decisions and

changes in the best interests of their communities…. It would not be conducive

to allowing them to exercise their creativity.

The new

charter recognizes, as was said by my other colleagues, that one-size-fits-all,

especially in

an act so onerous as the Municipal Act, can work for each and

every community. Each community within this province is distinct and does have

different challenges, and most have different approaches on how they want to

deal with the challenges. The charters will open up the doors to creativity and

the opportunity to think outside the box and to make decisions that will truly

reflect the wishes of the community and to do what is in the best interest of

the community.

The member

for East Kootenay made reference to some concerns regarding the businesses in

the province and some of the issues or concerns they may have with respect to

the charter. Let me say that I have the utmost confidence in the elected

officials of this province in the municipal levels of government. They, too,

like this government, are dedicated to creating a friendly business environment

in this province, and they will not prove to be a hindrance to the business

community. As a matter of fact, I believe that municipalities will go out of

their way to work with government to achieve the goals we have set in terms of

involving the private sector and strengthening the private sector in this

province to meet head-on the economic challenges we have and to achieve economic

prosperity in the future.

I remain

extremely confident that this new charter will, in fact, enable citizens to have

more input, to request and demand more accountability of elected officials who

have taken on a tremendous responsibility in governing their local communities

and in taking steps and processes that will ensure the prosperity of these

communities.

[1105]

conclusion, I'm looking forward to the minister coming forward with the charter

as it relates to regional districts, as I do believe that in the past we have

seen some separation or some lack of clarity between the roles of the two

governments, sometimes with conflicting mandates — something that has not

always been in the best interests of governing our municipal communities. I'm

hoping the charter that will come forward with respect to the regional districts

will add clarity to the mandates of those bodies so that we can best serve the

people of the communities of this province.

My final

note, once again, is that I want to express congratulations to the minister and

commend him for

[ Page 6304 ]

the consultation process that was undertaken with all municipalities in the

province through the UBCM and all of the stakeholders. I remain extremely

confident that we have put in place now a charter that will allow communities to

move forward and do what's in the best interests of those people who elected

them in their positions.

Suffredine: I'm surprised that the Minister of Management Services could be

so brief on this occasion. He had difficulty being that brief on the weekend

when he was at the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities. There he

waxed on eloquently for quite a while over municipal issues, and I was surprised

he could contain his excitement on the Community Charter.

As you're

aware, Mr. Speaker, for many, many years what is now going to be called the

Community Charter was titled the Municipal Act. It's a massive piece of

legislation that even people who have dealt with it for years have difficulty

finding their place in. I think it's over 800, close to 900 sections. I was the

city solicitor for the city of Nelson for most of a decade, and there were

things within the Municipal Act that were absolutely confounding both to the

municipalities and to others.

Things had

crept into it like the two-month notice

section that made it so that if you

wanted to sue a municipality for negligence you had to know, as an average

citizen, to give a written notice within two months or potentially lose the

right to be compensated for damage caused to you by something as simple as an

auto accident. It created some very great inequities. For example, if you were

in a car accident with anyone else on the street, you had two years to bring

your suit against them, but if you were in a car accident with a municipal

employee driving a municipal vehicle, you had two months and then six months to

commence your proceedings. There were some great inequities that existed in the

former municipal legislation.

As well, of

course, the municipal councils were relegated to simply a power of taxation on

land. They had great difficulties in trying to find ways to bring initiatives

like tourism development — trying to promote their cities for tourism projects

— and no ability, for example, to put a simple thing like a room tax on a

hotel at 25 cents a night or something like that.

The idea of

expanding the ways in which municipalities can find sources of revenues…. The

promise, at some stage, to do traffic-fine sharing rather than a grant in lieu

of traffic fines is a positive thing that will, I think, enable those councils

to feel empowered. One of the things that I find, as I go around my riding, is

that in almost every area people feel that they have no choice in how things are

done. They've simply been told how they're going to be done for years and years.

[1110]

The example

given previously in debate of the ability to close streets and roads. Now,

that's a remarkable example of a place where what existed before made no sense.

The streets and roads within a municipality are of no interest to the province

of British Columbia, but title was vested in the province under the way the

legislation worked, and the procedure required was extremely restrictive and

complex. It requires an order-in-council to close a street.

In my

community of Nelson some of those streets are so steep that they're hard to walk

down, never mind drive down. They're not buildable, and they never were, but on

the survey plan they show up as a street. So if a neighbouring owner decided

that they'd like to buy that piece of property and use it for something for

which it would be practical — make a garden out of it or something — the

city council had to go through an extremely expensive process resulting in an

order-in-council made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Victoria that usually took

six months to a year, in my experience as a solicitor, and cost the applicant

and the city a lot of money. What that alone will do is enable cities to use

what is useless to them as roads, to turn it into a cash flow so that they can

actually create some revenues for the city taxpayers and use the land in a

productive way. It's a win-win for them, and it's something that just didn't

need to be done in the way it was being done.

Now, there

are still some concerns from municipal councillors about what's coming, and

that's a natural part of change, a natural consequence. I don't want to be

critical; I'm not being critical. I'm sure there will be some adjustments to the

act in the fullness of time as we see how things work and how we can improve

them to make them even better than what's proposed. For those who have some

concerns about what they see…. You know, change is always uncertain. I think I

heard quoted the other day that Mark Twain said that everyone wants progress,

but no one likes change, and you just have to have both.

Perhaps

there are even more sources of revenue that can be found and shared with

municipalities. I know that it's not in the charter, but there may even be some

consideration of royalty revenues for things like district municipalities that

would at least be worth looking at. It's all about empowering those

municipalities. It's all about making them feel that they manage the affairs

that are relevant to citizens within those communities.

This is the

most dramatic change that has been done in municipal law for, from my

experience, probably four or five decades. I congratulate the minister for

bringing this forward. It's a brave step. I know he'll have lots of work to do

as it rolls out and as people start to see how everything is working and where

it can be improved.

