[ Page 2261 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 44). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 2261

Mr. Blencoe –– 2261

Mr. Williams –– 2262

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 2263

Local Election Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 45). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 2263

Mr. Blencoe –– 2263

Mr. Jones –– 2265

Mr. Miller –– 2266

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 2267

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 48: minister's office –– 2267

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Cashore

Ms. A. Hagen

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 44.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It is my pleasure and privilege to have the honour of putting forward the second reading of Bill 44, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987. This bill contains a variety of measures designed to improve the legislation that governs the conduct of local government in British Columbia. These range from the removal of unnecessary provincial approvals to providing the legislative basis for liability insurance pooling. These amendments are part of an ongoing commitment to maintaining our municipal legislation at peak performance levels, in tune with the needs of the times and the people we represent.

A highlight of the legislation is the set of provisions to further this government's decentralization initiatives. These include the removal of provincial approvals for seven aspects of municipal governance and the transfer of responsibilities from the commercial vehicle licence program to the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

The act also contains provisions to facilitate the adjustment of property taxes and the homeowner grant program. These will ensure that next year's grant is available to buyers of homes on property subdivided after mid-year. To implement this, complementary amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act will be forthcoming.

Post-incorporation property tax transition rules are included, to allow the gradual phasing-in of farm property taxes after a rural area is incorporated. This will remove a disincentive to incorporation and responds to the needs of both farmers and municipalities.

The rising cost of liability insurance premiums for municipalities has caused some to reduce or cancel coverage. Pooling measures included in the legislation will ensure that no local government will be deprived of access to insurance. This program is strongly supported by the UBCM and complements recent liability insurance legislation.

Transition assistance has been introduced to offset the removal of the machinery and equipment tax. This takes the form of an option for regional districts to use a variable tax rate.

Numerous other amendments of a problem-solving and deregulatory nature are also included in the bill. When we have, completed our program of legislative updating and refinement, British Columbia will have the finest, most responsive municipal legislation in Canada. That is our aim and we intend to achieve it.

I am therefore happy. Mr. Speaker, to move that this bill be now read a second time.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak very long on this bill. Overall we have basically no problems with the legislation before us. It does some things that have been sort of like blue laws over the years, that have been sitting there and haven't been necessary. I certainly agree that removing some of the requirements for inspection for provisional budgets.... They are sort of laws that were put in place a long time ago when local government was a smaller child of the provincial government. Today I think local government has grown up, but I'll be talking more about that in my estimates.

I have to indicate that we're pleased to see the change to the property tax and homeowner grant program allowing the grant to be available to people who buy property mid-year. I can tell you that those of us who've served on local councils have often heard of that concern and that complaint, and it was very frustrating for us when we could do nothing for those people because the legislation said nothing could be done. So indeed I am pleased to see that.

Generally, Mr. Speaker. we find the legislation really is cleaning up a lot of things that have been around for a long time that don't need to be there. However, I have to pass comment on the section that refers to liability insurance.

As the House and the minister know. some time ago — about two years ago — I proposed on behalf of our party a fairly detailed proposal to the UBCM on self-insurance. and recommended that the UBCM executive study ito indeed, that is what they have done over the last few years — an exhaustive review of the process. At the same time. I was very concerned that the private insurance companies were not being totally candid with the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada and those public institutions that were being taken to the cleaners, in terms of insurance for then activities.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker. I collected documents that indicated quite obviously that the insurance companies were not reporting their profits and losses accurately, and that they were — at the time of escalating liability premiums — at the bottom of their business cycle, which is approximately six to seven years for the insurance industry. What they had done in the previous few years was to write insurance policies on which they knew there would be very little or no return.

It's a highly competitive industry, but they wrote millions and millions of dollars' worth of policies that they knew darn well they'd never get a return on. Then when they started to see their astronomical profits somewhat cut, rather than take less profit for themselves and their stockholders, they decided to pass on those so-called losses to the public institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I documented that and showed that and indeed had a debate with the representative of the Insurance Bureau of Canada on television, and he did not refute what I was saying. He was really very sad that small municipalities and towns and villages are caught up in that desire to cover their incompetence in their policy-writing. Rather than passing on the so-called losses to their stockholders, they decided to pass them on to public institutions and other private and public bodies.

Despite that, one could complain, and we did. Local government finally saw the light. and they now have a proposal for self-insurance. which I hope will receive virtually unanimous endorsement by the UBCM affiliates or those who are a part of it.

I understand there are some discussions and some concerns. I hope, certainly on our side of the House, that we are supporting that proposal. Obviously there may be some refinements required, but we are certainly supporting it We think it's an innovate and creative way to go: and in view of

[ Page 2262 ]

the fact that I, on behalf of our party, proposed the idea some years ago, we are very supportive of that proposal.

I would hope, and I assume, that the minister and the government are going to be talking to reticent municipalities in a quiet, friendly way to see if they will get on board, because it does require the participation of the majority of towns and villages and municipalities, otherwise the system simply won't work. Many of those large municipalities today — a friendly sort of hint from our side of the House — are covering themselves; they don't have any insurance and are doing their own kind of self-insurance, and doing very well because they are not having to make any major payments. What's happened, of course, is that municipalities have cleaned up their act a little bit in terms of managing their affairs and looking for dangers in their operations. But, Mr. Speaker, if those large municipalities refuse to participate, we could be back in the soup again, if you will, and we could have problems.

I want also to comment that it was a great shame — and I understate that — when this government decided to sell off the general insurance component of ICBC, the most profitable section, obviously, of that insurance corporation. We in this House opposed that move. We felt that that insurance component was viable and competitive. Indeed, the funds and the resources achieved through that component were reinvested in British Columbia, and we had our own general insurance corporation here in the province of British Columbia.

What happened when the government sold off that competitive public sector was that it opened the door to the only source of general insurance, which was the private sector, and we all know what the private sector did with liability insurance: they jacked rates, and I think grossly unfairly. We did. not have the ICBC component to compete. I think that was a bad business mistake on the part of the Social Credit government; and once again, without getting into too many negatives, I think it shows that this government over the last few years has made some very bad business decisions — I think incompetently at times.

