Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 4, Number 13

[ Page 3017 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm delighted today to be able to introduce in the House Mr. Justice Wallace Oppal; Chief Constable Ray Canuel of the Vancouver police department; Chief Constable Doug Richardson of the Victoria police department; John Westwood of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association; Mason Loh of SUCCESS; Mary-Ethel Audley, a member of the Saanich police board; and Greta Smith, with the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses -- who should be recognized in absentia; she wanted to be here but couldn't be here. I'm asking the House to please make them welcome.

R. Masi: It's my pleasure today to introduce Gerry Della Mattia, executive director of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia and a longtime friend. Will the House please make him welcome.

L. Reid: In the precincts today is Ms. Christine Chipperfield, a resident of Richmond, and I would ask this House to please make her welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I see in the gallery today a constituent of mine, Stephen Leary, who is a community social activist of many years. I would like the House to make him welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the Legislature today 46 seniors from the Sevenoaks Alliance Church in the city of Abbotsford. They're enjoying their day in Victoria, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Joining us in the Legislature today is Doug Anguish, a former minister of the Crown and MP from Saskatchewan.

Also joining us from Saskatchewan is my friend Marcus Davies -- and I don't mean to disparage Mr. Anguish by introducing him at the same time. Marcus Davies used to be a speechwriter for Mike Harcourt and had to go to Saskatchewan to find honest work, hon. Speaker, but make him welcome anyway.

J. Kwan: In the gallery today is the person who actually got me involved in politics and into community work some years ago. He is a mentor, a strong social activist, a strong trade unionist and the person in the downtown east side that everybody knows to be the unofficial mayor, and that is Jim Green. Will the House please make him very welcome.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce Angela Austman, my legislative assistant, and with her, from the B.C. Young Liberals in Burnaby, Christian Lopez. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to add my welcome to that of the member for Delta North to Gerry Della Mattia. One of the reasons that my office is so full of toys is his beautiful granddaughter Emily. His daughter was a staff person who came to work with me when I was first elected.

I. Chong: Joining us today is, although not a constituent, a good friend, Dorothy Driedger, who I met during my leisure time when I enjoyed ten-pin bowling. Along with her today, visiting from Mexico, are her friends Lennie Ramirez and Ron Neubert. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: Today we have two guests that have travelled a long way, from Spey Bay, Scotland, and are in the galleries. John and Lillian McSeveney are accompanied by Rita Steer of Victoria to see our beautiful province and how this parliament works in such a functional way. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Administrator. It's a heavy and long one.

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Police Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce a bill which puts in place new systems of police accountability, in response to complaints about police conduct and services. British Columbians expressed their concerns about police accountability to the commission of inquiry into policing in British Columbia, conducted by the Hon. Mr. Justice Wallace T. Oppal over a two-year period, from 1992 to 1994. Subsequent to that inquiry, there have been extensive consultations with representatives, individuals and groups. The legislative amendments introduced here today are corrective responses to the major deficiencies identified during the consultations.

A new office of the police complaints commissioner, reporting to the Legislative Assembly, is created to independently oversee each and every complaint lodged against municipal police officers or departments. The commissioner will have the power to ensure that complaints are expediently resolved in a process which respects the rights of all involved parties. The commissioner may also order that a public hearing take place before a Provincial Court judge. With the creation of the new police complaints commissioner, the B.C.

Police Commission will be dissolved, and any remaining statutory police oversight functions will be transferred to the director of police services, an existing position in the Ministry of Attorney General.

There are now over 500 special provincial constables appointed for duties outside the provincial force, spread across ministries and Crown corporations. It is no longer appropriate or manageable to use special provincial constable appointments for this purpose. To take the place of these appointments and ensure a consistent application of public accountability and policing principles, two new levels of supplemental policing and law enforcement organization and appointments are introduced in these amendments: designated policing units and designated law enforcement units.

The amendments also include provisions to enable regulation of the use of force by police officers and standards for training.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many individuals and organizations who have contributed to bringing about these amendments. These include members of the . . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I'm sorry, but the allotted time is up.

[ Page 3018 ]

Also, minister, I must advise you that we have neglected to move the first motion for the bill. So if you would kindly move first reading, then we'll do the placed-on-the-order-paper motion. If you'd move those two motions, please.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My apologies, hon. Speaker. I move that the bill be introduced, and having been read a first time now . . . .

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a first time now.

I'm pleased today to introduce Bill 18, the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, which will amend certain public sector pension plans. The acts affected are the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (Teachers) Act.

This bill has four purposes. The first purpose of the bill is to provide employers who participate in the aforementioned public sector pension plans with an opportunity to introduce pension-based early retirement initiatives on a basis to be determined in consultation with the respective pension boards.

The second purpose of this bill is to include the newly established regional health boards and community health councils as employers under the Pension (Municipal) Act, and to provide transitional arrangements for those employees being transferred from the Ministry of Health to a board or council.

The third purpose of this bill is to implement changes which are needed to meet the federal government's requirements for the registration of pension plans under the Income Tax Act.

The fourth purpose of the bill is to make a number of miscellaneous housekeeping changes, including the addition of a few new employers in addition to those which will be added as a result of the reorganization in the health sector.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYERS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

It's my pleasure to present the Public Sector Employers Amendment Act for first reading. This is the bill that will guarantee adherence to the standards set by the Public Sector Employers Council with respect to severance provisions for exempt employees in the province. The amendments will implement PSEC severance standards through legislation and will allow government to recover money paid out in excess of these regulations. Our objective is to balance the need to prudently manage taxpayer dollars with the need to attract the highest-quality executives and senior managers to the public sector.

The legislation will apply to all new and renewed contracts of employment in the public sector. It will enable governments to ensure that severance payments are based on the principles established by common law, allow the governments to recover any monetary sums paid in excess of a regulation, remove flexibility for public sector employers and their executive employees to negotiate deals which do not stand up to public scrutiny, and it will ensure that severance is not paid in cases of voluntary resignation or termination with cause. It will address double-dipping, where an employee accepts employment with another public sector employer while still receiving severance payments.

This bill is consistent with this government's program to reduce the overall cost of government for the people of British Columbia. It affirms our priority for government resources to be directed to front-line services, and it also recognizes the need to recruit the best talent possible to the public sector -- and will allow us to achieve that objective, as well.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RESOURCES FOR CHILDREN IN CARE

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to start with something a little bit different today. Yesterday was an important day in this House. The disturbing issue of children removed from parents and families and the tragic prospect of lives unlived moved this House to agree that we must put children first.

I share the frustration of the Minister for Children and Families over this issue. Yesterday the member for Richmond-Steveston asked: what more can this House do to protect the children of this province? We know the ministry's mandate is enormous; its service is vital. We know there are and always will be parents who do not or cannot put their child first.

We know that the daunting task which faces front-line workers today -- caregivers, investigators, respite care providers and foster parents -- is enormous. They often feel overwhelmed. We know that we in this House have an obligation.

My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: given existing resources and given the fundamental need to protect the child, what additional resources will it take to honour our obligation to put children first in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: I appreciate the concern about whatever resources we need to keep children safe in the province of British Columbia. I would answer that question, I think, in two ways.

[ Page 3019 ]

One of the ways is by bringing together five ministries, by downsizing in terms of administration and management and by putting resources into front-line workers. We will actually have some new announcements coming up in the next while. There are some ways in which we are putting new resources into the hands of front-line workers and families, and that's one way.

But I think the second part of that answer to the Leader of the Opposition -- an important question around resources -- is the resources that all of us as members of our community can offer to people who live next door to us with children, to organizations in our community that work with children. So it's a financial resource issue, but it's also a people resource issue that we can all help with. I appreciate his question.

G. Campbell: I appreciate the minister's response. I'd also, though, like to say that I think we have to do more. It seems to me, as we look at the issues that we've dealt with over the last number of years, that it is critical and crucial for us all to understand that this is often an issue of financial resources. It's often an issue of new ways that we can provide services. It's often an issue of looking at the kinds of frameworks that we set up within our jurisdiction to make sure that children are put at the top of the list.

So today I want to give the minister my commitment to do what we can do within this House and on this side of the House to make sure that children are put first, be it through legislation, budget amendment, resource allocation -- whatever action we together decide must be taken to put children first. I ask the minister: will she commit to take us up on the offer to work together immediately to determine the resources that are required, so that we do not have the kinds of tragedies taking place in the province of British Columbia which we have seen take place time and time again over the last number of years?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, absolutely, I will take up the offer of the opposition to do so. I think we have already done that in many ways. There are members of the opposition who are working with us around a variety of issues that are of concern to them about children in their own ridings.

I think it's important to make two points. One of them is that sometimes it's an issue of financial resources. Probably no minister would stand here and say: "I couldn't always use a little bit more." However, I think that the transition commissioner and others have noted that it's not always an issue of financial resources. It's doing our work differently, it's policy frameworks, and it's how we care for children in our communities. So if we work together on all of those issues, I think we will have success.

G. Campbell: I thank the minister for that, but I would like to be a little bit more specific. Is the minister willing to sit down with all members of the Legislature, with front-line workers and with foster parents to determine both the financial resources and the system resources that are required to ensure that we can put children first? Is the minister willing to do that now, to work together with us now to do that? Because if the minister is willing to do that, I say to the minister: let's do it.

Hon. P. Priddy: I am willing to work with anybody who is willing to work to make life healthy and safe for children and families in British Columbia. I will work with anybody to get that job done.

In terms of the mention of front-line workers, that's why we have social workers, one from each region around this province -- front-line workers who do the work every day -- helping us redo all of the policy manuals that are very onerous for social workers, so that they can spend their time doing what they got into this to do -- which is work with kids and families. So we are working with front-line workers, and we will work with anyone who will work with us to make lives safer for children.

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY GOVERNMENT'S

CONSTITUTIONAL ADVISER

G. Plant: On a different matter. Yesterday a major newspaper in the province of Quebec, Le Devoir , had a story on the writings of the NDP's chief constitutional adviser. The headline said -- and I'm translating: "A Separatist Advises Victoria on Canada's Future." This article, being written during a federal election, can now be used by the separatist Bloc québécois to argue that the B.C. government believes in separation.

I have a question for the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations. Will he tell British Columbians and all Canadians that British Columbia's first and only constitutional position is to take a leadership role in a new and renewed united Canada?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, hon. Speaker.