S. Orr:

I wanted to stand up and give my support for this for two reasons. I spent many

years, as a lot of us in this chamber did, sitting at a council table. I was an

elected municipal councillor for two terms. When I was in that position, I

remember thinking many times: "Now, hang on a minute. I am the grassroots

politician. I'm the person that's making the decisions on the ground. I'm the

person that on a day-to-day basis

[ Page 6305 ]

meets with the constituents of…." At that point it was Saanich.

I often

used to feel that I had this huge responsibility on my shoulders, and yet I

didn't have the autonomy that I felt I should have had. It seemed a continual

grapple back and forth between the municipalities and the legislation coming

down from government.

I can't

tell you how important this is not only for the citizens of the municipalities

but for the councils and the mayors and various other governing bodies around a

municipality, let alone staff, who I know would spend so much time making sure

that everything was working back and forth with government.

The

Community Charter is the best tool that has been designed and brought forward to

municipalities — ever. I thank the minister for taking the incredible amount

of time that he and his staff did not only in putting the Community Charter

together…. I know that it took a long time, and I know they kept going back

and forth and making sure that they had a ton of input.

Again, as a

municipal councillor at the grassroots level, input from the community was what

we dealt with every week — two, three times a week. What the minister did with

the Community Charter…. He did the same thing at the provincial level. He took

this piece of legislation, and he worked with the people who work at the

grassroots level and made sure that it fit what the municipalities were looking

for.

[1115]

Now I'm

wearing this other hat. I still spend a great chunk of my life with the other

hat on at the council level. I just think that finally you can sit there and you

can make decisions right there in your own municipality. The fact that we have

been given the autonomy and accountability, and that local governments have

welcomed this, is so very important.

A lot has

been said and a lot more will be said this morning, and I wasn't actually going

to stand up and speak, but I felt this was so important. Again, relating it back

to my former life, it would almost make you be interested in running for a

municipal seat again, because finally you could do something at a much more

local level and feel you have the power you should have.

So I want

to say that I'm in huge support of this. I want to thank the minister and his

staff for all the work they have done in putting this forward. I support this

100 percent, and I think the municipal councillors will find their lives one

heck of a lot easier with this piece of legislation.

J. Les:

I, too, want to take my place this morning and make a few comments with respect

to the proposed Community Charter. It has been quite some time in the making,

but I think appropriately so. This is very fundamentally important legislation

that not only talks about the relationship between the provincial government and

municipal governments in British Columbia but also gives municipal governments

the tools to be more appropriately accountable to their electorates.

Like many

members in this House, I spent a considerable number of years on municipal

councils — 16 in total, 13 of those as mayor of the community of Chilliwack.

Those were very good years, I must say. I enjoyed every minute of my municipal

political career. But, as in many things we do in life, there were some aspects

of it I found frustrating from time to time. Those frustrations usually had to

do with the fact that there were an awful lot of times you had to go back to

Victoria to get approval for, sometimes, the most basic of municipal matters.

Many of these things will now be streamlined and put into the context of regular

municipal approvals within a municipal administration. That is as it should be.

Municipal

councils are elected throughout British Columbia, and in the ensuing three years

they expect to be accountable to the people who elected them. We have hundreds

and hundreds of councillors, mayors and regional district directors who are

elected every three years across British Columbia. These people run in the first

place, because they are interested in their communities. They want to contribute

to their communities only to find, in years gone by, that they were often

handcuffed when they wanted to think outside the box or become creative, or when

they found that what worked in Vancouver didn't necessarily work in Chilliwack

or that what worked in Chilliwack didn't necessarily work in Vanderhoof. I can

draw all kinds of analogies like that.

This is

going to bring creativity to the forefront in municipal government in British

Columbia. It's going to highlight best practices. It is going to more readily

enable municipalities to develop best practices, to think outside the box, to be

more accountable and more productive on behalf of the ratepayers in their

communities.

One thing

that is particularly important in this proposed legislation is the granting of

the powers of the natural person to municipalities. This might seem like dry

legal minutiae, but it is in fact a very important step forward in terms of

municipal powers, and where that really comes to the forefront is in the

development of public-private partnerships.

As a

provincial government, we encourage the involvement of the private sector in the

delivery of public services. More often than not — I would say almost 100

percent of the time — that results in savings to taxpayers and, at the same

time, the provision of better levels of service. We have many examples all over

this province and certainly in the community of which I was formerly a mayor,

where that in fact has been the case.

[1120]

The archaic

rules, though, that were set out in the Municipal Act made it sometimes

virtually impossible for communities to intelligently structure a public-private

partnership.

Frankly,

that still is the case today, and I have a current example. The city of

Chilliwack is currently in the final stages of putting a package together

whereby, through a public-private partnership, a new hockey arena is going to be

built for the community. At a very late stage, after the counterpetition process

which is

[ Page 6306 ]

currently required, a positive development occurred, and that is this. A

gentleman by the name of Pat Quinn, who some might recognize as the coach of the

Toronto Maple Leafs, has decided to become an investor in this project. That has

resulted in this project becoming a better bet in terms of financing. When they

go to the financial markets, the involvement of Pat Quinn means that they've

been able to achieve a better interest rate.

One would

think, normally, that that would simply involve an amendment to the agreement

and that — because the electors of the city of Chilliwack had already had an

opportunity through the counterpetition process to express their opinion, and

given that only two people had registered any contrary opinion — no further

process would be required. What is the case, in fact, is that the entire project

has to go back through the counterpetition process in order for this very

positive development to be put together with the addition of one additional

investor. That is the ridiculous extent to which the current act puts

municipalities through some very convoluted procedures and acts as a

disincentive to often a better way of doing business.

I am and

always have been a real proponent of public-private partnerships. I think we can

deliver far greater value to the taxpaying public for the taxes that they send

to Victoria, which they send to their respective city halls. This municipal

charter will be a huge step forward in enabling communities around British

Columbia to take advantage of those business arrangements that deliver services

to their electorates.