[10:15]

Selling that insurance corporation was a mistake, because ICBC general insurance could have stepped in to relieve and help those public institutions and — what we're talking about today — municipalities. They could have stepped in to compete with those skyrocketing, unfairly apportioned liability premiums that were being imposed on local government. But the government of the day, I think unwisely — poor business practice — sold off the general insurance corporation.

I sure wish we had it back today. We need that kind of activity in the marketplace, because in my estimation there is collusion, if you will, in the private sector in terms of private insurance companies. I don't think there's any question, Mr. Speaker, when this liability insurance scandal emerged, that those companies did work together to ensure that none of them actually challenged the other when they. started to jack up their rates to astronomical levels. There was an example of the private sector in the so-called free enterprise system. It wasn't competing it wasn't offering competitive rates to the public and to private institutions. They got together to ensure that their profits became even larger. If we'd had the ICBC general insurance corporation. It could have challenged that scandalous episode in the insurance history of this province and of this country.

Those rates haven't come down substantially. Those private insurance companies are still trying to get a pound and a half of flesh out of local government, Mr. Speaker. It's unfortunate that we didn't have ICBC general insurance.

On the whole, however, we find this bill satisfactory. With those remarks about ICBC and other comments, we will support the legislation.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's nice to watch the bland, empty faces on the other side when these points are made, as if they really never had anything to do with any of that after all. But what the member for Victoria says is entirely valid.

You're the smart business heads who flogged off ICBC general insurance for $9 million and caused all kinds of problems throughout the province in the commercial sector, the private sector, small business, municipalities, you name it — across the piece.

You can sit there with your smug, smiling, blank faces all you like. It's on your heads, that mess in the insurance business. You let the municipalities struggle around with these con artists who are overcharging for this service. The whole idea behind that general insurance system was primarily to help rural British Columbia — small people who couldn't get fire insurance and insurance like this at all.

You want to raise a point of order. The beatific smile has disappeared; the reality is coming through.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Municipal Affairs on a point of order.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, could I question the relevancy of the comments regarding ICBC to the bill we are dealing with at this time'? There is absolutely no relevancy, in my opinion.

MR. WILLIAMS: That sure explains the empty, smiling, blank faces: they think there's no relevancy. Really!

This was set up to help out public institutions — small people around this province of ours. Don't you realize that that was the purpose of public insurance? The big companies from eastern Canada weren't servicing the villages, small municipalities, rural British Columbia, small business people. That was the problem. You've let those municipalities run around, scrambling for a couple of years now, in desperate circumstances and having to face excessive rates. Finally, they come up with a solution that is a response to the problem that you created by selling off ICBC for $9 million — pretzels. So it's come home to roost.

At first I thought the blank faces were just a cover. But they weren't. Clearly, they were the reality: they cover a blank. You don't realize that what you did a couple of years ago causes problems today and over the last couple of years. Cause and effect with this government isn't there. You make a decision today, and you don't realize that the problem tomorrow was the decision you made a day or so before.

That's absolutely amazing. There's simply no understanding of cause and effect in this administration. Fortunately, the municipalities have some understanding of the mess you created and have come up with their own creative solution, recommended by the member for Victoria. But, Lord, what a long learning experience it is with the people on the other side.

[ Page 2263 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise members that the minister will close debate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm very pleased to hear the comments from the members of the opposition in support of the bill before us at this time. There's no question that it has great support in the municipal arena. On that, I would now move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

LOCAL ELECTION REFORM ACT, 1987

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to have the honour of putting forward for second reading Bill 45, the Local Election Reform Act, 1987.

This is very progressive legislation which will pave the way for uniform, concurrent three-year terms for locally elected officials. It contains amendments to the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter and the School Act to facilitate events which will affect municipalities, regional districts and school boards. The act will simplify and rationalize the way elections are run in British Columbia. It will improve the stability and stature of local governments and save significant costs. I want to assure you all that we have received considerable support for this move from all sectors involved.

As we all know, prior to this change the standard term of office was for two years. In most municipalities. however, annual elections became the norm. Individual terms of office were staggered, and a portion of the council or school board was elected each year. This has led to a steady drain on municipal budgets and can be seen to contribute to low voter participation. Both will be alleviated by a regular three-year election cycle.

The transition will begin this year with a three-year term for those elected in 1987. A two-year term will apply to those elected in 1988. No elections will occur in 1989, to bring all jurisdictions into the cycle. The amendments are designed so that by 1990 and every third year thereafter, British Columbia will have a single local election day.

The new triennial election system will not only reduce the cost of elections but make election promotion more effective and boost voter turnout. The new system is fully endorsed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and I understand that it has been well received by the BCSTA.

I am therefore happy to move that this bill be read a second time now.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker. this concept has been around for some time. I think some three or four years ago this House and the standing committee that related to municipal affairs discussed the issue of three-year terms for municipal officials and school board trustees. I have had over the last few years many, many conversations with elected people on this issue. I have to say that my initial reaction, having served the local level for close to six and a half years, was that I was somewhat reluctant to see local government by its own work and its own lobbying expand its term. As I say, I've had many discussions with local officials about this topic.

One of the important things today in our democratic way of life, and one of the concerns is that politicians today aren't as accountable for their actions as maybe they were a number of years ago. Certainly there's that feeling towards the senior level of government, one that I think should concern us all: the cynicism grows every day about how government makes its decisions, what politicians do or don't do, how they conduct public affairs, and how sometimes they do things that clearly are not supported by the general population. People find it very difficult to access those who are making the decisions which sometimes are not popular, or the people want to talk to the people who are making the decisions, and there's a feeling that government isn't accountable to the people who elect them and whom they serve.

I think we all hear this every day. I know I do. Unfortunately and, I think, sadly, those of us who serve in public life constantly bear that the attitude and perception of those who serve in the public domain are there for other reasons than serving the public. Some of it's unfair. Some of it is — how do I put it? — created by overreaction by media events, but much of is justified. I think government has become too big, too remote and too insensitive to many of the critical issues that people face today. Government, to many people, appears not to care about what's happening to people in their homes and at their tables, who can't get enough bread and butter, can't get their schools dealt with, can't get jobs, are underemployed or unemployed, and can't fight the system. They can't fight, for example, the Unemployment Insurance Commission; they can't fight the Workers' Compensation Board; the hurdles that people have to go through to get dealt with equally and justly by the system. Every day we hear of people going through incredible hurdles to get action, or to get what is rightfully theirs.