G. Plant: Canadians will be grateful for the minister's assurance. But it is clear that the appointment of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast as constitutional adviser is fast becoming another in the long list of the Premier's dubious achievements.

Anyone who had taken the time to read the policy of the PDA in the last election would have seen that the Premier's chief constitutional adviser wrote: "If the separation of Quebec from Canada is indeed inevitable, then we may be forced to seriously consider an independent status for British Columbia." Faced with these rather alarming statements, does the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations accept the opinions of his constitutional adviser?

Hon. A. Petter: The position of this government has been one of leadership on the national stage in terms of promoting national unity and in terms of demonstrating to British Columbians that Canada can work for them. The leadership of the Premier in terms of achieving agreements on fisheries, agreements in terms of labour market training and agreements in terms of child poverty has been groundbreaking, has demonstrated to British Columbians that not only can this country work well for all Canadians, but it can work particularly well for British Columbians.

But, unlike the member opposite, we're not afraid of hearing opinions from all different quarters. The work being done by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is going to provide us all with some valuable insights from which I'm sure we can benefit.

I would suggest that on this important issue, rather than being derisive, the members opposite should keep their minds and ears open to all opinions. If they are certain . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Will you wrap it up?

Hon. A. Petter: . . . of their own commitment to a united Canada, they won't be afraid of those opinions when they come.

[ Page 3020 ]

NISGA'A POPULATION FIGURES AND

PER CAPITA COST OF AIP

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In its per capita cost estimates of the Nisga'a deal, this government has based its figures on a total population of 5,500 Nisga'a. Can the minister tell us why he's using that figure, when, according to the figures on his own web site, the total population of the four member bands is only 4,486, a difference of over a thousand Nisga'a, or 19 percent fewer members than claimed? And could the minister also confirm the other figure on his web site; that is, that there are only 1,768 Nisga'a living on reserve, about half the number the ministry uses in its calculations?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. My expectation, subject to confirmation, is that the numbers on the web site would reflect the

definitions within the Indian Act for establishing who is aboriginal and who is not aboriginal under that definition. Given the new relationship which would come as a result of making a treaty, the issue of enrolment is a subject for negotiation; and, indeed, a new definition is established through that negotiating process, which explains the fact that there is a difference in that number.

We do not necessarily accept that the federal government Indian Act definition is the definition that should obtain in a climate of first nations having self-determination, with a view to putting forward their view and us being able to negotiate that view.

[2:30]

J. Weisgerber: The Nisga'a themselves claim 5,671 members, if you count those living in the United States and Europe. But the federal government's own register, also posted on the minister's web site, suggests that only 4,471 of the Nisga'a are members under the Indian Act and that 1,805 of those live on reserve. Will the minister agree to use the figure of 4,800 Nisga'a, of which 1,800 live on reserve, for the basis of calculating the per capita cash costs and the per capita land allocations?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll be meeting with the federal minister tonight, so I will certainly express to him your concerns with regard to the federal Indian Act designations.

But with regard to the issue of per capita cash costs, the system works out, in a nutshell, so that there is no additional benefit given additional enrolment in other areas.

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY GOVERNMENT'S

CONSTITUTIONAL ADVISER

M. de Jong: We got some documentation from the branch for intergovernmental relations, dealing with the government's chief constitutional adviser. When you go through them, Mr. Speaker, you're forced to conclude that what the government has done is put the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast under political surveillance. Every time he's on the radio, every time he writes an article, there's an intelligence report that goes to the minister.

The Speaker: Could we have a question, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I know we're all anxiously awaiting the question.

M. de Jong: As I'm sure members are.

If this is how the government is treating its friends, I can only imagine how it is treating its enemies, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Matsqui, please give us a question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Order, members. I must hear the question. I'm sorry, Matsqui. Please proceed.

M. de Jong: If the minister has so little confidence in his chief constitutional adviser, why in heaven's name did he appoint him in the first place -- allow him to be appointed -- and why is he giving him all the money that he's giving to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, to prepare documents that he doesn't believe and that he finds suspicious in the first place?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to answer this question. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is well known and well regarded for his views on the constitution and national unity. In fact, as I recall, in the last round of constitutional discussions, while I was on the opposite side of the issue from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, he was on the side that British Columbians subscribed to in that particular debate.

I think that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has demonstrated a depth of understanding and knowledge that would help all members in this House to better understand these issues. The fact that he has agreed to take on some responsibilities in order to assist this Legislature in dealing with the important issues of national unity is a plus that transcends party lines and should be welcomed by the members opposite, who can't seem to get beyond their partisan myopia and welcome this constructive proposal.

M. de Jong: Kind words. It still doesn't explain why you've got him under surveillance. That's the question.

The Speaker: Is that the question?

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the documents, as you might expect, are extensively whited out, as per usual, and the explanation is

section 16 of the appropriate act, which says that there was information there that was "harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations."

Can the minister responsible tell us what the Premier's chief constitutional adviser is telling him that is so harmful? What is he saying that is so harmful to intergovernmental relations in this country of Canada?

Hon. A. Petter: The issue of national unity, quite seriously, is a very important issue that we cannot afford to ignore in this House. The role the member is playing in assisting us all in better understanding that issue is one that I welcome. I think members opposite should welcome it. Obviously the government has ultimate responsibility for setting government policy, and the document the member refers to reflects that fact. But the fact that the member has undertaken, in his own time, to pursue the seeking of further advice to government and, through government, to all British Columbians is good news that members opposite would do well to emulate, not deride.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

[ Page 3021 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply in Committee A. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 2.

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 2; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 13 (continued).

R. Neufeld: I don't intend to re-debate all the things that have been talked about from both sides of the House in regards to fairness or the size of the cuts or any of those items in regards to the unconditional grants to communities. But I do have a couple of questions in regards to what happens in my constituency. The only community actually affected in my constituency is the city of Fort St. John, which will receive a $350,000 cut. The other communities are under 5,000 in population and so haven't suffered any cuts so far, but they're holding their breath and wondering what's going to happen to them.

I wonder if the minister could give us some advice for the community of Fort St. John. I've received a little bit from the member for Vancouver-Fraserview about what should be done, and that was to cut a whole bunch of fat out of the system to take care of the $350,000 cut. I want to relate to the minister that for Fort St. John, receiving a $350,000 cut is quite substantial. That community faces the highest residential tax rates in the province. It faces the highest business tax rates in the province. And it has the worst infrastructure of almost any community in British Columbia.

Now, you might say that's the fault of the local politicians, but in fact it's not. It is because there is a tremendous unfairness in the taxation system in the northeast with the oil and gas industry, because Fort St. John is the hub and provides all the services for the people that work in that industry. But the industry is taxed by the province, and all those funds come south. Within the municipal boundaries, there's absolutely no oil and gas assets that can be taxed. So they face a tremendous burden. They are a community that has not increased their taxes for four years.

I'll just give you a bit of a comparison with Victoria. A house in Victoria that's assessed at $240,000 will pay approximately $2,000 a year in taxes; I'm using rough numbers. But a condominium in Fort St. John that is assessed at $80,000 pays $1,800 taxes. I ask the minister where the fairness is in those types of comparisons, because the services in Victoria far exceed what services those folks in Fort St. John receive.

I just wonder if he could give us some sound advice. He is part of a government that has decided to cut municipalities. Could he give us some sound advice that I can take back to the community of Fort St. John on how they can maintain the services that they provide now, which I must say are the bare bones, and not have to increase taxes on people that are already far overtaxed? I'll leave that with the minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the hon. member for his question. I guess there are two points I want to raise. The first is that in terms of this particular bill and the grants and the grant reductions for this year, Fort St. John has been treated the same as any other community in the province, and I recognize that.

I also recognize the challenges the community faces. Having said that -- and those comments relate to the bill -- I guess the point that I would like to address now to the comments the member made is that, yes, I do recognize there are some unique challenges that are faced in the Peace River country. I can tell the member that one of the first places I went to visit upon becoming minister was the Peace River country. I travelled up to meet with the regional district and with the communities in the Peace River country to get an idea of the problems they face.

[2:45]

They are unique problems in that part of the province, because it does generate a huge amount of wealth, and I do agree that more of it should stay up there. But while I was there meeting with the regional district and with the mayor and council of Fort St. John, I was presented with a proposal to ensure that more of the wealth generated up in the north stays there. They asked me at that time if I would agree to review their proposal and sit down and discuss with them the merits of their proposal with a view to implementing it, or some measures of it, so that they have more opportunity to recapture some of that wealth. I gave them that commitment.

I can tell the hon. member that my ministry is reviewing that proposal. It is looking at the suggestions they raised. As I've indicated to the member privately, I'm more than willing to work with him and his council to look at ways of ensuring that . . . . You know, I think the proposal that is outlined has merit. Let's see what we can do with it. I think that in the long run that will address some of the issues that the member has been talking about.

I think that's what they're asking for: some way of addressing their long-term problems or some of their long-term issues, particularly around the fact that so much resource wealth in the oil and gas industry comes from that part of the province, and they don't think they're receiving their fair share. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, their proposal was called "A Fair Share."

R. Neufeld: I do thank the minister for taking the time to come to Fort St. John. He did travel to Fort St. John shortly after being appointed minister, and Fort St. John does appreciate that.

I am pleased that the minister responded in the kind of way I wanted him to respond to the question. But I would pose this to the minister: three years ago the same proposal was put forward to the ministry -- not to you as minister specifically, because there was a different minister at that time. It was much the same kind of a proposal. Maybe a few things are a little bit different, but basically it's the same proposal -- that the oil and gas industry be taxed a certain amount to increase taxation on them by about 1 percent per year, and that would provide about $13 million to be shared amongst the communities in the Peace regional district for infrastructure.

At that time, after the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and your government . . . . What they came away with was $2 million in taxation and a $2 million grant from the province, which amounted to $4 million. Now, they are certainly not unhappy that they only got $4 million. I mean, that was better than zero -- what they were getting before. But it has again been proposed -- and I know that, because I have the proposal also -- to put it forward.

I would actually appreciate it very much if the minister could stand in the House and say, "Yes, I support this, and yes,

[ Page 3022 ]

as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I'm going to take this to cabinet, and yes, I'm going to be the leader in bringing this through cabinet," so that all those communities -- it's not just Fort St. John; Dawson Creek would benefit, and Fort St. John, Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd, Hudson's Hope -- would benefit from this taxation.