There's

been a lot of work that has gone into developing this Community Charter, and I

want to commend the minister and his staff and the various advisers that have

worked with the minister. I know that some of the people that have worked with

the minister, who I've known in years gone by, I guess now sit in the municipal

senate. He has very appropriately tapped into those resources to garner their

expertise and their insight. I know that collectively we've worked very closely

with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. That's been a lengthy and laborious

process but a necessary process, because we are dealing with roughly 180

municipal governments across British Columbia. Again, what works for some

doesn't necessarily work for the rest, and vice versa.

I want to

comment for a minute, as well, about this notion of expanding sources of

revenue. I think, in the first instance, what is important here is that

municipalities have an opportunity to do a better job with the revenue they have

— hence my emphasis on public-private partnerships. The expanded sources of

revenue debate sounds, to members of the public who listen to these debates,

like another excuse for a level of government to invent ways to extract more

taxes from them. I don't think, in the first instance, that that is what this is

about. This is about doing more, doing better, being more accountable with the

tax revenues that are already collected. I think that is an important

distinction.

I know

there will be a future phase of this project that will embark on an examination

of other sources of revenue that should be made available to municipalities, but

I think we need to do that very, very cautiously. We need to allow the act as we

now have it to really take its place in the public life of British Columbia and

in the workings of municipal government to fully demonstrate the advantages that

are available in this legislation before we go into other areas of inventing new

ways to broaden the tax take that comes from British Columbians.

[1125]

With that,

Mr. Speaker, thank you for making time available this morning for this debate.

I'm interested to see what my other colleagues have to say, and I'm looking

forward, as I'm sure many city councils are across British Columbia, to seeing

the bringing of this act into fruition in the months ahead.

McMahon: It's a pleasure today to participate in second reading of Bill 14,

the Community Charter. It has certainly been a long time in the process, and

rightfully so. It has been a huge undertaking. There is no doubt, as I look at

the Community Charter and the possibilities, that I have to recognize the

Kootenays, the area I represent, and what it will do for our communities.

The

Kootenays are opening up to economic development. We can look at the Cranbrook

Airport expansion or the road improvements to Kicking Horse Canyon and the

announcement last week of $1.85 million for the Boundary roads or the Brilliant

Dam expansion. Those are all economic opportunities — huge opportunities —

for the area, and I know that local governments want to be part of this process

of leading in developing the economic opportunities for their communities. The

Community Charter, I know, will allow them to do this. It is a historic

document. It will give local governments the tools they've wanted to be able to

do what's best for their communities.

There is

discussion around the province about the B.C. resorts strategy that the Premier

spoke about in his state-of-the-province address, and I believe there are huge

opportunities for us and for the communities in British Columbia to take

advantage of the discussion. Look at what Whistler became because the local

government there had the tools under their own charter to move forward. The

Community Charter will allow other governments in other regions of British

Columbia to do something similar and become their own entities and manage their

own futures.

There is

autonomy and accountability under this charter. This past weekend I attended the

Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities AGM, and as I walked around

and talked to various mayors and councillors and staff, what I heard there is

that Bill 14 is great. I think they're looking to the future. Of course, with

change there's always uncertainty, and they're looking to see where that will

take them, and I know we will be able to fine-tune the issues within the charter

that people maybe come forward with, which aren't quite what we thought they

might be.

I believe

that the new Community Charter is the best tool we've ever had. I want to thank

the minister

[ Page 6307 ]

and his staff for their commitment and their work on this very long process

and to let him know he has my support as we move forward.

H. Bloy:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today to the second reading

of Bill 14, the Community Charter.

It's been a

privilege to run and to serve the people of British Columbia in my riding of

Burquitlam. Unlike a number of my colleagues, I've never served at the city

level before, but I've been very involved in my city and in the community. A

majority of city councillors and mayors run for the benefit of their citizens.

They're prepared to discuss matters in an open manner. They're prepared to go

forward. They're prepared to offer positive suggestions on what they should do

in their city and for the provincial government. Then we have the sad fact that

there are some mayors and councillors that run only to refight past elections.

They can't let go. They don't know how to govern. They only know how to

complain, and I feel that this is a terrible situation.

[1130]

The

minister has put so much work into this legislation, and I believe that it's

truly beneficial and that he should be commended for all the hard work he has

done on behalf of all British Columbians.

What is the

Community Charter? It's about being open and accountable. The Community Charter

sets out a new relationship between the provincial government and local

governments. It will provide greater autonomy to municipalities, more

accountability and better services to local taxpayers.

The

Community Charter enacts the most empowering local government legislation in

Canada. It goes further than any provincial legislation in recognizing

municipalities as an order of government. The legislation moves provincial

authority in areas of local interest to where it belongs — to municipal

councils, who are in the best position to respond to the wishes of local

citizens.

The

Community Charter will cut red tape and reduce regulations. It will give

communities the tools they need to realize the full potential of their

communities and to stimulate economic growth within their areas. The provincial

government will continue to set provincewide standards in areas like the

economy, the environment and public health.

There are a

number of questions that have been asked about the Community Charter. The

charter is about allowing municipalities to have more flexibility in their

decision-making. Currently, municipalities are limited in how they can address

local needs. The Community Charter will allow governments to be more flexible in

addressing the concerns of their local residents and of businesses within their

community. Both the provincial government and the local governments are clear

that overtaxing creates a poor business environment.

Many of the

cities had asked in the past: "We want more autonomy." Well, we're

giving it to you. We're going to give you the ability to set taxing levels, but

taxing levels that are fair to everybody in your community — residents and

businesses. Our government believes that a thriving and successful business

leads to thriving and successful municipalities and regions.

Economic

development. In fact, the purpose of the Community Charter is to stimulate

economic development. Municipalities will now be able to find innovative means

to address local needs such as necessary improvements to infrastructure that

lead to economic development. They will be able to listen to the concerns and

proposals of their area and then be able to make the decisions that will allow

these developments and economic growth to actually happen. They will have

control of that.