I think it's incumbent upon all of us in elected life to not gloss it over or say. "Well, it's just the media that portray that," or "We really are doing a fine job, and those people don't really understand how government works." Mr. Speaker, I don't think we can continue to do that, because the very system that we love and cherish and work for is somewhat in jeopardy when the people feel that those democratic institutions, which took a long time to achieve and which many people fought for and struggled for, are in many ways being highly criticized by the public we serve.

[10:30]

I put those comments in there because we are here today talking about extending the term for elected officials in the province of British Columbia. I know that this is the trend, and this is done, I think — and the deputy can confirm this — in nearly every other province now. I think we're the last. Am I correct there" We are the last. That doesn't necessarily make it totally right. but we are the last, and I guess that's the trend.

I've heard the arguments pro and con: you can't do your work in two years: the first time you're elected it takes you the first year to learn the ropes: it takes you the second year to get things going, and you can't get it going; you need a third year to complete your work. Well. Mr. Speaker. In some cases that's accurate. I know I found that sometimes when I served on local council. But the other thing is that with two-year terms. there was some motivation to get on with the job. One of the things we suffer from at the senior level of

[ Page 2264 ]

government — we've seen it over and over again — is: "Oh well, we've got another year to get on with that. Oh well, we've got terms of four, four and a half, five years — if we want to go five years. Let's put it off for another year: we won't get on with the job."

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, there really are some very rude people in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important topic, and I hope other people will participate.

As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, I've heard the argument that we need expanded terms to get on with the job. Well, my view is that most of the work done at the local level can be accomplished in two years. I know there are times when extra time is required, and that's what we're debating today.

I did have some deep reservations some years ago when this was debated. Over the last few years.... One of the things you do in this job — and the minister will know — when you're dealing with municipalities is get an opportunity to cross this province as you travel and talk, and get a feeling of what's happening on many issues. There's no question that this particular issue is not an easy one and is one that we shouldn't enter into lightly, because of what I was saying about senior government and the feeling of lack of accessibility and accountability, and decisions that people don't like.

What they like about local government is that it's accountable most times; it's certainly accessible. You can call your alderman or mayor just like that, and they get an answer. You get right back to them; we all know that, those who've served. That's nitty-gritty. They know, Mr. Speaker, that if they're not satisfied with an issue or the way the local council is handling it, they can get at them in two years at the polls. They can have their say earlier rather than later.

I think we have to take this issue and think about it.

MR. RABBITT: Vote against it.

MR. BLENCOE: No. I'm just going through what I've heard, what was talked about and what other people have said, and I think it's very important for us to do that, because one of the things I'm trying to indicate is that we don't listen enough to people out there.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to support this legislation. We'll support it, but I do put those remarks on the record — not only for us, but for those who will be seeking office — that I hope they don't see three-year terms as just adding another year to cover up their mistakes or their accountability or their accessibility.

I think that's important, because in all the surveys done over the years, local government is the most trusted level of government. People think they get the most value for their dollar from local government — no question about it. I think it's a simple answer. As I said earlier, you can get to them. You can go to a council meeting; you can talk to the mayor. You can go up in front of the microphone and say: "Madam Mayor" — or Mr. Mayor or Mr. Alderman — "I don't like this. I want this done." How many citizens do we have in this chamber saying how they want something done? We don't have it; it doesn't happen. We certainly haven't seen the select standing committees at work yet. We hope that will change.

Mr. Speaker, I put those remarks on the record, that those who serve at the local level — who I understand are the majority, and I've talked to them: UBCM and the majority of people who serve — are in favour of expanding and extending it to three years. But I think we have to reflect that the people will.... The apathy and the cynicism from those who elect all of us — local or whatever level it is — will be further entrenched if that three years is used just to take more time to make decisions or to try to take more time for the people to forget about bad decisions, or if it's used in a way that takes away the accountability that currently exists at the local level.

MR. R. FRASER: You would know that.

MR. BLENCOE: You're right, Mr. Member, I would know that.

So I just put out those remarks. We will in principle support the legislation. However, I am sure all of us, certainly on this side of the House, will be watching to see what results from it. I have had correspondence with those in jurisdictions which have three-year terms.

AN HON. MEMBER: They all do.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, they all do. Thank you. We already covered that before you came in.

MR. JONES: Follow the debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, my good colleague from Burnaby.

MR. R. FRASER: You're being heckled by your own people.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, he's a good member. He knows about local government.

I have had some correspondence and discussions with other jurisdictions that have gone this route, and there have been some problems. Issues have come up locally. The electorate at the civic level feel they want to express their views sooner, rather than later, and two years allows for a renewal process. I certainly don't want to see us go beyond three years at the local level, that's for sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not'?

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I happen to think that local government is an escape valve for bad decisions and controversy that senior governments force upon the electorate of British Columbia — in particular, the last few years. There's no question, Mr. Speaker, that when we had the austerity program — and we're about to enter into it again, I understand; restraint is alive and well again with this government — local government felt the brunt of that, because people went to the local government to try and pick up the pieces, for services cut or for support for programs that were essential for people.

MR. R. FRASER: What's this got to do with two- or three-year terms"

[ Page 2265 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's just talking about the theme of local government, and how it is accountable, and how people can access it and get decisions made.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Would you say that in Delta?

MR. BLENCOE: Would I say that in Delta — or Point Roberts?

Mr. Speaker, I also want to make some comments — and the minister will probably have more discussion in committee about this — that under the section that discusses the Vancouver Charter, I am certainly disappointed that the minister appears to put thumbs down on the ward system. The minister seems to have left out a section that would permit, if that good city has another vote and decides to go to the ward system, that to happen.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Do your friends in COPE know you support the ward system?

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to talk about COPE. The people of Vancouver already expressed their views on the ward system, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately this legislation will not permit that, because it says that in Vancouver the election shall still be at large. There could have been a permissive clause in there which could have allowed, when they do go to the ward system.... And they will go to the ward system. That would have permitted it without coming back into this House with another amendment.