I don't know how much more study has to be done. I know that that's always a great way to get around a question -- to say that we still have to study it. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has had years to study that proposal and has had a fair amount of time with this last one, which is the fair share proposal. It's pretty straightforward and easy to deal with. I'd like to get a commitment from the minister that he will be the leader in his cabinet, in his government, to take this proposal forward so that we can get on with trying to provide services to the people of Fort St. John and the other communities that will benefit from this proposal.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member's remarks. The assurance I can give him is that I went up there, and I met with the communities. I saw first hand the problems they're talking about. I was presented with a proposal, and I was impressed by it. I said that the work would be done on it to look at everything, that I'm a new minister and that I would be responsible for whatever decisions are taken.

I can tell the member that, yes, the proposal of a few years ago resulted in a change -- I think, a very positive change. I think both of us would agree on that. But I also have to be cognizant in carrying out my duties as minister that any proposal does have impacts and changes in other areas. And I don't have to tell the member -- because he's well aware of this -- that, for example, the energy industry has some very definite opinions. I do want to assure the member. I'll give him the same assurance that I gave the mayor and council of Fort St. John and the community of Dawson Creek.

Look -- oh, there I go; I used that word again. There are unique problems up there around infrastructure. I sat on a council for seven years, and I recognize the importance of good infrastructure. If there's a way that we can achieve more of the resource revenue that is generated in the Peace country staying up there, then I'm willing to look at any proposals. I'm willing to do the work necessary, and I'm willing to be the advocate at the cabinet table to try and do that. But I'm not in a position to stand here and say: "Yes, this particular proposal is the one."

I can give the member the assurance that I do understand the problems up there. I am willing to look at options, and I am willing -- if we can come up with one that people can agree with -- to champion that option.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that commitment from the minister, that he'll champion that through with his cabinet colleagues so that we can get on with doing some things in the northeast that actually, to be honest, should have been done a long time ago. So I appreciate that assurance, and I would concur that we have had discussions privately about the issue. I wanted to get it on the record in the House specifically so that people know that we -- not just me, but you as minister -- are dealing with this issue in a serious way.

I want to reiterate a little bit about the energy industry. Of course they're not going to appreciate a 1 percent tax increase -- not in any way, shape or form. No one likes tax increases. The minister ought to know that by the debate that's gone on around this section, with what's going to happen around the province in all kinds of communities with tax increases. So that's no secret. None of us -- it doesn't matter who it is -- likes tax increases.

But I also want to advise the minister that later on in the same bill we're dealing with, with the tax on natural gas as it relates to compressor fuel . . . . I want to tell the minister that there were no questions asked when your government brought forward that bill and that tax on the energy industry. In fact, just for interesting numbers, it brought the province a $13 million windfall -- a $13-million-a-year windfall for the province of British Columbia was immediately sucked out of the north and brought down here to help out in Victoria. That's what I'm talking about.

The government of the day just went ahead and put it in. There was no talk then about, "Well, we've got to watch out for the energy industry, because they may not like it" -- none whatsoever. It was put in by your government, just like that, because you needed the $13 million. I think you needed a lot more than $13 million, but it grossed you $13 million. And it is in your bill here -- to adjust that again.

So it's nothing new, and I think there are going to be some tough issues dealing with the energy industry -- no doubt about it. They were tough last time, and that's why we ended up where we did: at the bottom end of the pole. But I think that if we are tough and fair and put forward our positions on why we need that taxation and why we need that money for the future, we can come out winners. We just have to use a little of that magic that was used before when you put on the compressor tax. Use that same magic on the energy industry now that you used then, and we'll be away.

With that, I'd like to thank the minister for his comments.

J. van Dongen: I just want to pose a few questions to the minister with respect to this section. My constituency represents half of the city of Abbotsford, the other part of the city of Abbotsford being represented by the constituency of Matsqui. In speaking to the director of finance for the city and the mayor and council, certainly there's a lot of concern about the departure from the understanding that was held between the province and the municipality, the city, under the previous legislation.

I'm wondering how the minister intends to bridge the really large gap between the kind of assurances and the kind of certainty that were provided to local government by the Local Government Grants Act of 1994 and what we see in this

section of this bill today. I wonder if the minister could give us some comment about how he intends to bridge that very large gap -- the high level of uncertainty for city financial planners as a result of this bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess I'll repeat answers that I've given to similar questions throughout this debate. In terms of certainty over finances, I think the best assurance for what the municipalities can expect is that if the revenues of the province are such that we're not forced to make cuts to health care and education, that we're able to protect our core areas and there's money for everywhere else, then we may be able to increase the grant. We may be able to leave it the same -- there's money there for the municipalities.

In terms of how it's allocated -- and that, to me, is what this bill is about -- I've said that my intention is to sit down with the municipalities through the joint council process and work with them in determining well ahead of time how much money is available and sit down and discuss the allocation process. That's a

[ Page 3023 ]

commitment I made upon becoming minister. It's one that we've now carried out through three meetings of the joint council process. We've committed to a special meeting on budgetary matters later this year, in the summer. My goal is to find out, as soon as possible, what the financial picture looks like for the coming year and what we can expect, and to let municipalities know well enough ahead of time, so that we can talk about allocation and then discuss ideas about changes to the allocation. I think the fact that both of us are sitting down across a table discussing the way to deal with the problem is going to contribute to certainty and stability.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's answer. I should mention that I wasn't here yesterday, because I was down looking at a very serious potential situation for my municipality. It is the Nooksak River and some serious erosion problems there. I just mention that for the minister. We may want to talk to him in the future about it.

I appreciate the answer and the thought towards consultation. I'd like to ask the minister why something wasn't written in the bill, at least about some time frames, some formal commitments to consultation. In changing this legislation, it seems to me that we're going from one extreme to another. Municipalities -- local governments -- actually had a cap on the potential impact to their budgets in any one year, so in terms of planning, that at least gave them something solid.

There are no assurances or commitments of any kind that I'm aware of in terms of a consultation process, some form of notice to local governments -- for example, a minimum time frame ahead of time as to what they should be planning for. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I begin my comments, just so you know, if you have any issues around the Nooksak River, I'm more than willing to sit down and discuss those with you.

The issue you raised in the second part of your comments regarding consultation is addressed in

section 14, which is the one after this one. That commits us to annual consultations with the UBCM.

Having said that, I want to tell the member that I see this consultation process as ongoing, as something that's happening on a regular basis. Since the beginning of the year we've been having regular meetings of the joint council process. What we committed to when we signed that protocol was to sit down with the municipalities and discuss issues of common concern with them, be they legislative, financial or anything else. We've had three meetings. They asked for a specific meeting later this summer to deal with the budget, and we've agreed to that. It's my expectation that at that meeting we'll be addressing the coming year.

I've made it clear to the joint council of the UBCM -- which, as you know, consists of the table officers of the UBCM executive -- that I'm open to changes in the formula and to how the money is allocated. I'm willing to sit down and discuss that with them and make changes that reflect their needs. I think that within the bill there is adequate . . . . It contains the requirement for consultation. I've indicated that that is something I place a great deal of importance on. I think the record of what we've been trying to do so far this year in terms of meeting regularly is taking place.

There is a meeting scheduled for the summer. So I think that is meeting the requirements of the municipalities.

[3:00]

J. van Dongen: I think there's a difference between the commitment to consult and having something formalized in terms of a notice from the provincial government to local governments as to what decision the provincial government is making -- some sort of formalized, legalized commitment for the longer term to give municipalities an opportunity to plan their finances. I appreciate that since this minister became minister he's making greater efforts at consultation on behalf of the government.

But as I said, there's a difference between consultation and having something written in the legislation that commits the senior government to some sort of forward planning on budget matters -- budget matters being very fundamental to the operation of local government.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Without repeating my previous answer, the best thing I can say to the hon. member is that

section 14 of this bill deals specifically with the requirement for the government to annually consult with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on the issue of grants. That is in the next

section of the bill. I don't think I can say much more than that.

J. van Dongen: If I could go back to the minister's answer to my first question, I think he said something to the effect that future contributions in the way of grants to local governments by the provincial government would depend to a degree on the needs -- both the revenues and the other needs -- to be met provincially. If we accept that the ongoing demands of ministries such as Health and Education are almost inevitable, is the minister saying that we can expect that the grants to local governments will be phased out over a period of time or reduced as we go along?

It's very clear that the demands of the two large ministries are creating some of these pressures and some of the sudden budget reductions we've seen in a lot of other ministries.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I'm saying is that if pulp prices are down and lumber prices are down at the same time, there are revenue shortfalls, and the government has then got to make tough choices. To quote my colleague the member for Delta South: "The government needs to make the cuts it needs to make in order to balance the budget." We've always said that the key areas that have to be protected are health care and education.

If pulp prices are up and lumber prices are up and money is coming into the treasury, not only are health care and education protected but so is everything else. We're able to maybe give increases to different ministries. Likewise -- and you've raised the issue of health care -- we have a federal government that's now promising to give us $1.5 billion in extra money next year. If that's true, and I would hope that it is, that certainly relieves pressures and allows the government greater latitude in the choices it has to make.

I can't predict how much money is available, but I think all of us realize that if we've got a healthy economy and revenues are coming in, it makes things a lot easier. So that's what I can tell you.

J. van Dongen: Despite the minister's comments, if we look at the record for the last six years, the operations of government have been running a deficit for all of those years, despite major increases on the revenue side from taxation and possibly other sources of revenue.

It's one thing to have a sort of seasonal or market fluctuation in revenues out of the forest sector, but it seems to me -- again, to get back to these local government grants -- that given the pressures of the senior ministries, it would be more candid to reflect the fact that there are going to be further cuts

[ Page 3024 ]

in grants to municipalities. I'm wondering if the minister could comment more precisely on whether or not there is an intent within the government, within his ministry, to reduce these grants over time.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There may well be cuts in the future; there may well be increases in the future. That's what the future holds, okay? Budgets are determined in the years that they're required. That's down the road.

What I can tell the member right now is that this bill deals with putting in place a formula to allocate resources that are available in terms of grants to municipalities. What I think is important is that municipalities have enough notice, so they know ahead of time what the financial implications of next year's budget are and are able to make decisions based on that. So I come back to the fact that I've said we will sit down -- through the joint council process, which we agreed to when we signed the protocol back in September -- and deal with the issue of finances through a process of consultation at that table.