The

Community Charter allows for the increased usage of P3s. They are the

partnerships between government and business, striving to develop local

economies. I believe that the cities and the municipalities and the regions

should treat every business in this province fairly, that there should be open

tendering on every project and that we should be enhancing P3s — unlike some

municipalities that limit it to unions only. I believe this is wrong. When every

business and every working person in this province pays taxes, they should have

a fair share of every government contract that's put out to tender.

We have to

stop this limited in-house working or unions making rules up to support union

businesses. Governments have to step back and say: "We're here for every

citizen of British Columbia, and we want every citizen and every business to

have the fairest opportunity in which to do business in British Columbia."

In fact, the purpose of the Community Charter, as I've been trying to say, is to

stimulate economic development. Municipalities will now be able to find

innovative means in which to make developments and improvements happen in

infrastructure.

[1135]

Getting

the economy moving. The Community Charter will allow local authorities to make

decisions in a timely manner. No more blaming it on: "Well, we're waiting

for another level of government to make a decision for us." They will be

able to set the time lines. The authority will allow communities to address

challenges quickly and in the best interests of communities. The decision for

communities to exceed by taking a timely advantage of all opportunities….

Other

questions that have been asked — amalgamation of municipalities. Well, that

seems to be a touchy issue in some areas, but let's discuss it. This government

and this minister have been open in bringing everything forward for the people

of British Columbia. There has been more consultation on this process than at

any other time. The Community Charter explicitly lists the approval process

necessary for amalgamations to occur. Currently, the province has the power to

force amalgamation of municipalities against a community's will. This has been

done recently in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Under the Community Charter,

each community would have to agree before amal-

[ Page 6308 ]

gamation could take place. This is where we're being open and accountable,

and again I have to commend the minister.

The

question has been asked: how do citizens fit into the charter? Currently,

councils are accountable through elections, mandatory open meetings,

access-to-information legislation and, in some cases, direct resident approval

of some actions. The charter will add three new tools to this: annual reports,

annual meetings and ethical conduct standards. It is crucial to democracy, to

the new spirit of respect and cooperation between all levels of government and

its citizens, that public input and public involvement be expanded. These new

tools are a way to bring the people under the same roof.

I believe

that this is so far-reaching, versus any other province anywhere else in Canada,

that we are the leading force. Again I have to thank the minister and commend

him for all the hard work that he has done on the Community Charter.

The next

question is: how will councils be held accountable? The three new tools will

allow citizens, businesses and other stakeholders to hold council accountable

for their actions and decisions. The councils will be putting out annual

reports. They're going to have annual meetings, just like a board of directors

for any major corporation, and they're going to be provided with ethical conduct

standards. This is just opening up the process of government and accountability

more and more every day. The Community Charter requires these meetings and

reports. The meetings and reports will make sure that councils are open and

transparent.

Another

question that's been asked: does the charter improve relationships between the

province and local governments? The charter will recognize local governments as

an order of government within their jurisdiction. That substantial move will be

the foundation upon which a relationship with the provincial government is

built. That provincial government relationship is built on mutual respect,

recognition of interest, intergovernmental dialogue and joint management.

Currently, the provincial government may change local government legislation

without adequate consultation. This will no longer happen. Under the charter,

the provincial government will be required to seek input on proposed changes to

local government legislation or revenue transfers.

Another

question that's been asked is on tourism in the Community Charter. Like any

industry, the tourism sector will benefit from the passing of the Community

Charter. Local government and municipalities will soon have the flexibility to

address challenges faced by all industries, including tourism. Councils will now

have the opportunity to employ innovative ideas to meet these challenges.

[1140]

Tourism is

going to grow with the awarding of the 2009 World Police and Fire Games to

Burnaby, British Columbia, and I would just like to talk about that for a

moment. The 2009 World Police and Fire Games were awarded, but it was really the

hard work of two local firemen in Burnaby, Jeff Clark and Miles Ritchie, who

each put $2,500 (U.S.) on their own personal credit cards to get a deposit down

to host the games in Burnaby.

I want to

thank and say what an honour it was to work with my colleagues from

Burnaby-Edmonds, Burnaby-Willingdon and Burnaby North. We worked with the

minister of aboriginal and community affairs and with the Premier to support

this initiative. My colleagues and I were the driving force behind supporting

the World Police and Fire Games. We brought the province to the table. We worked

with Tourism B.C. and Tourism Vancouver to assist them. We were there. We hosted

a reception for the bid committee on the first night.

This is

something where local governments will now be able to step in sooner. When they

see opportunities arise, they will be able to participate. It should be at the

local level, even though it's the British Columbia Police and Fire Games. We

were awarded it last Saturday afternoon, and there was a big ball by the Burnaby

firemen on Saturday night to celebrate that.

The

Community Charter partners business and local government. The Community Charter

serves to stimulate business, not hamper it. With the Community Charter we want

cities to take an active interest in their communities. We want them to go out.

We want them to seize opportunities and be able to act upon them.

I guess the

last question that arises is the time line on the Community Charter. It's been

asked. Well, I believe we've consulted more than anybody. The minister has gone

out, listened to consultation, come back and made changes where necessary. He's

been open and accountable every step of the way. When you're about to do

something different that the rest of the country hasn't done, when you're about

to allow powers to be in another area that you once controlled, you have to do

it right, and you can only do it once. You know, sometimes there might be a

little tweaking, but basically you want to do it right the first time.

You write a

report with consultation. I know the minister consulted greatly with UBCM, the

Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and all the other five or six

municipal associations that are a member of that. They were all part of this

consultation. The mayors and the councillors have been part of this process from

day one. The minister went out, and his staff went out. They consulted, they

came back, and it was reviewed. They put another report out again, fine-tuning

it, all with consultation.

In the

draft legislation we stated that our job was not complete. We asked for further

feedback, and the minister received it. The ministry has received over 1,000

comprehensive and constructive submissions pertaining to the Community Charter.

That's just amazing. You know, there are some mayors out there that say we've

never consulted. Well, I don't know where those mayors are, because we have

consulted. When you get 1,000 submissions on a piece of legislation, that is

amazing.