I do know there is a private member's bill before this House that deals with that issue. But I don't think such an important issue should rely on a private member's bill and the hurly-burly agenda that we face in this Legislature. It should be in this legislation. So when we get to committee stage, I will be asking the minister to explain why she has put the thumbs-down on the ward system for Vancouver, and will get an explanation for that.

Mr. Speaker, I'll conclude my remarks by saying that there has probably not been an issue that has been canvassed more and discussed more over the last few years than expanding the term for locally elected officials. We will support the legislation, but I wish to indicate that the remarks I have made this morning, hopefully, will serve for all of us to reflect that expanding the terms of elected officials can create problems, can continue the feeling that local officials just want to extend their time in office. We all have to do something to work on the fact that the citizens of British Columbia and the citizens of Canada, when it comes to governments at all levels, have some deep concerns about how they do business, about their lack of accountability and accessibility. They want government to be far more open. They just don't want rhetoric about open government; they want the reality.

MR. JONES: I rise to express my concerns and personal opposition to three-year terms for elected municipal officials. I'm rising because of my concerns about accountability and democracy in this province. I'm not opposed to fixed terms. In fact, I'd appreciate a fixed term for provincial elections. Having an extension of one year to the term of a locally elected official appears to me to be the same as officials giving themselves pay raises. It guarantees, at least for those who are holding office and supporting this thing, an income for at least an extra year.

The minister suggests that many people were consulted on this, that it has wide support and that it is in practice elsewhere, but I wonder if the public was consulted on this kind of thing. It seems to me that people want an opportunity in our democratic system to participate. They want to participate as voters and as people running for municipal office. If somebody is interested in running, and perhaps runs and loses, he's going to have to wait probably three years now in order to seek office again. It's pretty easy for somebody who holds elected office not to be too sensitive to those who don't. In fact, I guess part of the game is to prevent those people from holding office.

Interjections.

MR. JONES: Many of the members in this House have come from local government; they appreciate the beauty of local government and how close it is to people, as well as the advantage that municipal government has over senior levels of government. People have access to those governments....

MR. R. FRASER: Why are you here then?

MR. BLENCOE: Point of order. Mr. Speaker. For once would the government members recognize a very serious issue that impacts upon all British Columbians, and treat the issue with seriousness, not with laughter, since this debate is very important to all British Columbians.

[10:45]

MR. JONES: I agree with the member for Victoria because I think any tampering with our democratic system should be treated seriously, and I think this is tampering with our democratic system. I think it's moving the people further away from their locally elected government. I don't think a great deal of thought has gone into this legislation at this level or at other levels.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll vote against it?

MR. JONES: Wait and see how I vote. Be patient.

The minister also argues that this is going to be a cost saving factor. I think that's a specious argument.

MR. R. FRASER: It will save money.

MR. JONES: Well, let's abolish elections and just have those holding office continue, or make it ten years or 20 years. That'll save money too. Democracy, which we're so proud of in this country, is not an inexpensive process, but it's a process that we are proud of and we want to contribute to because we believe in that system of government. I think that every time we remove the opportunity for the people to speak, it's undemocratic, and I think this is an undemocratic piece of legislation.

Certainly people want to participate in local government. They want to participate as elected officials and as voters. This is removing one year from that opportunity by people at the local level.

The argument that it takes longer to learn the ropes is another specious argument. If you can't do the job as a team with a variety of people who hold different lengths of terms, then I think you're not looking realistically at locally elected

[ Page 2266 ]

government. This government opposite has held office for many years in this province, and certainly there are rookie members and there are experienced members. To try to divorce this government from the previous Premier and previous administrations is also a specious argument.

In every local, provincial and federal government we have a variety of lengths of experience. Everybody comes in, learns the ropes and stays for a certain length of time and leaves. How long it takes to learn the ropes is not an argument in favour of extending.... If the minister is in favour of extending the term to three years — if that's the ideal term — I think we should set fixed terms for the provincial government and set that term at three years. I'd very much like to see that, because that would bring government closer to the people.

If we were in favour of democracy and increased accountability in our democratic system in this province, we would not be introducing this kind of legislation. I am sure elected officials around this province are in favour of it, because it's going to make their lives easier. It's not easy to go to the public when you've been elected; you have to go and campaign on your record and put yourself before the people and answer to the people. We're increasing by a third the number of times that people have to do that. The more often they do that, the better system we have. It's reducing the accountability of locally elected officials.

I have serious reservations and serious concerns about this increase. I think it's a mistake; it's removing the democratic process further from the people and moving locally elected government further from the people. It is a serious mistake on the part of this government.

MR. MILLER: I also have some concerns about this — not just mine, but concerns expressed by the mayor of Prince Rupert, who, as everyone is probably aware, is the longest serving mayor in British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The world.

MR. MILLER: And maybe the world — I don't know if he has that....

MR. S.D. SMITH: Who has he defeated?

MR. MILLER: He actually defeated me one time. I gave him the opportunity, and he appreciated it. In fact, he has defeated every opponent who has ever run against him. But that's not really the issue; that's not why I rise to speak on the amendment.

The mayor's concern — and my concern — is that by moving to a three-year election municipally, you do take some element of participation away from the community. In Prince Rupert, as long as I've been aware, we've had elections every year. The opportunity that gives to a council, I think, is a good one, because you have an overlap. You have experienced members of council, and newly elected people come in and have the advantage of the experience of people who have been there already.

I don't really accept the argument that it's a question of cost. I don't like the idea of bringing a cost argument in, although I certainly understand the need for government to be aware of costs. I don't entirely accept the argument that costs should be an overriding factor when we're considering when to set election terms. Therefore, let's dispense with that argument, because I think it's a bit of a red herring.

I guess I bring a small-town bias to the discussion, but we're really talking about the involvement of citizens in their community through their locally elected councils. By setting a three-year term, there may be some danger that you do remove that participation to some extent. Certainly I acknowledge the participation rate in off-year elections — in the elections where you elect only aldermen — is not as great as it is when you elect a mayor and other aldermen. But I don't know if that is necessarily an argument that should be used to change the term. There is nothing wrong if an election doesn't stir a great amount of interest. Really you're electing some local people to take care of local concerns.