The evidence that I put to the member, which is taking place, is the fact that we've now had three meetings, we've dealt with substantive issues and we've agreed to hold a special meeting in the summer to deal with finances and budgetary items. I have given my commitment that if the municipalities want to rework the formula, I am open to discussing that, open to making changes. I think that's meeting with some success.

Section 13 of Bill 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 35

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Boone

Hammell

Streifel

Pullinger

Farnworth

Kwan

Waddell

Calendino

Stevenson

Bowbrick

Goodacre

Giesbrecht

Walsh

Kasper

Hartley

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Cashore

Ramsey

Sihota

Randall

Sawicki

Lali

Doyle

Gillespie

Robertson

Smallwood

Conroy

Janssen

NAYS -- 33

Dalton

Gingell

Reid

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

Plant

Sanders

Stephens

de Jong

Coell

Anderson

Nebbeling

Whittred

van Dongen

Thorpe

Weisgerber

Neufeld

Barisoff

Krueger

McKinnon

Masi

Nettleton

Coleman

Chong

Weisbeck

Jarvis

Abbott

Hawkins

Symons

C. Clark

Hansen

Reitsma

J. Wilson

section 14.

G. Abbott: I just have a few questions on

section 14, and then I'll have a suggestion or two with respect to how this bill might be improved. Again, this theme is, I suspect, getting quite familiar to you at this point. In our considered opinion, this bill is fundamentally and fatally flawed. However, we as a responsible and very positive opposition have been doing everything we possibly can to try to improve this rather unfortunate piece of work.

[3:15]

Given that, let me begin by asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs what exactly is embodied or included or meant by the term "administration" as it appears in

section 14.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That particular word the member asks for a definition of relates to the timing and the allocation of the grants.

G. Abbott: Am I to understand, then, that when the term administration is used for the purposes of this act, there is no intention of consulting with respect to the amount of the grants, the size of the grants or . . . ? Their apportionment is not . . . . Well, I guess you said allocation. But the size of the grants is not included or embodied in your definition of administration?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

G. Abbott: I think that's an important point, and it's one that I will attempt to address in a few moments here.

Before I pursue that further, let me ask, in reference to the first phrase in

section 14, "At least annually . . . . " I think I know what that means; I think it means at least once a year. But I would like the minister to tell me what that will actually mean in terms of how the consultations with the Union of B.C. Municipalities on this question are to proceed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You're correct: it means annually, at least once a year. I take that to be a minimum, because the way I see things working, the way that I'm trying to get things working and, I believe, the way the UBCM wants things to work is to get us meeting on a regular basis, as I've explained through numerous sections of the bill -- having that joint council process and discussing issues of concern on a regular basis. Right now, I think we're meeting about quarterly to discuss legislative issues and financial issues.

They have asked, as I have stated previously, for a specific meeting to deal with financial matters. I have agreed to that. There may, in fact, be others. I think that what's being put in place will set the precedent, if you like, of a regular

schedule of meetings between the government members on the joint council: myself, the Minister of Environment, the Attorney General and the Minister of Transportation and Highways -- the four ministries that deal most with local government -- and our counterparts from the UBCM table officers: the past president, the president, the first vice-president and the second vice-president -- to deal with these issues on a regular and timely basis.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that explanation of what is meant by "at least annually." The further question I have . . . . I appreciate that we have discussed the government's embrace of the concept of the joint council on previous occasions during the discussion of this bill. And, of course, we have recorded on numerous occasions that we're gratified that the government has moved in that particular direction on joint council.

Again I want to put a proposition to the minister that I put to him previously. That is, given the rather object and rather abject failure of consultation between the government

[ Page 3025 ]

and the municipalities of this province over the past few months, I think it would be very useful, very productive for his ministry -- in the year ahead and, indeed, in the years ahead -- not necessarily to try to engage every municipality in this province in the kind of dialogue that is hopefully going to occur at the joint council, but nevertheless, whether it's in the form of a letter advising of the progress of discussions at the joint council, or advising where the government appears to be going in terms of grants for the coming year, or advising municipalities of what the ministry projects its financial situation to be in the coming year . . . so that the municipalities and regional districts in the province can prepare themselves in some ways for the future -- at least for the coming year, if not for the future.

So I'm asking the minister to comment on that proposition: that it would be useful, in addition to the intensive consultation that will go on at joint council, to develop a program whereby all members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities receive from the province some indication in those areas that I've outlined.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the member raises a good point. As I stated before, the joint council process is basically getting off the ground this year and is starting to evolve into the form that I think both parties would like to see it get to. We discussed earlier in this debate problems around membership and how decisions are communicated. I think one of the things that we will need to address is to ensure that the discussions that are taking place at the joint council are circulated to the municipalities and the executive and that there is a general awareness of what's taking place.

I think that is happening to some extent. I've been doing that, in terms of when I speak to municipalities, I try and make them aware of the importance of the joint council. I think that the activities of the joint council, and some of the issues that have been discussed, will be -- certainly I expect them to be -- a major focus of discussion later on this year at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in October. I will be there, and I'm sure the hon. member will.

I also think that the executive -- the UBCM members of the joint council -- will be addressing this particular issue of making sure that their members are advised of what is taking place. That may mean that we come together and either do some sort of joint news release or a joint newsletter, or they may take it upon themselves. But that's something that I think needs to be developed, and I'm certainly not averse to that. It's something that I'm sure we'll deal with at the next meeting.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the quite positive and quite frank response to that question from the minister.

Again, I just want to reiterate that I think it is a very good idea for the minister to try to do those things; and again, as I did yesterday, I want to salute the minister for the efforts he's undertaken to once again try to bring municipalities back into the loop in terms of understanding what the Minister of Municipal Affairs is thinking. There really was -- and this is a simple statement of fact, not an attempt to embarrass the government -- a terrible lack of consultation that occurred.

In the past few months, the relationship between the province and its municipalities deteriorated to what I think was clearly an unacceptable point, and it's going to take some extraordinary efforts on the part of the minister and on the part of the government to try to restore better relations between the province and its municipalities.

I'm not necessarily going to invite the minister to comment on that, unless he wishes to. My object is not particularly to embarrass the government on this one, and so I'm just happy to let that go as an expression of my view of how the minister should proceed on this.

I want to return to the point that I touched on a little bit earlier when I asked the question about administration and what that term implied or embodied from the government's perspective, in the context of Bill 2. The minister advised at that time that administration had to do with the timing of grants. It had to do with the allocation of grants -- and by that I understand the minister to mean that allocation that is determined by the government of British Columbia after, hopefully, extensive consultation with the joint council.

The minister, as I understood his response, was saying that the amount of grants would not be included in the definition of administration that was embodied in this act.

I want to move an amendment to

section 14. I think it's a straightforward amendment. In fact, I think it is an amendment which will improve this bill in some measure, and I understand from the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the government side may in fact be receptive to this amendment.

The Chair: I wonder if you could confirm that you are moving a motion. Is it the one that is standing in your name on the order paper?

G. Abbott: Yes, that's correct. I was just getting to that. I would like to move the motion standing in my name on the order paper, which would amend

section 14 to read:

[SECTION 14, to amend

Section 14 6 by adding the words in bold print to read:

At least annually, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities regarding the amount and the administration of grants under this Act.]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We've reviewed the proposed amendment, and we understand the amendment to mean that the government is making a commitment that the minister will consult with the UBCM in general terms about the distribution and allocation of the global amount of grants to local government. If that's also the understanding of the member opposite, then the government will agree to the proposed change to

section 14.

G. Abbott: If I understand the minister right, I think we are in agreement. The intention of my motion here is to identify the global amount that will be available for discussion of distribution with a joint council. You would be, presumably, advising the joint council at the earliest possible moment of the likely amount that, with the consultation of that group, the government would be distributing at some point in the following year.

[3:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: That would be my understanding -- that we would, hopefully, be able to advise: "Look, this is how much is likely to be available in the coming year." Then we will sit down and talk about what the allocation is and how the money is to be allocated. As well, if they're looking at wanting to make changes in timing, that could be discussed. But at the end of the day, the final amount is up to the government.

G. Abbott: The minister has precisely and definitively encapsulated all of the things that were intended by my motion.

Amendment approved.

[ Page 3026 ]

section 14 as amended.

G. Abbott: I thank the government for making what is a very useful and constructive change to this bill. I think it will be a change that is very much welcomed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and indeed by municipalities and regional districts around the province. It will, I think, help them identify earlier and more accurately the kind of situation that they will be facing in terms of provincial transfers to them for the year ahead. So I think that what has occurred here is very useful.

Turning now to the other point I was making . . . . Given that I'm on a roll, perhaps I'll move another motion that I have prepared. This motion is not on the order paper. This is with respect to the issue of consultation, again addressing what I think is a very important point.

Local governments need to be reassured -- particularly at this point in time, and, I think, well into the future -- that they will also enjoy some measure of consultation with the province on these issues, perhaps not with the intensity or the level of consultation that will be enjoyed at the joint council level, but nevertheless some consultation to advise of the general situation that is emerging as the government sees it.

Further to that, I would like to move an amendment to Bill 2. I move that

section 14(6) be amended by adding the words as follows:

[At least annually, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, whose membership includes the city of Armstrong, the township of Spallumcheen, the village of Chase, the city of Enderby, the district of Salmon Arm, the district of Sicamous, the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, the city of Revelstoke, the city of Kimberley, the village of Radium Hot Springs, the district of Windermere, the town of Golden, and the regional district of East Kootenay, regarding the administration of grants under this act.]

The Chair: Hon. member, can you give the Table a copy please?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that this amendment is out of order in that it involves an expense to the Crown. I would ask that it be treated the same way as the amendments that were moved in the previous section.

The Chair: The minister actually moved a motion, but I think he meant a point of order.

On the point of order, I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I note with interest that the minister is using the same argument as for the amendment that was proposed by the member for Shuswap in the previous section. I would just call the Chair's attention to the actual wording of the amendment, because I think it's crucial. The amendment itself only tends to itemize the actual membership of the UBCM and does not impose an additional duty or obligation upon the minister. In fact, all it does is clarify the membership of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. In so doing, it doesn't fall, in my opinion, within the argument made by the minister that it imposes a cost.

Second, I took the liberty . . . . I thank the Table for copies of the various precedents that were given yesterday in this House with regard to amendments or other items that have been ruled out of order in this House. In going through them, I found that in not one of the instances mentioned were any of the examples that were given an amendment to a bill. In fact, if I can go through them . . . .