The time

extension will allow each and every submission to get the attention it deserves.

The govern-

[ Page 6309 ]

ment is committed to an early implementation of the charter. I know that.

They want to get it going. The minister wants to see it enacted, but he wants it

done right the first time. This extension does not diminish the goal. In fact,

it only serves to emphasize our commitment to local communities in British

Columbia.

We will use

the extra time to properly prepare and assist small communities to develop

information and educational material. We're going to work with every

municipality, every region in this province, so that they can take full

advantage of this and be the best partner ever within their community — within

developments, with business, with other governments in their region — and they

will be absolutely number one. We as a government are prepared and committed to

stand behind them and work with them every step of the way. This additional time

also allows us to take the constructive comments we've received and to build the

best possible charter for the future of local governments in British Columbia.

[1145]

I would

like to thank the minister for the consultation process he has gone through, for

reviewing the over 1,000 submissions that have come in and giving them each

their due care and attention. That's a lot of people. Out of those 1,000

submissions, I would say there was a lot of committee structure that went into

that. It's not just 1,000 people. It's probably 10,000 people or more that have

contributed to this piece of legislation. For the minister to be strong enough

to take the time to go through and review this, to look at the constructive

comments that have been made and to be prepared to say, "This is good, and

this is not, but we're prepared to look at it and implement it into the plan

that's before us today," is such a breath of fresh air after a decade of

despair under the NDP. I just want to thank the minister and applaud him for all

the hard work he's done.

Mayencourt: It is indeed a great privilege and an honour to stand in this

House to support the initiative of the minister responsible for the Community

Charter on Bill 14.

I want to

spend just a few minutes talking about why we are introducing this piece of

legislation. For many, many years the Community Charter has been a priority for

local governments. When I read some of the history of this act — and I just

spoke with the minister earlier this week about the fact that this is only the

third generation of local government legislation that's ever been introduced

here in British Columbia — this is something that has been on the back burner

for a long time. So when we came to government, we made a new-era commitment

that we would put it on the front burner. I can see by the hard work that's been

put into this particular piece of legislation that this minister has taken this

piece of legislation to heart. He has dedicated a good deal of time to

consulting with communities to find out about their hopes and dreams for the

Community Charter. But this is something local governments have been calling

for, for many, many years.

Under this

charter, local governments will have more autonomy, and they will have the tools

they require in order to do their job best. In the past, local governments have

been hampered. They've been constrained by narrow legislation — legislation

that does not allow them to respond to the needs of their various communities as

they see fit.

Local

government is a very important part of the many levels of government that we

have. It's the closest to the road…. You know, it's where the rubber hits the

road. It's where people within communities have the most access to their

political leaders. It is where they can go to community meetings, where they can

have some input, where they can talk about the issues that tear at their hearts

— the things they want to see happen. To constrain that is simply unfair,

because the people who elect those individuals to city councils expect that

they're going to be able to move forward and bring about change in their local

communities. Well, with this legislation we are giving them those tools. We are

giving them the power to make effective decisions — decisions that have a

direct impact on the citizens they represent.

We've

talked a lot about the provincial economy. That's certainly been a guiding

principle with all we have done in this Legislature to date, since we were

elected in May of 2001. We believe that the basis of a good economic recovery is

a strong and innovative local government. That is what this Community Charter is

about. It sets up a whole new relationship, one that is based on respect and

that recognizes we are equal partners in providing services to our communities,

to our citizenry. It is this relationship that we are striving to recognize —

the autonomy of local governments. It moves provincial authority in areas of

local interest to where it belongs — to municipal councils, to that direct

forum of democracy where those people are in the best position to respond to

their neighbours, friends, people in their communities and business leaders —

to ensure they are meeting the wishes of those local citizens.

This is a

dramatic piece of legislation. It's the first time any kind of legislation of

this nature has been introduced in a Canadian parliament. It's very historic and

very, very important. It empowers local government, and it goes further than any

other provincial legislation in recognizing municipalities as an order of

government, as people with the right and responsibility to respond to the

citizens. Our provincial government, at the same time, will continue to set

provincewide standards in areas like the economy, the environment and public

health. This is truly appropriate.

[1150]

Now, the

minister took a good deal of time with this particular legislation. In fact,

when we look back on the history of this whole notion of the community charter,

it really goes back to the early nineties when the Premier was the chair of the

UBCM and brought forward this as an idea, as a way of bringing some balance into

the various levels of government.

I'm

grateful to the minister because last year, when he first came forward with this

piece of legislation and tabled it in this House, he made it available to all of

the

[ Page 6310 ]

citizens of British Columbia. You could actually go to a website. You could

read what the charter said. You could provide him with input. That input has

been very, very valuable.

I believe

that we had thousands and thousands of submissions from ordinary British

Columbians, from various levels of government, from business and community

leaders all speaking in favour of this greater autonomy — this greater level

of respect for this level of government. We were very clear about saying we want

to get your feedback and we want to know what you think about this legislation.

We heard

from the broadest range of British Columbians that you could possibly imagine.

Virtually anybody who wanted to go to the website could find this piece of

legislation, could look at it and could make comment on it. This consultation

period was so good that we now have…. As the member for Burquitlam said,

"We got a pretty darn good piece of legislation out of it," and I am

very happy that we have this particular piece of legislation before us today.

The

Community Charter ensures that before any new responsibility is put to a local

government, there needs to be resources to fulfil those responsibilities. We

don't view the Community Charter as a way to get rid of some expensive programs.

We recognize that if we ask a local level of government to take on

responsibilities, they need not only the tools to take that on, but they need

the ability to fund those particular things. That's appropriate because those

local people, the citizens of a local community, that are calling upon their

local elected officials to provide a service are the ones paying for it, and

they want to know that they have the tools in order to do that.

I'm just

reading my notes here. Apparently over 43,000 British Columbians took the

opportunity of downloading this particular piece of legislation. That is a very

extensive consultation. That led to us taking a lot of time to make sure that we

got it right, and as the other members that have spoken here said, we have had a

wonderful opportunity to refine, to get the right kind of legislation here for

us today.