The other concern is that if we move into a three-year term the process will become more politicized. Again, you can argue that it is political already, but there's a tenet that's been booted around for many years about keeping politics out of city hall. In fact, I sat on a council that comprised members of at least four political parties, and despite that fact, we managed to work together as a group for the most part — the occasional wrangle — to deal with the issues and to keep it out of the strictly partisan arena.

Anybody who is familiar with municipal politics realizes that to a very large extent it's not really a political process similar to this chamber; it's a process that deals with mundane issues, some might say, like streets, sewers, waterlines and things of that nature. So by moving to a three-year term, there is the danger that it will become a more high-powered, more politicized process, and that might not necessarily be good for local councils. As I said, I bring a small-town bias to the argument, but most of the local councils in this province are small-town councils. They're not highly political.

There are many other problems that I think should be addressed in terms of local elections. The voters' list is certainly one, and although it's not contained in this bill, it should be. All you have to do is look at the voters.... 

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Maybe the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) is not familiar with what goes on in the smaller communities in this province. He certainly displayed that when he talked about having to have money to go to education. It certainly was a big hit in my community during the election. I thank that member for those words during the last election, because they greatly assisted me in that election process.

I was trying to deal with the election of municipal councils, particularly in small towns, and the problem that exists just in terms of the voters' list. If you go into any voters' list, I'm sure you're going to find lots of people who have moved or who are dead. There's no process in existence for a municipal enumeration unless that municipality wishes to pursue it itself.

I wanted to register those concerns. Quite frankly, I haven't decided whether I'll vote in favour of or oppose this bill. I'm going to make up my mind, and you'll see the way I go when the vote is called. But I have no hesitation; if that's the way I feel, that's the way I'll vote. I think the concerns that I've registered are valid, and if the bill does pass, I hope the government is prepared to reconsider if those kinds of things in fact happen as a result of three-year elections.

[ Page 2267 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I found the comments very interesting. I can understand the concern that has been expressed by members opposite, but prior to the vote, I would like to remind members that an extensive report and study was done by members of the previous Legislature in this House, and at that time they were discussing the triennial election concept. The then mayor of Vancouver, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, asked his own Vancouver aldermen to support the change to three-year elections. So I would suggest that possibly members opposite should have a talk with the leader. I will appreciate their support for the bill.

I move that the bill be now read a second time, Mr. Speaker.

[11:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 45

NAYS — 2

MR. JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand my vote has been corrected. I understand there was one member of government who didn't stand up for the pro vote.

Bill 45, Local Election Reform Act, 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 48: minister's office, $235,919.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, as we embark upon this examination of the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, I would like to show how they relate to my ministry's recent evolution and how they will support the ministry as it fulfils its traditional mandate and lives up to new responsibilities.

We have before us the ministry's plan of expenditures for 1987-88, and certainly I would be remiss if I did not mention that behind this document stands a group of men and women who I believe conduct one of the finest programs of local government support in the country. At the outset, I would like to offer them a vote of thanks and appreciation.

Although we've grown through additional responsibilities, I can confirm that we are still lean and efficient as an organization. Over 93 percent of our budget goes into our two major transfer programs: revenue-sharing and transit. To further inform your deliberations, I'll take a few minutes to detail the overall plan which these expenditures support.

It is my belief that local government is the cornerstone of Canadian democracy, and it is this conviction which shapes the ministry. Today's estimates outline a plan of investment in democracy to the tune of $418 million — an investment which deserves our wholehearted commitment. Of course, there are many ways to improve the way democracy works in our province. This year's program for Municipal Affairs deals with a few of the most critical, which I will outline for you.

You have already seen the earliest steps of this plan in the legislation we have introduced to date. These include a process of decentralization to move the day-to-day government of our province closer to the province; a constructive program of legislative reform: a continuing high level of support for local government; responsive policy development to ensure that future action is rooted in municipal reality; effective management of the new additions to the ministry — safety engineering services, the office of the fire commissioner, and the University Endowment Lands — which account for more than 50 percent of the ministry's staff complement and operating budget; and finally the maintenance of a high-quality, equitably financed transit system.

First, our decentralization initiative, assigned to me by the Premier as a primary responsibility. We began by initiating the consultation process at the Premier's conference on decentralization, the first of its kind in our province. That conference was a fascinating opportunity to observe consensus-making in action. It was unpredictable and, above all, creative. The positions reached at the conference have now been passed on to a joint committee of the UBCM and the ministry. The recommendations will then be placed on an action footing that truly represents the consensus achieved. This has already led to legislation, and will require more as well as other means of obtaining the desired results of improved service and cost-efficiency.

I want to assure this Legislature that we intend to follow this pattern of consultation and consensus-gathering as the primary means of progress in municipal affairs.

Spinning out of these efforts is an initiative which ties in with the decentralization move. I am referring to how we have set the wheels in motion to create British Columbia's newest regional district, Fort Nelson–Liard River. It will subdivide the former Peace River–Liard Regional District north of the fifty-eighth parallel. A new regional district will represent a clean slate with which to work, and could eventually become the province's first test of the county system.

Another aspect of our consultative approach to legislative reform is the liability provisions that were recently passed by the House. The liability insurance provisions respond to the vulnerability in law of our municipalities and their officials, a vulnerability which is aggravated by the high cost of liability

[ Page 2268 ]

insurance. The provisions were formulated in full consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which is conducting a comprehensive risk-management program. with our full support, and making advances towards insurance-pooling options.

We have also refined our land-use legislation with, once again, legislative reform that is a product of careful consultation with our municipalities and the development community. This is a critical part of our ongoing commitment to municipal autonomy, which assists the development process in a positive way. This, as we all know, is ultimately linked to job creation for the province's citizens.

All of this adds substantially to an existing body of continuing support for local government, proven programs which reflect this government's commitment to democracy and progress at the local level.

A look at the estimates will reveal an enrichment of the revenue-sharing program, to maintain and improve our municipal infrastructure and provide our municipalities with the unconditional finances they require. The provincial-municipal partnership program is also progressing, providing municipalities with the means to strategically apply tax relief, funding economic development strategies in communities around the province, and assisting in their pursuit of investment.