In the November 30, 1939, Journals , there was a motion on the order paper which required two things. It required a new government policy -- i.e., the establishment of a psychiatric hospital -- and the expenditure of funds which obviously would have involved the expenditure of salaries, which was also clear in the motion. So in both those cases . . . . While I agree with the Journals decision at that time, I don't believe it applies to this case in any way, shape or form.

Second, the Journals from January 23, 1969: again, it was an amendment to a motion that's traditionally passed at the beginning of each legislative session. In this case, in 1969, it was an amendment to create a Hansard -- an actual verbatim recording of the debates in this House, which obviously would have required the hiring of staff. The findings of that were specific. Again, I don't believe it applies in this case in any way, shape or form.

Also, the precedent given on March 29, 1962, was a motion requiring the government to establish a department of commercial fisheries, which obviously would have required the expenditure of funds. Again, it does not apply in this case in any way, shape or form.

In the Journals of March 28, 1966, it is in fact a private member's bill which requires the enumeration of the entire province of British Columbia, which, one can quite clearly see, involves a large expenditure of public funds. Again, it is not significant or relevant to the amendment at hand.

The Journals from January 25, 1968, has another motion, which is similar to the one previously, that requires the printing of Hansard , and again the same argument applies.

The motion on April 3, 1970, is a similar one with regard to Hansard and the hiring of staff. Again, it quite clearly doesn't apply in this case.

There is also a series of examples that were put forward by the Chair in the decision yesterday, one of which was from November 25, 1937, and was ruled out of order because it dictated government policy. I will quote from that ruling from the Chair at that time. It says that to amend the section, the introduction of a bill would be required, and that a member may bring in a bill himself but cannot direct the government to do so. Clearly this amendment requires the government to do no such thing.

Also, in the Journals from March 26, 1965, there was a motion that the Chair found to dictate government policy. It was a motion to have the government abolish the Senate of Canada -- obviously a large and significant policy issue -- which, again, does not apply in this case.

There's also the precedent given by the Table yesterday. A motion from the Journals of March 20, 1964, dictated government policy. It was to create a national park. It clearly doesn't apply in this case.

Further, there was the Journals of March 11, 1919, which had a motion that was ruled out of order because it dealt with the expenditure of government money. It was to bring in policies to provide relief to soldiers returning from the First World War, which would have required the expenditure of large amounts of funds. Again, it does not apply in this case in any way, shape or form.

There's also a series of findings by the Chair from the Journals with regard to motions that required an obligation on the government. The first citation given was March 27, 1963, which required "an obligation on the government to bring in a bill." Clearly this doesn't apply in this case.

[ Page 3027 ]

There is also a precedent from March 27, 1963. Again, it imposed an obligation on the Crown -- the appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada to look into election financing, which also subsequently would have required the introduction of an amended Election Act. Clearly this doesn't apply in this case.

In another instance, on August 25, 1983, the finding from the Journals says that it imposed an obligation on the Crown. It was a private member's bill to do with industrial development in British Columbia. Clearly it doesn't apply in this case.

Also, there is a last one: a bill in the August 25, 1983, Journals . A private member's bill, Bill M 203, was ruled out of order in this House because it made changes to the Financial Information Act which would have required the Crown to disclose -- clearly an obligation that goes above and beyond anything that's pursued or any sort of idea or recommendation contained in this amendment. So all the precedents given previously for yesterday's ruling, I think, quite clearly, upon examination, do not apply in this case, and therefore the amendment should be ruled in order.

The Chair: Hon. members, I appreciate the contribution that has been made on this. The position is as follows: once the Chair has been advised by the minister that the proposed amendment would involve the expenditure of public funds, the Chair invariably rules the motion out of order. That fits with standing orders 66 and 67.

So on with the debate. Further discussion on

section 14.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order . . . .

The Chair: So it rules it out of order.

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. member, I would like to ask a question apropos of your remark, your point of order. Just to be absolutely clear, did the Chair understand the minister's point correctly on the original amendment: that it would involve an expenditure?

Hon. M. Farnworth: An increase in expenditure of funds by the Crown.

The Chair: Hon. members, that is sufficient for the Chair at this point. The amendment was moved and the minister replied. The point of order was addressed and a judgment has been made.

I would encourage us to get back to the main point on

section 14.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the minister. Can he explain how itemization of the membership of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities -- if one were hypothetically going to do that in this bill . . . ? How in this

section would that involve an additional expenditure of funds? Can he tell me what his philosophy is about this consultation and how having a listing of the members of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities in this legislation would require an additional expenditure of funds by the government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: On the first point, I'd have to get people to sit down, go through the act, write it all up again. It involves staff time, which is an increase over staff time that I predicted was required to do the act in the first place. That's an increase in funds that were budgeted to do the act.

G. Farrell-Collins: I understand that that is a requirement, obviously, if any legislation is amended. Under the comments by the minister, one would conclude, then, that any hypothetical amendment that would be offered by the official opposition or anybody not within the confines of this building . . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Point of order.

The Chair: I recognize the Minister of Education, Skills and Training -- on what point?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, with respect, the member opposite is engaging in debate on an amendment which was ruled out of order, and therefore his debate is out of order. I'd ask the Chair to call the House to order, to address the

section which we have before us.

G. Farrell-Collins: The question is a hypothetical question to understand how this

section works. In order to understand how the

section works, one has to be able to ask questions of the minister. The question to the minister is: if the act or the

section has . . . ?

Interjection.

[3:45]

G. Farrell-Collins: The member can stand and partake in the debate, as I hope he will do. But given the comments of the minister, one is left to only come up with the conclusion that any amendment, any change to any

section of any legislation -- no matter what the bill is -- requires an additional expenditure of funds, and therefore any amendment of any legislation by any member not sitting within the executive council would be out of order. I think it's critical to get an understanding of how the minister can justify that, because, obviously, the opposition has other amendments that we would like to move and would certainly like to ensure that they are within order. If the minister can explain to us how . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the member from Esquimalt wants to partake in debate, he can stand -- as all members can -- and rise on a point of order. But I would like the minister to perhaps give the opposition some guidance on what sort of amendment he could see being added to this

section to improve it that wouldn't involve an expenditure of funds.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The

section we're dealing with . . . . I'd like to make this particular point. Look, we're talking about consultation with the UBCM. The UBCM is a corporate body with audited financial statements that exists separately from individual Union of B.C. Municipalities corporations. Consultation with the UBCM means consultation with a corporate body. Consultation with municipal corporations individually is outside the scope of this particular act, and that would impose significant costs.

G. Farrell-Collins: I agree with the minister. If he says that it's going to impose an additional cost to have special consultation with every district in the province, I would tend

[ Page 3028 ]

to agree with him. But that's not what the opposition is trying to do here. What the opposition is trying to do is itemize the membership of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities so that it's clear. There's no additional cost required. The government continues to consult with exactly the same people. The amendment . . . . All it does is itemize, in more clear terms, the membership of the body with which he has to consult. That's all it does. So clearly there's no additional charge imposed here -- there's no obligation -- merely a clarification of the section.

What we're trying to do is get a clarification and make the drafting of the legislation more emphatic so that it's clear exactly who it is the minister has to consult with, not that he has to consult with anyone additionally.

The Chair: Further discussion? Shall

section 14 pass?

G. Farrell-Collins: Then I would like to move the following motion. Given the findings of the minister and the explanation given, I wouldn't want him to rise and make a statement that contradicted what he just said. So I would like to move the following motion:

[SECTION 14.6 be amended so that it reads as follows: 14.6 At least annually, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, whose membership includes the village of Alert Bay, the village of Gold River, the village of Port Alice, the district of Port Hardy, the town of Port McNeill, the village of Sayward, the village of Tahsis, the village of Zeballos and the Mount Waddington regional district, regarding the administration of grants under this Act.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I say that this is in the same vein as the previous motion that was dealt with. It involves an increased expenditure of funds on the part of the Crown. In my opinion, it changes the intent of the legislation to require me to consult with every individual municipality, as opposed to what the act says, which is to consult with the UBCM. We have signed a joint protocol which commits us to consultation with the UBCM, which is the table officers of the UBCM, which is the corporate body.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think that if the minister's understanding of the amendment were to be correct, then I would have to agree with him. But clearly that's not what the amendment says.

The amendment says: "must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which includes . . . . " It's merely a clarification of the membership of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and imposes no further requirement on the minister to address individuals over and above the people he named.

Therefore, I think the minister, if he were correct in his understanding and

interpretation of the amendment, would be right. But I believe he is not correct in his understanding and reading of the actual amendment, which in fact does not require any consultation over and above that named by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, but merely identifies the membership of that group.

The Chair: As stated previously . . . . I will repeat the same response, and that is: once the Chair has been advised by the minister that the proposed amendment would involve the expenditure of public funds, the Chair invariably rules that the amendment is out of order, and I so rule.

M. de Jong: I think the difficulty that we're having stems from the minister's desire to interpret the amendment in a certain way. I think it's an incorrect

interpretation, but there's nothing I or members on this side can do to alter that fact, except perhaps to offer an amendment that will take us where we wish to go and make it even clearer what the intention of the amendment is.

The amendment that I'd like to propose with respect to

section 14(6) of Bill 2 reads as follows:

[At least annually, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, whose membership includes the district of Oak Bay, the city of Victoria, the Capital regional district, the city of Colwood, the township of Esquimalt, the district of Metchosin, the district of Langford, the district of Highlands and the town of View Royal, regarding the administration of grants under this act, it being understood that the process of consultation shall impose no additional financial obligation upon the Crown and the right of the province of British Columbia.]

M. Sihota: Point of order, hon. Chair. There are a number of points here to make -- three of them, in fact. First, it's out of order, I believe, because it requires an expenditure of money. Second, the constituency has excellent and very effective representation, and the councils meet regularly with their MLAs. Third, I hope that those comments that I just made are included in the mailout that the hon. member sent out to those municipalities to further their political objectives.

The Chair: The alteration made, ingenious as it may have been, does not alter the fundamental point made in the earlier ruling that I made: that it is indeed out of order.

So, hon. members,

section 14 is on the floor -- discussion on

section 14. The motions as amended have been ruled out of order; I remind you all of that.

M. de Jong: As I consider the implications of the

section and what it means to communities right across the province, it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the outlet available -- or I should say formerly available -- to members of this Legislative Assembly to focus and represent the views and defend the rights of those communities has, in the past hour, not just eroded away but essentially disappeared completely.