The other

part of this particular legislation is accountability. This is something that

has been a theme in British Columbia for the last little while. It really

relates back to the previous government and the need for ordinary citizens,

people like you and me, to be able to hold our political leaders to account.

This is one of the very important parts of this piece of legislation — the

ability for people to understand what a municipality is doing, how they're doing

it, what goals they have set for themselves and whether or not they are

achieving them.

I am very

proud to support this piece of legislation. I am very proud of the consultation

that the minister undertook with this. In the midst of running the 2010 bid, he

was still able to get this big piece of legislation done, and I really commend

him for that work. I am proud to support the Community Charter.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I move adjournment of debate on Bill 14.

Motion

approved.

Committee

of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling moved adjournment of the House.

Motion

approved.

Deputy

Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

The House

adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply A; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 10:10 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ADVANCED EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 9:

ministry operations, $1,899,007,000 (continued) .

Hon. S.

Bond: Before I begin, I would like to introduce the staff that are here with

me. I have Gerry Armstrong, my deputy minister; Jim Soles, assistant deputy

minister, post-secondary division; Tom Vincent, assistant deputy minister,

management services division; and James Gorman, the director of the finance

branch.

Nettleton: I have a number of questions for the minister with respect to the

Advanced Education ministry estimates. I thank you for this opportunity.

First of

all, I've reviewed the service plans for all the ministries and have found

something peculiar about the Advanced Education ministry's service plan. At the

start of every service plan, there are two things. First, there is an

introduction by the minister that is signed, and second, there is a brief

accountability statement that is signed. Both of these are signed by the

minister. This is in virtually every service plan but one: the Ministry of

Advanced Education, the ministry we're presently discussing.

The

minister does introduce the service plan, but strangely, there is no

accountability statement from the minister. Instead, the deputy minister states

in the service plan a few words about accountability but not the minister

herself. The question, then, is: why has the

[ Page 6311 ]

minister, unlike other ministers, not signed an accountability statement in

the service plan?

Hon. S.

Bond: I would be happy to table this for the member. I would be more than

pleased to read the accountability statement I signed on February 4, 2003. It is

published with all of the ministry service plans in accordance with my

responsibility as minister. I will read it, for the member, into the record:

"The

2003-04, 2005-06 Ministry of Advanced Education service plan was prepared

under my direction, in accordance with the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act. I am accountable for the basis on which the plan has been

prepared. The plan was developed in the context of the government's new-era

commitments, which are to be addressed by May 17, 2005. All material fiscal

assumptions and policy decisions as of January 28, 2003, have been considered

in preparing the plan, and I am accountable for achieving the specific

objectives in the plan."

I have signed it, and my name and portfolio follow. It is dated

February 4, 2003.

Following

that, you will find a signed statement that outlines the goals and initiatives

of my ministry. Those are in the first two pages of my service plan as published

with all of the other service plans in government.

Nettleton: I take it from that answer that the service plan has in fact been

signed. Is that the case?

Hon. S.

Bond: For the second time, and I won't read it a second time, but I'd be

prepared to table…. I don't know how you would do that, but I'd be prepared to

share with you at a later date the signed version of it, which is published with

the entire collection of service plans. Frankly, I'm surprised that the member

didn't find the signed version of it along with all of the other service plans

in government.

[1015]

Nettleton: I have another question related to this subject that struck me as

peculiar. The service plan and estimates for the ministry are there for all to

see on what the ministry intends to do and what the cost of that might

reasonably be expected to be.

However,

again, unlike the other service plans, that is not the case with this ministry,

the Ministry of Advanced Education. I am looking at page 4 of the service plan:

"The service plan does not present a workplan for individual program areas

or a detailed account of the ministry's anticipated activities, programs or

initiatives over the next three years." It goes on to say that if you want

the full details of what the ministry is actually about to do and what it's

going to spend tax dollars on, you can't have that yet. The service plan goes on

to say that you have to wait for the annual service plan published after each

fiscal year. This annual service plan report will contain all the details. Was

there an annual service plan report for the first fiscal year of this

government?

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, the role of a service plan is to provide the general

direction, the outcome expectations and the vision for the ministry. I am

absolutely delighted with how detailed our service plan is. It's the first time

in a very long time that those expectations have been made public.

In terms of

specific program initiatives, the universities, institutions and university

colleges are responsible for the actual program delivery. In terms of your

concerns about the resource expectations and the expenditures of public dollars,

if you actually read further through the service plan, when you get to page 30,

you will find the resource

summary of my ministry, which presents a balanced

budget for now through the next three years. In fact, we have made very public

the resource expenditures.

In terms of

the service plan report for the first fiscal year, of course there was one

presented. The next one, I believe, will be presented…. The outcomes of my

ministry's work will be presented on June 26 of this year.

Nettleton: If there is an annual service report for the first fiscal year, I

haven't seen it. I'd happy to be proven wrong. My concern was that if there was

not an annual service report for the first fiscal year of this government,

individuals wanting information about ministry activities for this fiscal year

would actually have to wait until the fiscal year is over. Now, the other

ministry service plans don't do this, which again suggests there is something

unusual about the service plan with respect to the ministry of this minister.

Now, if

there is an annual service plan for the first fiscal year, again, I'm happy to

be proven wrong. If not, my question to the minister would be this: when will

the annual service plan report come out?

Hon. S.

Bond: I appreciate the fact that my service plan is one garnering this kind

of interest. It is not unique. It is not singular in its approach. It in fact

meets the template that is in place across government. There was an annual

report published for '01-02, and the first full report on our first fiscal year

as government, as I said, will be published on June 26 of this year.

Nettleton: Maybe I'm missing something here. In fact, there is not presently

available an annual service plan report for the first fiscal year of this

government.

[1020]

Hon. S.

Bond: Our government, as the member would well know, came in partway through

a fiscal year, so there is a report that reflects the first partial year of this

government. Our first fiscal report, I'm pleased to say, based on the service

plan will be published on June 26 of this year.