Planning-grant support will be sustained, including 14 comprehensive development planning projects. These will review community plans, regulatory bylaws and financial programs, with an eye to more effective management of community growth in tune with the economic development strategies formulated under the partnership program.

We are recognizing that as our communities grow and develop, there is a need to restructure local government. We are thus providing restructure grants to facilitate the transition. We have also created an organizational policy branch to ensure that each municipality in the province has the type of local government best suited to its needs and its future.

[11:15]

A glance at the ministry's organization will reveal profound additions to its regular lineup of responsibilities. But first I want to confirm that the ministry will continue to fulfil its traditional role, offering financial, administrative and development planning guidance to our municipalities. Our policy and research section will continue to make recommendations for legislative change which truly reflect the needs of the province.

As to our new charges at the ministry, we are dealing with responsibilities related to a rationalization of government service. I am of course referring to the inclusion of the province's safety engineering and fire safety programs, as well as the management of the University Endowment Lands and the Provincial Capital Commission. With building standards, safety engineering inspection and the fire commissioner now under one roof, we can look forward to streamlined administration, with unified policies and leadership. These are dedicated professionals, who play an integral part in the development process and exert a steady influence on the quality of local economic progress. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome them to the ministry and confirm them as a part of a dynamic new team at Municipal Affairs.

Finally, we have the transit responsibility, one of the most pressing issues facing growing communities around the province. I am committed to improving the quality of the system and to maintaining an equitable financial structure to support it. Local participation is once again the key ingredient of success in this area. System development must be responsive to urban growth and the expressed needs of the community.

Thus, in sum, I present you, Mr. Chairman, with the budget requirements of a ministry which has assumed a wider role in the life of the province, which is committed to furthering the democratic ideal and is putting this commitment into action through policies of consultation and consensus-gathering at every turn.

That concludes my commentary, and as we proceed to examine the estimates in detail, members of the Legislature will have ample opportunity to question the path we have chosen and the budgetary framework which supports our pursuit of municipal affairs during the current fiscal year. I certainly will be pleased to respond.

MR. BLENCOE: There are obviously a number of things I wish to say about this ministry and its operation. I will have some specific issues to pursue, though probably not this morning.

First, I would like to share with the minister and staff and this Legislature some thoughts about local government, where it's going and where we think it has an opportunity to expand into exciting options in the future. Before I do that, I would also like to offer on behalf of our party our support and thanks to the staff of the Municipal Affairs ministry. Many of them reside in Victoria. I know them personally. They are dedicated public servants with lots of talent.

This is a ministry that doesn't often get much attention, nor is it often seen as an exciting one, which is unfortunate because it can probably be the most, exciting ministry if it's allowed its head to get things going. I'm going to talk about that later on. I know there are in the ministry and here in Victoria bright, intelligent people who have lots of ideas about where local government should be going. The opportunities for looking at the whole area of the relationship between provincial and municipal government, and the future for that democratic system, I will reflect upon this morning in the time remaining.

I believe we are in a new era in local government, but I'm not quite sure we realize it yet. As I have indicated a number of times over the last few months, Municipal Affairs should be leading the way in developing the innovations to govern our province.

Without reflecting on the bill, I want to go back to some of the comments I made earlier this morning on one of the bills about how we govern ourselves, the perception we have of elected officials of government at all levels, and the feeling that government today tends to remove itself from the people it serves. Whether we like to admit it or not, that's the reality and the perception that's out there and we have to do something about it.

Local government is the closest to the people. We've all heard that before many times, but I think it's accurate. It knows best the area it serves. It knows the people, knows its strengths, its weakness, its region. But in my estimation and the estimation of our party, it needs greater freedom to develop itself and allow itself to grow into a far more exciting level of government, dynamic and innovative. I reflect on what the government is doing in decentralization and why I think, really, it's only tinkering with the system currently. It's a good start, but it's only a tinkering.

[ Page 2269 ]

Local government is starting to define a far larger role in determining its own economic destiny. It's seeking — and sometimes unknowingly, I think — a higher place in the decision-making scheme of things. I think it's looking for equality in the constitutional or legal framework that guides provincial-municipal relationships. I think it's looking for real devolution of power in a meaningful, real sense.

Local government traditionally, and certainly over the last few years, has fought back against moves to centralize power. I have spoken many times in the last four years about some of the approaches of this government and its attitudes to local government. I am pleased to say that some of those attitudes are not quite as prevalent as they used to be, certainly under the past minister and the past government.

I think we have to go beyond the rhetoric and the word "decentralization," which has become a bit of a buzzword. We need some meaning behind it. The theme today is one of decentralization, and I have been participating with the minister and others and discussion has been happening across the province. It's a useful discussion and one that I hope will lead somewhere.

Local government, Mr. Chairman, has come a long way from the days when it was a level of government just providing services to property. I think we forget that, because I don't think, in many ways, we've changed our attitudes to how it should be governing or what it should be doing in terms of the days when it just served property.

What started as a few optional community services that were attached to the prime role of providing physical services has grown with increased public expectation for better local services. A fundamental change, for example, was the universal franchise at the local level, rather than just property. Everybody has the opportunity to vote, and that changes — somewhat unknowingly, again — the nature of what local government should be doing and what people expect from it.

Property taxes are no longer the sole source of revenue, and I'll get to that later on when I talk about revenue-sharing. Participation in far wider economic activities by local government is one of the areas where there is a lot more room for local government participation in economic activities and economic innovations.

I don't think we've really changed the fundamental way of looking at local government. We haven't really sat down and looked at how it runs itself and how the legislation in place determines its future and policies. We really haven't reflected on the historical roots of the relationships between municipal and provincial governments. That's where we have to go next, and that's why I have some concerns about the current process of decentralization. It really isn't getting down to that level. This whole question of decentralization and devolution — hopefully, devolution of real power — raises the issue of fiscal security for local government which has, of course, serious implications for the ongoing discussions on decentralization.

People that I know in the ministry realize that you can't talk about devolution of power or decentralization and the carrying on of services currently conducted by the provincial government.... We can't see those conducted by local government without talking about fiscal security. It's fundamental, and we've got to talk about it. It's not within the framework today. It's a tough issue. None of us really wants to deal with it. Many commissions and royal commissions have looked at it over the years from Ontario to British Columbia.