If you accept . . . . I ask the minister to respond to this: we just passed an amendment to this section, and part of the argument that the minister has provided in refusing to entertain any further amendment suggestions is that there is a cost involved. There is a cost involved in terms of devoting staff to seeing an amendment enacted -- reprinted, as it were. Well, we've already incurred that cost. We incurred it 25 minutes ago when we passed the amendment that the member for Shuswap introduced and that the hon. minister agreed to.

We've suggested amendments that explicitly impose no financial obligation on the Crown -- none. What we've asked is that this government agree to articulate, in the strongest terms possible, its willingness and commitment to consult with communities right across the province. When we have tried to impress upon the minister the importance of that consultative process with communities across the province, he offers an excuse for refusing to do so that I can only describe as being lame. The amendments we have introduced that explicitly, in the latter case, say that there will be no cost involved to the Crown . . . .

The minister's only response is: "It's out of order, because it involves a cost accruing to the Crown." It's not the case; we've said so.

[4:00]

I must confess that I'm confused. The rules of the Legislative Assembly require the Chair to accept, at face value, a

[ Page 3029 ]

single statement from the minister that he believes is a certain fact. But when an amendment is tabled that makes clear what its intention is -- in this case, not to have any cost result or accrue to the Crown -- that apparently is not accepted at face value. There is a double standard at work. Maybe the minister could explain why I, as a single member of this Legislative Assembly of 75 members, should be satisfied with the application of that double standard.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only lame thing going on right now is the game being played by the opposition.

We signed a protocol back in September. It was achieved through negotiation with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. If the UBCM wanted the kind of diffuse and unfocused consultation contemplated by the member opposite, they would not have entered into the protocol of recognition. What they want us to do is to sit down with their table officers, who are the corporate body of the UBCM, to consult on changes legislative and on changes financial. This act accomplishes those goals.

Section 14 accomplishes those goals.

The hon. member opposite offered an amendment, which we accepted as an improvement. They now want to go ahead and basically take the negotiation process away from the corporate body of the UBCM. To accomplish what? Nothing, hon. Chair. The fact of the matter is that

section 14, as it currently stands, delivers all the consultation that the UBCM is asking for, and it delivers it in a way that was recognized when we signed the protocol of recognition.

M. de Jong: Maybe the minister doesn't understand the basis for the suspicions that we hold on this side of the House and the suspicions that exist right across the province amongst the membership of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We can go through this town by town -- as I suspect we will -- and explain what the bases for those suspicions are. We can start with Mission, where it wasn't too long ago that that city and the adjoining city of Chilliwack were faced with the prospect of a courthouse closure.

In spite of being assured months -- years -- ago by this government that those sorts of decisions wouldn't take place without proper consultation, that decision landed on those people with a thud that was heard right across the Fraser Valley.

I don't know if I was more troubled by that than I was by the response from the member for Mission-Kent, who went . . . . After all of those people rose up, took to the streets, held rallies, signed petitions, wrote letters, there was finally a decision in the case of Chilliwack to give that community a temporary reprieve, albeit at the cost of downloading hundreds of thousands of dollars of court-related costs to the taxpayers of that community. The most interesting aspect of all was the reaction of the member for Mission-Kent, whose headline, strewn across local community papers, was: "I Saved the Courthouse."

The problem is that when you confront the Attorney General with that information during his estimates debate, when you explore that mysterious process that apparently led to those services remaining in that community, the Attorney General doesn't know anything about it. No single member played a definitive role, according to the Attorney General. It's difficult to say and it's difficult to understand how those comments by the member for Mission-Kent can't be interpreted as simply misleading the people of those towns.

When the minister asks us on this side of the House to accept that his notion and his government's notion of consultation represents meaningful consultation that the people in communities like Mission should have any faith in, we're suspicious. And we become increasingly more suspicious when reasonable amendments that involve absolutely nothing in the way of additional cost to the government are rejected out of hand on faint and flimsy arguments. All it really amounts to is an unwillingness on the part of this government to bind itself inextricably to the notion of close and meaningful consultation with the communities that are going to be impacted by this legislation.

This is the minister's chance to say, not just to British Columbians but even to his own constituents -- for whom I know arts-related grants have been cut back; a whole host of services are being impacted in his community -- why an amendment that would compel not just his government, not just him, but future governments to consult in a meaningful way with his community, why that is somehow an unreasonable suggestion, an unreasonable proposal, from these opposition benches.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll deal with the member's comments as they relate to

section 14 as amended, which is what I believe we are still on.

We signed a protocol back in September that commits us to consult and negotiate with municipalities through a process called a joint council. He talks about wanting to bind government to some sort of consultation process. That protocol is doing that. That protocol is in place, and it's starting to work. You know, the hon. members opposite seem to feel that the day that agreement was signed, somehow an entire structure came into place overnight. They don't want to recognize that it takes time to evolve. They don't want to recognize that somehow it takes time to put in place . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, do they want to hear the answers or don't they? I listened to them.

We signed a protocol that commits us to sitting down with the municipalities, and that's what we're doing. That's what is binding us to a process of consultation. It has been taking place. It has taken place three times so far this year . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . on a quarterly basis. I hear one of the members opposite mocking that. Well, you know, this decision to meet when we meet is agreed to jointly -- not imposed by the province, not imposed by the municipalities, but agreed to jointly. The agenda at these meetings is agreed to jointly. It comes through a process of consultation, of us asking them what it is that they want to discuss and them raising issues that they feel we both need to discuss.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again I hear a member opposite going: "Are decisions being made?" The fact is: yes, they are. As each meeting goes along, we are getting more substantive agendas; more issues are being placed on the table. They are issues of concern to the municipalities. They may be different than the issues of concern to the members opposite, but they're the real, substantive issues that we're dealing with. They are issues around legislative change and how to change the Municipal Act. Those have been top priorities for

munici-

[ Page 3030 ]

palities for years. The legislative package that's currently working its way through -- and that I hope to introduce to this House -- has come about because it responds to the priorities raised by the municipalities. It will have been achieved through that joint council process that bound us to consult when we signed that protocol. That's what's taking place.

The municipalities have also said they want a change in the Municipal Act, that it's outdated, that it needs to be revamped, that it needs to give them the tools they need to do the job they want to do. That's taking place, not because the province is imposing it but because the province agreed, through the protocol, to sit down with municipalities through the joint council process and address the avenues for change. It's coming about through a process of consultation, and I expect that that will be dealt with overall later on this year at the UBCM convention in October.

Financial issues have also been raised. We've agreed -- as the protocol that we signed binds us to do and the member is very concerned about -- to sit down with the municipalities and consult with them, so that they know, with advance notice, what the grants are going to be and how they're going to be allocated so they can make the decisions they need to make. That's taking place. They asked for a special meeting this summer just on financial issues. So that's taking place.

This bill and this section,

section 14, are requiring us to consult. That's taking place, and we are living up to that. So, you know, I can't put it any plainer than that.

M. de Jong: Maybe the hesitation that the minister notes on this side of the House to embrace his assurances of meaningful consultation relates to the litany of broken promises that have occurred and have followed this government almost from the day it took office in 1991.

As I consider what has taken place in my community and the adjoining communities of Mission and Chilliwack, I only have to look at the university college. You know, the government -- the Education minister was here -- loves to tout, for example, its commitment, its agreement pledge to provide for the educational needs of British Columbians. If you look at the college, though, the Hope campus of the University College of the Fraser Valley -- and I'm sure the member for Yale-Lillooet would be interested in this -- is in danger of being closed down. That facility can't provide . . . .

In spite of all of the assurances that we've heard from the government benches that the needs of those college and university students will be attended to, the fact of the matter is that the president of that institution says, point blank, that this government has failed to deliver on its promise to provide funding for 458 full-time student places.

[4:15]

Now, you don't hear about that from the government. Instead, you hear the minister constantly trying to reinforce what he says is a pledge to meaningful consultation, a pledge to fulfil the promises that he has been making, that his government has been making.

But when you consider that as recently as three weeks ago the president of the University College of the Fraser Valley was saying, "This government has broken its promise to 458 university students," you begin to get a sense of the skepticism that exists on this side of the House -- more importantly, across the province of British Columbia -- and the lack of credibility that this minister and all of the ministers of this government enjoy as a result of their deplorable track record in fulfilling the promises they have made to British Columbians.

I remain perplexed that the minister wouldn't want to strengthen what he says is a commitment of his government. I remain perplexed that he wouldn't afford to the communities right across the province, who are watching this debate with, I think, disgust . . . . There's nothing anyone in this House can say. There's nothing that anyone on either side of this House can say that will lessen the sense of betrayal and disgust that municipal leaders right across this province feel about this bill even being before this House for debate.

Yet there is something this minister could do to lessen the blow somewhat. He could give the people of Agassiz, Mission and Harrison Hot Springs the assurance that they surely deserve, which they apparently won't get from their MLA. He could give them that assurance by allowing this bill to be amended in a way that will, in a meaningful way, strengthen the commitment to consult.

Remember, it's not the government's money; it's not our money. It's money that's earned by taxpayers in these communities. By responding in the way he has, the minister leaves me -- and more importantly, the people watching this debate -- with the unavoidable impression that he and his government continue to regard this as their money to be dispensed as they see fit, when they see fit. And, "Oh, yes, we'll write in a little blurb about consulting," because that's the politically correct thing to do.

"Maybe we can ease the heat we're likely to incur as a result of this draconian piece of legislation." But the commitment to that process, in my view, based on what I have heard in this House today, is far from wholehearted.

You ask yourself why there should be any difference today to that phrase we've heard from so many British Columbians over the past year about describing a government that says one thing, does another: says one thing on gambling, does another on gambling; says one thing on funding education, does another on funding education -- exactly the opposite. And they ask themselves this question, and it's the question I asked the minister today: "Why should we believe this time, when he says the consultation will be meaningful, that his government won't do exactly the opposite, as they've done so many times in the past?"

K. Krueger: Just to try to restore the level of debate to its former jovial tone, I'd like to acknowledge that we on this side of the House have tended to regard the minister as a fundamentally decent, good-humoured individual.

I'm keenly interested in this minister's definition of the term "consult," because of course that's integral to this section. At the end of my remarks, if I should move any kind of an amendment, I assure the minister in advance that it will not be one that imposes any financial obligation whatsoever on the Crown.