Nettleton: Interesting. A question to the minister with respect to this

annual service plan report, which, as the minister points out, is coming out on

June 26 of this year: will it — that is, the annual service plan report — be

presented by the deputy minister or by the minister herself?

[ Page 6312 ]

Hon. S.

Bond: My practice as minister has been that I present all of the work that I

do myself. This will not be an exception. I will be presenting our annual

reports with my colleagues at the same time.

Nettleton: I look forward to it. I'm sure the minister will be doing that on

June 26 of this year, and we look forward to it.

Will the

annual service plan report be subject to the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act?

Hon. S.

Bond: As a matter of fact, in my accountability statement, which I read into

Hansard , I said that my service plan was prepared under my direction in

accordance with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Nettleton: Could the minister give this House an idea of what some of the

stated anticipated activities might be that would be in this annual service plan

report? I ask because it is perhaps not much use to ask questions about

estimates for this ministry today if we don't have all the information on the

table and won't get it until June 26 of this year.

Hon. S.

Bond: I'd like the member, please, to clarify for me what he means by

"anticipated activities."

Nettleton: The service plan states there will be a need for approximately

$35 million for what are called planned projects. Although these planned

projects have yet to be approved, they are apparently to make room for enrolment

growth and to replace aging facilities. Could this be the kind of thing we might

see in the annual service plan report that's due on June 26 of this year? Does

the minister have a priority list or some idea of what these planned but as yet

unnamed projects might include, since $35 million would go toward them? I'm sure

the minister has some sense as to where that $35 million will be going.

Hon. S.

Bond: The projects noted in that particular

section refer to projects that

are in the planning stages to address issues such as access, growth and the need

to meet specific focus areas. While they are in the planning stages, they have

yet to be announced. We continue to work them through the process so that we can

make those determinations and announce them in the near future.

[1025]

Nettleton: I was somewhat distracted, and for that I apologize.

The

minister, then, has no sense yet as to these unnamed projects for which the $35

million is designated?

Hon. S.

Bond: As I pointed out, those are projects that are in the planning process.

They have yet to be brought to completion. They certainly have not been

announced and, in fact, wouldn't be reported in an annual report, because they

are actually future projects. The service plan simply identifies the fact that

there is a pool of dollars that will be used for appropriate programs. Those are

still in the planning process.

Nettleton: I appreciate the fact that these projects have for the most part

not been committed to and are in the planning stages, but could the minister

table in this House a work in progress of this annual service plan report as it

relates to these as-yet-unnamed projects?

Hon. S.

Bond: As a matter of fact, I would assume that the member will be able to

wait until June 26 as the rest of the process unfolds. All the service plan

reports will be released at that point in time. We're currently working on

drafts, as are other ministries, and they will be released on June 26.

Nettleton: I have one last question in this category of things that caught

my attention with respect to the service plan. The service plan also includes a

strategic objective to balance the costs and benefits of post-secondary

education. I know on a personal level what the benefits are of getting a college

or university degree. Certainly, it has been my experience that people with….

Well, studies have clearly shown that those with a college or university degree

are rewarded monetarily and in other ways with respect to the opportunities that

are generated. What might be some of the costs of individuals improving

themselves?

Hon. S.

Bond: I think it's fairly obvious what the cost…. Certainly, the benefits

are obvious to all of us. Post-secondary and educational opportunities are

critical to the health and success of individuals and our province. What we're

debating here today is the cost to government and to the public interest, which

is the almost $1.9 billion that we invest and that individuals invest in varying

degrees. Certainly, the costs for individuals include things such as tuition,

accommodation, lodging, food, transportation. The benefits are obvious, and our

goal is simply to make sure we look at the issue of cost and benefit as we move

forward with our planning and our thinking.

[1030]

Nettleton: I think that's helpful. I think there are those who have viewed

government costs, as the minister puts it, as a necessary investment,

particularly in young people and in those who aren't so young who are forced to

seek post-secondary education for one reason or another. Particularly given that

those of us in this House do have some responsibility with respect to policies

as they impact the costs associated with post-secondary education for

individuals, I think it's important how we view the cost to government. Viewing

the cost to government as an investment in students does make a difference in a

very real and practical way.

I will now

turn to a major theme for this ministry, if I may, and that is this government's

commitment to encourage a strong private post-secondary education

[ Page 6313 ]

system. My question to the minister with respect to this theme would be: does

the minister anticipate growth in the number of private post-secondary

institutions offering programs, including degree-granting programs?

Hon. S.

Bond: I certainly hope so.

Nettleton: With growth, then, in the number of private post-secondary

institutions, we can infer that more and more students may choose the private

route over the public route. My question to the minister would be: would this

switch mean reduced funding commitments for her ministry to public

post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S.

Bond: We do not provide public dollars to private institutions. However, we

do provide student financial assistance opportunities to those students who

choose to attend private institutions.

Nettleton: If reduced funding commitments — assuming there are, in fact,

reduced funding commitments — result from more private choices, how would the

ministry meet its strategic objectives to expand training and skills development

and to expand research capabilities in British Columbia with fewer funds?

Hon. S.

Bond: There will be no reduced funding commitments. In fact, the service

plan indicates that in the third year of my plan, we actually see an increase in

our budget.

Nettleton: With growth in the number of private post-secondary institutions,

what will this mean for the long-term viability of public post-secondary

institutions in terms of the strengths of the programs, research and other

functions of such public post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S.

Bond: The institutions in British Columbia will continue to be excellent.

They will continue to be some of the best in Canada — not simply our

universities but our colleges, our institutes and our university colleges. The

addition of opportunity and choice for students exists with the addition of the

private sector and private institutions. They will not at all hamper the

top-notch institutions we have in this province.

Nettleton: Does the focus on encouraging the expansion of private

post-secondary educational institutions create a higher burden on students due

to higher tuition costs at these private post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S.

Bond: We certainly have no influence over the cost of tuition at private

institutions. It's simply a matter of choice. There are students who will choose

to take a private course at a private institution, and that's an important

option in this province.