I don't know if the minister is aware, but there is a useful document from the United Kingdom, which I am going through now, called "Paying for Local Government." I don't know if the staff are aware of this, but it is an excellent document. I don't agree with it all, but it is a fundamental, radical attempt by the British government — I won't talk about the politics of the British government — to take a look at those fiscal frameworks between local and senior government. The member for Kamloops isn't here; he doesn't like the term "fiscal framework."

They're trying to come to terms with the reality that local government today is radically changed from that of 50 years ago, and we can't just tinker. We've got to address the fiscal implications for local government, or we cannot have real devolution of power, in my estimation. It won't happen. It'll just be band-aid.

We cannot discuss the decentralization without having a fundamental review of the revenue sources available to local government. It's absolutely critical, and I think that's what's missing currently in the discussions — absolutely. You're doomed to failure if you don't do that.

Decentralization cannot just look at what the provincial government does not want to carry on with. It's an ad hoc band-aid process. I hope I am not being seen as critical, but what I'm trying to say is that unless we get to the root, we're going to run into trouble. and we really won't get very far. We cannot just add on continually or take away continually, without looking at the root, the fundamental relationships in the historical, philosophical and economical concepts that have driven — or brought — municipal and provincial governments together.

We need to look at the global question of municipal provincial relations. This is hard stuff; it's not easy. As I say, many people have tried to tackle it. But there are jurisdictions that are attempting to do it. One of them is the U.K., and there are others who have tried it.

I have talked over the years about different systems that could be in place for paying for local government. I want to talk, and we will talk if we're government, about how we pay for local government. We've got to get beyond seeing real property taxes, for example, as the continuing base for funding local government. It's an ongoing problem; it's archaic, sure — property tax to serve property, But as I said in my introductory remarks, we've gone far beyond just serving property today. We have to look at a two- or three-tiered kind of formula for paying for local government.

Mr. Chairman, we need to take a look at the political history, the constitutional arrangements, the philosophical background, the economic background of provincial-municipal relationships. With respect to the minister, I don't think the current discussions, though very useful and to some degree meaningful, can accomplish a revolutionary, if you will, new formula or arrangement between local and provincial government. I don't always like to suggest this, but I think it needs a royal commission on provincial-municipal relations. We have the opportunity in British Columbia to be the leader for Canada and for other jurisdictions, to be able to finally tackle this fundamental question, and I think it's going to require a royal commission to get to the root, to study all the aspects of these issues that we're trying to tackle in the decentralization discussions right now, but are only scratching the surface. We can't scratch the surface. It's easy for government to do that; it's the easiest way out. But I don't think it will result in the long-term innovations that we require

[ Page 2270 ]

for local government success in relationships with the provincial government.

[11:30]

A fundamental review, Mr. Chairman, of those traditional links, starting at base one: where did we come from, how did we get there, what's the nature of local government today, and what do we need to do to see that it becomes a real, equal partner in this great British Columbian system of democracy that we have here? Otherwise local government will always be the child of the provincial government — which I think is an insult to those who serve, and the importance of local government. I don't like that term. It's been used many times, and when I first was involved in elected life I used it. "We're the child. The provincial government rules us. We can't blow our nose without checking with the provincial government." Unknowingly, perhaps, that attitude has changed, but we haven't changed the rules and the policies and the legislation to ensure that local government is equal. Maybe it's a teenager today. Maybe some things have changed. But I think the time has come to really start to take a look at the arrangements between provincial and municipal governments.

We need to review the fiscal options that will provide more flexibility for the future of local government, and allow local government, as I said, to at least achieve some degree of equality with senior government. The present revenue-sharing formula is based on resource taxes, and consequently municipal grants based on provincial revenues have fallen off in the past few years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired. Perhaps one of your colleagues would like to intercede.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I am fascinated with the wisdom we are hearing from our colleague, and I would ask that he continue to provide us with the benefit of his years of experience in municipal affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the member for his kind remarks.

As I was saying, the present revenue-sharing formula is based on resource taxes. Municipal grants based on those revenue sources have fallen off in the past few years. Obviously that fund should be maintained as a source of unconditional support for activities and services that directly relate to economic expansion in the province. But it must not be allowed, in my estimation, to become the sole means of supporting services which are based on provincial or federal conditional financial transfers that in the past few years have been cut back.

Local government should be given direct and visible means of supporting those services and defending those programs before the voters. I go back to my suggestion this morning that a royal commission should take a look at new formulas for progressive tax-sharing; and as I said, studies have been done in other jurisdictions that are trying to grapple with that very issue.

Furthermore, by decentralization we must go further than just tinkering with current provincial-municipal relationships. I'm going to re-emphasize that: we can't just tinker with it. Local government has a vital role to play in resource allocation and economic planning, and we as a party are committed to restoring local government's ability to establish economic priorities in cooperation with senior government.

This commitment will mean better selection of economic ventures that are suited to sustained economic growth.

In our current discussions and studies of decentralization — and I suggest also by a royal commission — we need to take a look at how local government can have a far greater role in economic planning, resource allocation and, indeed, how local government can participate in job creation. I have some suggestions, Mr. Chairman — specific actions that I think should be taken.

First, we should amend legislation to support the regional planning process and end the singular domination of regional economic expansion by the provincial government. Local government should be able to grant, lend or otherwise spend money for purposes related to employment retention and creation in a new or existing enterprise. Again, all these ideas would have to be looked at and studied, and recommendations made by such a body as a royal commission.

These employment-related purposes would include buying shares, giving grants and undertaking community economic development projects. We've started that in some way, but I suspect it's mainly small in nature; there isn't really a seriousness about community economic development projects. Municipalities and regional districts are the real incubators for small business and community economic development ventures. They should be — far more — the economic developers and catalysts for job creation and employment opportunities, and provide the resources to do that, starting to end a history of economic planning in this province basically centralized around the provincial government and out of Victoria.