The term "consult," of course, is a popular term, very much in vogue in the nineties. Organizations use it all the time. Certainly Crown corporations and people consult one another, consult other corporations, other jurisdictions, their own navels. Consultation goes on and on and on. Often the public feels quite cynical about these consultative processes.

But this is an important one we're talking about here, and I think my colleagues and I on this side of the House are simply trying to make sure that the municipalities and regional districts that we represent will be included in this consultation process, because sometimes things fall through the cracks. There are a lot of people in municipal governments who feel as though the assurances they thought they had have somehow fallen through the cracks, and the funding just isn't there.

[ Page 3031 ]

When I raise this question of the definition of "consult," I think about the consultation process that has taken place in this province with regard to the potential for no-fault insurance legislation. For example, Mr. Doug Allen travelled around interviewing some people and KPMG did a report as consultants, and in the end, people felt very much as though they weren't consulted at all and that the very expensive report which emerged wasn't the result of a genuine consultation.

Of course, there was the consultation conducted by Mr. Peter Clark with regard to the options for gambling expansion. Somehow that was understood by some people to be a public consultation process, but it fell far short of that. Indeed, the Minister of Employment and Investment did go out of his way to make sure that people understood that this wasn't a matter of consulting the public; it was a matter of consulting others about the options that he had. In the end he attempted to embrace pretty well all options.

The Minister of Employment and Investment didn't seem to have had a consultation process with his party membership, with his caucus, with his cabinet, with this Legislative Assembly or certainly with the public before he launched British Columbia on a very dangerous course of gambling expansion.

Now, as we work through the estimates debate of this legislative session, we find minister after minister who really hasn't been consulted or had the benefit of expert opinion or input or reports or reviews as to, for example, how gambling expansion will affect women and youth in this province, how it will affect small business and human resources. It's astonishing that ministers seem to be treated in such contempt by the Premier and by the Minister of Employment and Investment, the Deputy Premier, that they are just completely left out of the process.

More astonishing than that is the danger to which the public is subjected by this manner of false consultation. Certainly, we're getting to the point where eventually we're going to hear from this minister what consultation really means to him and what he thinks of an idea I have that I'd like him to include when he does his consultation.

I want to make it clear as well that when I ask this question, I'm speaking not just for myself but for my colleagues the member for Kamloops, the member for Yale-Lillooet and the member for Cariboo South, all of whom seem to be muzzled in this process, none of whom I've heard speaking on behalf of the municipalities and the regional districts that their constituencies include. I feel sorry for them, because they don't seem to have been consulted. They don't seem to have anything to say.

It's hard on their constituents that their MLAs are not able to get up and represent them, even when they're in cabinet, of all things. People in those constituencies -- the constituencies of Kamloops, Yale-Lillooet and Cariboo South -- feel as though their interests have not been included in whatever consultations have taken place to date in all those areas I mentioned: gambling expansion, no-fault insurance, now this whole question we've been working through over these last couple of weeks with regard to unconditional grants to municipalities and indeed the whole relationship between the levels of government.

Speaking of that, when you think of the province ordering the B.C. Lottery Corporation to take the city of Vancouver to court over its bylaw on keno machines in pubs and bars, then you realize why people in this province are cynical about whether or not we have any consultation process in effect.

I'm looking forward to hearing what the minister will have to say about how this consultation will actually proceed, because it's important to municipalities and municipal taxpayers and those individuals who toil in municipal levels of government in this province that there be stability and certainty and predictability -- these proud and noble words that this government uses when it talks about the kinds of accords it wants to sign and the kinds of relationships it wants to have but doesn't always seem to live up to.

I want to remind the minister that in an earlier response he gave to us, he made it very clear that this section,

section 14(6) of Bill 2, has absolutely nothing to do with quantum. That was his answer. It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the grants. It has to do with this subject of consultation, which I've been talking about, and I'm going to ask him for a definition of that. The minister also made it very clear that he didn't think there had been enough notice given to municipalities of the government's intentions. We certainly agree with him, particularly in that this provincial government of ours has been so scandalized by the cutbacks -- that they refer to constantly -- from the federal level of government.

But there was ample warning, years of warning, before those cutbacks took effect. Indeed they have actually been reduced in recent announcements, so the province certainly has a considerably larger ray of hope than the municipalities feel that they have.

Municipalities are really hurting over these cuts -- the impact on the city of Kamloops, for example. I can't give the details of the impact on municipalities in the unfortunate constituencies of Yale-Lillooet and Cariboo South and a lot of others, because those are represented by NDP MLAs, and they haven't spoken up in this House and talked about how their municipalities are affected. But Kamloops is probably representative. Kamloops is hurting over this, because Kamloops has been determined not to increase municipal taxation.

Of course, people who voted NDP in the provincial election last May were voting for a government that they believed would not increase their taxes. They certainly didn't expect the municipalities to be forced to increase taxes through the back door.

When things like a $2 million cut in funding to Kamloops occur, these are some of the ways that the taxpayer gets hurt in the riding which the member for Kamloops represents and which I also represent as member for Kamloops-North Thompson. There are $600,000 in capital projects deferred. These projects weren't planned lightly. They weren't something that people just came up with off the top of their head; this is long-term planning. The city conducts its business very carefully. Those projects have had to be deferred. Computer system development: deferred to the tune of $170,000, as well.

Cutbacks in the hours that a whole range of municipal facilities will be able to operate . . . . In the arena, for example, this will affect minor hockey and figure skating and youth activities of many kinds, so young people and other generations of users as well will all be hurt by this sudden change on the part of the provincial government, through the lack of effective consultation in the past. There is going to be a major cutback to the swimming pool, where young people learn to swim and where many programs are conducted that are very advantageous to the health of the people of Kamloops.

The museum, of all things . . . . If we have a government that appreciates culture, then why in the world would we want to cut back in an area such as this, where taxpayers'

[ Page 3032 ]

funds have been spent on building a structure and staffing it? Then it has to sit in mothballs for more hours of the day and the week because the provincial government has abruptly cut back funding to the municipality, and it has had to react in these emergency ways.

Compost-site hours are being reduced. Surely a government that purports to be environmentally conscious would believe in a program such as the city of Kamloops composting program. But that has been negatively affected in that its hours are being reduced.

[4:30]

Here's an area that really hurts, because we have a lot of seniors in Kamloops, and seniors have to plan their budgets very carefully and very far in advance. Many are on fixed incomes. It's a matter of grave concern to them when they suddenly see either their income or expense situation change dramatically. When seniors face a sudden change like that, that's a serious matter. The member for Kamloops is going to have to face the music on this, because seniors are angry. The city has had to react by eliminating the utility discount for seniors in the amount of $200,000. This is something that I take very seriously, and I know the member for Kamloops does as well.

I think that this government would do well to seriously reconsider the genuineness of its consultative processes and what it means when it says things like it plans to "consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities." The UBCM is pretty central to a lot of what Kamloops does and a lot of what the Thompson-Nicola regional district does, as well. When the city wrote me this letter, it was also delaying filling vacant positions, thereby affecting service levels in Kamloops to the same taxpayers. We constantly try to remind this government that there is really only one taxpayer.

In spite of the fact they're hit on by all these different levels of government, there's only one taxpayer. They've got a right to expect some consistency in the services they are provided. But here we have public sector jobs vacant in Kamloops and those taxpayers going begging for the services that those employees -- union employees, I might add -- would have been providing if the funding had been reliably there.

A further $300,000 . . . . The city of Kamloops isn't even able to decide how it's going to come up with those savings, but it's considering across-the-board cuts in areas such as grants to the arts, to culture and to sports. Again, the same taxpayer is being thumped over the head repeatedly by the fact that this provincial government cannot be relied on to engage in a meaningful and genuine consultative process.

My question, then, for the minister is: would he please define the term "consult"? Exactly how meaningful will that be in this case? How genuine is his intent to consult in such a way that the city of Kamloops and the municipalities in all these constituencies I've been referring to feel as though they won't get any nasty surprises in future from this government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I listened to the hon. member's remarks quite intently, except for a brief moment, and I find it interesting, because he goes: "What's the genuineness of your proposed consultations? How do you intend to do this? How do we know what you're doing? What do you mean when you say 'consult?' " Well, as far as the city of Kamloops is concerned, the consultation is the process that we committed ourselves to when we signed that protocol back in September. It was a process that was agreed to by the UBCM and the province. It has been taking place since then, and it is evolving through input, negotiation and hard work from both sides. It is working, and it will continue to work.

You know, I tell the member from Kamloops to go talk to his council. He will find that their views and the issues they are concerned about are being raised at that joint council table. Right across this province, we are discussing the issues that are important to municipalities.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I am rising, actually, on a point of order and hope you will entertain my very brief submissions on the point I wish to bring to your attention. I left the chamber momentarily, because I wanted to consider the remarks I want to make to you. They relate to the debate that took place earlier in this chamber. I have to tell you that I am particularly troubled about the manner in which that debate unfolded and, quite frankly -- with the greatest respect -- about the rulings, in particular one of the rulings that was rendered by the Chair and the manner in which it was rendered, hon. Chair.

We engaged in a debate regarding the appropriateness of certain amendments; we heard submissions on two of those proposed amendments from the minister responsible. It matters not that I disagree with the submissions; we heard them. When a third motion to amend, specifically addressing the issues raised by the minister and by the Chair, was proposed, it was dealt with -- in my view and with the greatest respect, hon. Chair -- peremptorily and with a very cavalier attitude.

I am flattered in the extreme that the Chair found the proposed amendment ingenious, but that is not the point. The point is: was the amendment in order pursuant to the rules that we govern ourselves by in this House?

We have just come through a debate, and the Chair cited a whole host of precedent-setting decisions from previous debates in this chamber. She read them off, and she read them off in support of a decision that she was rendering. The decision that the Chair has rendered with respect to the third proposed amendment this afternoon dealing with this

section becomes part of that body of law that future Chairs will refer back to. And quite frankly, hon. Chair, I am troubled in the extreme, insofar as I read and reviewed the decision that has been rendered by the Chair. I cannot conceive of an amendment coming from these benches that would not fail for similar reasons, based on the decision that the Chair has made and the manner in which the Chair has made it.