Nettleton: Does the focus on encouraging the expansion of private

post-secondary institutions — because that is the stated objective of this

government and of this ministry — create a higher burden for B.C. student

loans programs, including grants to students?

Hon. S.

Bond: Certainly, as more students have the opportunity to attend

institutions of their choice, it will add challenges for us in the student

financial assistance area. That's a good challenge to have. This is a government

that has increased funding in that particular area of my ministry.

Nettleton: How will increased expenditures for student financial assistance

programs be apportioned among repayable loans and not repayable assistance? How

will this be determined?

[1035]

Hon. S.

Bond: We have a very clear process for student financial assistance in this

province. As you know, it's a balance between the Canada student loan part of it

and the provincial student loan. We have a grants and loans division, in terms

of some parts of a student's financial assistance being grants and some being

loans. Students are also eligible for loan forgiveness if they are challenged in

managing the debt they incur.

Nettleton: Okay. Short on specifics but, I guess, a general response to my

question. I think specifics are important, though, as someone who has certainly

had to rely to some extent on student loans in the past. I know from practical

experience that how this breaks down in very specific and practical terms is

very important to those who rely on student financial assistance.

In any

event, a degree quality assessment process is being developed that will ensure

that degree programs at private institutions are of the highest possible

quality. Is a degree quality assessment similar to that of the private sector

being developed? Or, does parity exist for public post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S.

Bond: We've had a degree program review committee in place since 1995 in

this province, so each time a new degree is granted, it goes through a process

that ensures it is a quality degree being offered in British Columbia. Public

institutions will continue to go through a process of quality assessment similar

to that of the private institutions.

Nettleton: Although, as earlier stated, a degree quality assessment process

is currently being developed with respect to degree programs at private

institutions…. My question really was, in fact: once that is developed, is

there a commitment by this minister and this ministry to a similar degree

quality assessment along similar lines with respect to public post-secondary

institutions?

Hon. S.

Bond: The new part of what we're doing is the private side of things. In

fact, as I suggested, the

[ Page 6314 ]

public process has been underway since 1995. What we decided to do was

streamline the process and see both public and private go through an amalgamated

process. The publics have been undergoing a process for quite some time. We are

now creating a process to include the privates. In fact, the degree quality

assessment process will include both public and private.

Nettleton: Yes, that's helpful.

When will

the baseline for expanding degree-granting options be completed?

[1040]

Hon. S.

Bond: The vast majority of the baseline work has been done. We intend to

bring regulation into place by spring or early summer of 2003.

Nettleton: I'd like to move on, then, to another topic and talk briefly

about tuition fee levels, which is certainly an issue for students. The service

plan reports that British Columbia's average tuition fee level in the 2002-2003

academic year was up 25.3 percent from 2001-2002. Now, a ministry goal, or a

stated objective of this ministry, is to increase choice in post-secondary

education. My question to the minister is: do regular tuition increases increase

choice for students?

Hon. S.

Bond: Certainly, we have asked institutions to demonstrate the use of the

increased tuition revenue, and, of course, it has been used to increase choice.

It has added new sections. It has allowed institutions to bring new faculty on

board, and it has allowed them to deal with libraries — a number of issues.

Certainly, the whole focus in terms of tuition is to provide benefit to

students.

I'd like to

point out that while the member points out the increase in one year in British

Columbia, the fact of the matter is that as we look back over the years across

Canada, other provinces' tuition has been raised incrementally. Those needs, in

fact, were being addressed over a number of years. Ours, simply, once we

recognized the challenges for institutions…. The increase reflects the

challenges that have been faced over the last number of years as other provinces

raised their tuition fees incrementally.

Nettleton: I take the minister's point with respect to British Columbia, in

contrast to other provinces, not having moved incrementally toward tuition fee

increases as dramatically as her government has — 25.3 percent. Nevertheless,

one cannot discount the fact that there are students who, faced with this

dramatic increase in tuition costs, have been excluded or limited from

post-secondary education and from choices in and around post-secondary

education. I think that should be a concern not only for myself and others who

are perhaps critical of that move but for the minister herself.

In any

event, given that institutions such as UNBC and the College of New Caledonia in

Prince George have seen sharp tuition increases in each year for the past two

years, does the minister have a maximum target for tuition levels?

Hon. S.

Bond: No. In fact, our government made a policy decision that the people

best in the position to make decisions about tuition are at the individual

institutions as they address the needs of their students and look at the

economic situation in their particular communities. It will be the institutions

that determine the appropriate levels of tuition for their students.

Nettleton: If public post-secondary institutions have the degree of latitude

to set tuition rates, to which this minister has made reference here today, what

assurances can the minister give that the ministry's stated vision of affordable

access will be retained?

Hon. S.

Bond: I am confident that those people who govern institutions and manage

them have…. Their priority is the same as mine. It is what's best for

students. When they make those decisions, I know they will consider the best

interests of students and also demonstrate the benefit that additional tuition

revenue provides to those students.

[1045]

Nettleton: One last question, then, with respect to tuition and tuition

fees. How would the minister define, in terms we can understand, what might be

considered affordable access?

Hon. S.

Bond: Tuition isn't the biggest cost for students, as we know, especially

those who need to move and live and be accommodated in other cities. As

institutions consider their tuition levels, they will consider the issue of

affordability and what is most appropriate for particular areas or regions or

for particular institutions. I'm confident they will do that, and they will

consult with students and also demonstrate the benefits that any change in

tuition might bring for students.

Nettleton: Moving on from tuition fees and the implications with respect to

the establishment of those fees, the service plan says the ministry is committed

to developing an accountability framework for the post-secondary system. What

might such a framework look like?

Hon. S.

Bond: The accountability framework for post-secondary education is a

systematic and systemic approach to planning and reporting on post-secondary

education. The components of the framework would be identifying the goals and

the objectives for the system and allocating the goals and objectives to our

system partners. We would want to identify the performance measures that will be

used to assess achievement of the goals and objectives. We expect there to be a

public r