So, hon. Chair, I say, with the greatest respect -- the greatest of respect -- that at this point in time I lack the confidence I need to have in the Chair in order for these debates to proceed in an appropriate way, and therefore the motion I am moving is that the Chair do now vacate the chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member should realize that the rulings of the Chair are not debatable and that his comments are clearly out of order. The motion is just . . . . A challenge to the Chair is . . . . We don't do that in this House.

[ Page 3033 ]

[4:45]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 31

Dalton

Gingell

Reid

Farrell-Collins

Plant

Sanders

Stephens

de Jong

Coell

Anderson

Nebbeling

Whittred

van Dongen

Thorpe

Weisgerber

J. Wilson

Reitsma

Hansen

C. Clark

Symons

Hawkins

Abbott

Jarvis

Weisbeck

Chong

Coleman

Nettleton

McKinnon

Krueger

Barisoff

Neufeld

NAYS -- 35

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Boone

Hammell

Streifel

Pullinger

Farnworth

Kwan

Waddell

Calendino

Stevenson

Bowbrick

Goodacre

Giesbrecht

Walsh

Kasper

Hartley

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Cashore

Ramsay

Sihota

Randall

Sawicki

Lali

Doyle

Gillespie

Robertson

Smallwood

Conroy

Janssen

Hon. J. MacPhail: I ask leave of the House to inform the House of House business.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd just like to inform the members that Committee A will be doing Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, it will be the Ministry of Labour estimates.

section 14.

G. Abbott: I would like to discuss some concerns of communities within my riding and adjacent to my riding, particularly with respect to

section 14 of Bill 2, but also with respect to the bill and the particular context of

section 14. Before I do that, I want to make a couple of comments about where we're going here. As the Municipal Affairs critic on this side of the House, I had some role in laying out a direction which I hoped we would follow and which I hoped would lead to a very thorough debate of issues surrounding the Local Government Grants Act.

I'm not going to speak on the wisdom of what has transpired here today. As a relatively new member of this House, I think it would be presumptuous of me to try to speak on that particular issue. However, I can't escape making a personal observation that I think something rather fundamental to a process that we're all involved in here has been lost today. I sense that that something fundamental has been lost because of a concern that somehow we might be, recklessly or with abandon, putting forward motions that were simply intended to embarrass or offend the government. That was not our intention.

I know that the intention on this side of the House was to legitimately highlight the concerns of communities around this province with respect to what is being done in Bill 2 through this process. We've laid out many of our concerns with respect to previous sections, and I propose to lay out my concerns here, particularly with respect to

section 14. The important point is that -- at least, from my view -- there is a real value in a democracy like Canada having competing and conflicting views of the world.

I think it was John Stuart Mill that persuasively outlined the view that even a misguided opinion was a valuable opinion, because it served to elevate debate and it served to lead on a path to the truth. I think that the analogy is appropriate for what we do in this House. Whether the motions we put forward on this side of the House are misguided, embarrassing or inappropriate, I think it is up to the House to determine whether the course we are proposing to set through our amendment is correct. The House, presumably after some vigorous debate, would decide on that, and I think we have lost that here. It is disturbing to me, and I think it is disturbing to other members of the House as well.

The joint council, as I've noted ad nauseam in here, is fine. There is no problem with the joint council; it's good. What we are suggesting on this side of the House and what we specifically wanted to point out on this side of the House was that some further consultation with local governments around this province would be useful, appropriate and valuable. If that opinion of mine was wrong, that's fine, and if the majority of the House shared the view that that opinion of mine was wrong, then I would be prepared to accept that.

I am not going to belabour it, but I'm most reluctant to accept the view that somehow the opinion should not be placed before the consideration of this assembly. I'm not going to belabour it, but I'm most reluctant to accept the view that somehow the opinion should not be placed before the consideration of this assembly. I'm frustrated and puzzled by the whole thing here.

Again the issue should be one where we look at the communities and decide it is appropriate that these communities be consulted in a manner over and above what might be offered to them through their representatives on the joint council. In my particular case, I would suggest that a number of communities in my riding and the adjoining one have particular reasons to be concerned about Bill 2, and in particular

section 14 of Bill 2.

The city of Armstrong, the township of Spallumcheen . . . . Spallumcheen is a township that has recently gone over the 5,000 limit. They are very concerned. They're facing new policing costs because they have reached the 5,000 threshold. They, of course, don't get the full benefit of the small communities protection grant, so they have a number of concerns about the direction of the government with respect to local government transfers.

The point that I am attempting to make -- or I had hoped to make in my amendment but which I am now making in the regular course of committee discussion here -- is that the township of Spallumcheen deserves, from the province, some consultation, some advisement that here is the direction we're going in with respect to policing grants, here is the direction we are going in with respect to the small communities grant, and so on.

I don't think that it's misplaced at all that that community should expect some consultation along those lines -- again, not to the level of consultation that obviously is going to be envisaged in the joint council, but consultation which would, nevertheless, be very useful to that community.

The village of Chase. Again, my friend and colleague from Matsqui has rightly pointed out the concerns surrounding courthouses and the absence of consultation on that. The

[ Page 3034 ]

village of Chase is another classic example of why we need to have the kind of consultation that was envisaged in the motions put forward earlier. The village of Chase learned -- I think via the news media -- that their courthouse was being closed. It's a courthouse that opened just five years ago. It's a courthouse that was built at the instigation of the government. There are five years remaining on a ten-year lease costing over $100,000 a year.

The village of Chase, obviously, is very concerned that the provincial government can -- without any kind of notice, without any kind of consultation -- advise them that their courthouse is going to be closed and that they're expected to accept that fait accompli from the province.

I think that that's another example of why -- and I hope this is constructive -- it would be very useful for the province to build in a level of consultation that is more broadly based than that anticipated in the joint council.

Going down the list here: the city of Enderby, the district of Salmon Arm. Just to mention the concerns that the district of Salmon Arm has, the district . . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Actually, the district of Salmon Arm is not represented on the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I appreciate the Minister of Transportation and Highways trying to fill me in on how UBCM works. I appreciate that. After 17 years in local government, I think I have a grip on that. If she wants to listen, hon. Chair, to the debate that I am offering here, perhaps she'll find it enlightening as to why I think there should be an additional level of consultation in the province.

Let me just note -- as I was going to before I was so rather rudely interrupted -- that the district of Salmon Arm has a population of 15,000. They are one of the municipalities in the sort of middle range that don't get the benefit of the small communities protection grant but will lose a good deal of the funds which they would have expected to receive under the Local Government Grants Act. In the case of the district of Salmon Arm, they've lost in excess of $300,000 as a consequence of the changes to the Local Government Grants Act.

The way that translates into reality is that for every one of those 15,000 or so people in the district of Salmon Arm, every man, woman and child there can anticipate an additional $20 or more in taxes, simply as a consequence of this downloading on the part of the provincial government.

In the case of the district of Salmon Arm, they are looking at a 4 percent increase in their municipal property taxes this year, strictly and directly as a consequence of the changes to the Local Government Grants Act. Do they deserve to get some measure of consultation in this process? The Minister of Transportation and Highways doesn't think so, but I do. I do think it's entirely appropriate that the district of Salmon Arm hear, at points during the year, where the province is going with respect to equalization grants, where they're going with respect to the amount and distribution of local government transfers in the coming year. I think that's entirely appropriate.

[5:00]

Members on the other side of the House may not share that view -- and I ringingly endorse their right to embrace that opposite view -- but I think the important point here is that we should have an opportunity to have that debate and have that opportunity to determine what is appropriate. I don't think we're dealing in absolute rights and wrongs here. We have a debate; we determine the direction that we should be going in.

Another that I think deserves consultation is the district of Sicamous, my home town, incorporated in 1989. Since incorporation, in some measure some of the provisions that were contained in the incorporation grants and so on have been, not breached, but certainly delayed. So they have concerns, and I think it's entirely appropriate that some level of consultation be extended to them as well.

The Columbia-Shuswap regional district. Again, while regional districts weren't directly affected by the changes contained in the Local Government Grants Act revisions or repeal of

section 2, in a number of ways they have been quite affected. For example, the Shuswap emergency preparedness program has lost its provincial grant of $4,060. An $85,000 cut, or 52 percent cut, in the funding for milfoil control has resulted in a huge reduction in the level of service being provided in that regional district. The Shuswap economic development commission has had its grant cut by $27,000. The grant to maintain weed control services in the Columbia-Shuswap regional district has been eliminated, the loss of a $20,000 grant.

In a number of ways these moves on the part of the provincial government have left the Columbia-Shuswap regional district very much concerned with where the province is going. Given that, I think they deserve a level of consultation with respect to where the province is going in the whole area of government transfers.

To reiterate this point -- just so the minister and members on the other side have it right -- it's our view that that consultation does not have to be at the level envisioned at the joint council, but at a level which would keep them informed generally of where the province is going on these things and would give them a level of confidence that they're being kept in the loop on these very important issues.

I want to mention some communities in my adjoining riding of Columbia River-Revelstoke. I want to note that a number of these communities have contacted me, as the adjoining MLA and as the Municipal Affairs critic, to raise their concerns.

The city of Revelstoke. They have very profound concerns about where the government is going in a range of areas. The city of Revelstoke is not only affected by the changes to the Local Government Grants Act; they are very substantially affected by Bill 55 because of the very considerable railway assessment base that they have in that community. So they have very considerable concerns here. Whether there is a particular good reason for them to be concerned is irrelevant. The fact is that they are concerned. Therefore, from our perspective, they should expect and should deserve a certain level of consultation with respect to these issues.

Other communities I should mention: the city of Kimberley; the village of Radium Hot Springs, another newly incorporated municipality that is very much concerned with where the province is going; the district of Invermere; the town of Golden that's being affected, of course, by Bill 55 as well as this; the regional district of East Kootenay. All of these are communities that -- again, in my view, whether it's ill-advised or otherwise -- deserve to have a level of consultation, an element of consultation with the province that will give them some confidence that they understand where the province is going and can adjust their own course accordingly.

I'll yield the floor to other members on this side of the House who may wish to speak on this section.

[ Page 3035 ]

I. Chong: The other day during the

section 12 debate, the minister talked about the protocol agreement signed last September. The minister insisted several times that there was a substantial reluctance on the part of government to sign the agreement, which I find actually quite disturbing. My recollection of the event last year at the UBCM convention was that there was some great applause, even a great appreciation, at the time of the signing by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs.

So if there was such reluctance, I have to ask: why, then, did the minister not make it more known, so that the UBCM representatives wer