Local government should be able to establish what I call not-for-profit companies for the purposes of promoting employment through advice, advocacy, loans, grants, equity investments or training opportunities. Local government officials should be able to act as directors, either formally or as individuals in a separate company established for the purposes I've just outlined. Local government should be able to hold shares in a not-for-profit company established for such purposes. Local government bodies should be able to grant, lend or otherwise use moneys for such companies established to do the things I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman. In other words, we need to explore how we can give local government today the power to do the things that I'm talking about this morning: the power to promote, encourage and stimulate the establishment, expansion or development of industries within or outside their areas of jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize this is a fairly major shift from how we have seen or interpreted the role of local government, which basically has been taking care of sometimes mundane but essential services like roads, sewers, fire, police and those sorts of things. Nevertheless, I think local government is desirous of moving into economic expansion but needs the facilities and the mechanisms and the power to do those various things.

To do much of this decentralized economic planning and development, the regions of the province need to have the authority to plan their own affairs and their own economic activities. That is essential. But how do we do that? There are lots of ideas and suggestions, but that also has to be studied. That's where the current discussions on decentralization really are just taking a look at current services carried out by the provincial government and what can be put over to local government. That's okay, but I think we need to go beyond that. We need to develop provincial economic plans with

[ Page 2271 ]

regional consultative planning bodies involving locally elected people; not, for instance, just have a Partners in Enterprise program that was supposedly a great partnership program but which we all know has virtually done nothing and has gone nowhere. We all know that tax giveaways out of the back door are not the way to create jobs in this province.

We need to set a clear time-frame and realistic goals to ensure that regions and the province work together on answers to local problems, at the same time as helping to participate in wider provincial goals.

These are ideas that I hope we can start to discuss, though obviously not just in here. I know there has been talk outside here by local government and there are people who want to see us move into these things and have this discussion.

This discussion and these ideas obviously have implications for the legislation that guides local government in its daily operations. I want to talk a little bit about the Municipal Act and give some thoughts about looking at decentralizing the Municipal Act, if you will. I think we need to take a look at a series of regional acts as appendages to the central Municipal Act. We need, in our legislation and in the acts that govern local government, to allow for regional differences, uniqueness, economic factors.

We know there are distinct regions in this province — geographically, physically, economically, socially — that are totally different. Yet we have an act that, in many ways, tries to homogenize all those regions and plan for all those regions through a Municipal Act that's probably fine for Victoria or Vancouver or the urban areas, but the frustration felt by those outer regions in trying to get things done or have a different approach.... I think we need to be innovative and creative enough to look at the Municipal Act in terms of decentralizing the basic document that governs the actions of local government.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You've been listening to the Premier.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and I will disagree quite strenuously on many of these issues.

It's time to recognize that we are a province of distinct regions. It's our party that has consistently recognized — and it's even how we govern our party now on a regional basis — that the frustration felt by those regions, by the lower mainland and Vancouver Island, or certainly around Victoria, is an accurate perception that many of the decisions and the benefits of living in British Columbia go to the lower mainland and the capital region. There are regions in this province that have been left out of the benefits that derive from government.

MR. LOENEN: Not in Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: No, I've already said that, Mr. Member.

Obviously there are many things I could talk about in terms of decentralization, but in looking at this we should take a look at the Municipal Act and how it governs local government. Obviously, urban areas have different approaches to issues than those of rural areas.

Let me give you an example. I think there is room to take a look at the idea that here in the capital region we could have a capital region municipal act based upon the unique issues that face the capital region.

[11:45]

Let me take an example in an urban area. We tend to have the same rules, for instance, in zoning and land use that apply across the board. But in Victoria, which is deeply concerned about urban design, the heritage, the seascape and the harbour, we need to have greater flexibility in our discussions with those developers of our community to be able to negotiate different approaches to our community. I just use that as an example. Up in the central or northern parts they may have other kinds of things they need to negotiate differently with land use and zoning.

I'm not talking about balkanizing this province; I am talking about starting to take a look at the differences that make this province so unique and so beautiful. Yet we tend to have homogeneous kinds of rules and approaches to local government. What we do in Fort St. John with the Municipal Act is what we do in Victoria or Vancouver or north of the Island.

I think we have to be open to looking to see how can we break it down. That's decentralization. That's the discussion that we should be having. I think I've given enough philosophical remarks this morning, but I think it's very important, and I hope we would continue to have these discussions. It may very well be a useful discussion for the select standing committee. In the interests of local government, both sides of the House could start to discuss some of the issues I put before this House today.

I have tried in my opening remarks on these estimates to indicate that we believe local government must be allowed to play a far more vital role in the governing of this province — economically, socially and financially. It's very important. They're working towards that, but I don't think we, the senior legislators, are seeing that there's a fundamental, philosophical shift happening not only happening in British Columbia but elsewhere too. The move today, because of the concern of people and the cynicism of government, is to break down government and make it more accessible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time has elapsed again under standing orders.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I too am listening with interest to the presentation of the second member for Victoria. I would ask him to continue.

MR. BLENCOE: Boy, some nice people in this House.

I'm trying to indicate in my opening remarks that local government has a greater role to play in the governing of this province. Much of it has to do with the fact that the public we serve feels in many ways alienated from the system and cynical about it in terms of accessibility and accountability. They want to see governments open again. I don't think there's a better way than local government, because it's the most respected and accessible, and there are a lot of things it can be doing in the scheme of things of governing this province which we haven't even thought of today. True decentralization into smaller units is easily understood; it's easier for citizens to work with and not feel that they get into huge bureaucracies when they try to deal with senior government.

[ Page 2272 ]

The time has come to seriously look at the power structure and the worn-out relationships between local government and the province. To do that, we need to allow ourselves to look at the entire system of local government and the historical roots behind it. We cannot continue to add on or take away. That's band-aid; that's ad hoc. I know, as I've said, that the discussions we're having now are useful, but I don't think they will serve the province in the long term.

Decentralization is devolution of power — but with real, power and real dollars to pay for the restructuring and how we govern ourselves. That is the challenge we face. I would hope that in the next few years the government will take up some of my suggestions and will recognize that the current debate on decentralization is only the start and that we have a greater challenge.

Seeing the time — and maybe the minister would like to respond a little before I get into specific issues — I will allow the minister....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I've made some notes, Mr. Chairman, and probably I'll require more time to respond than is available to us at this time.

Basically, I think the comments made by the member opposite were more philosophical than they were pointed. I would be pleased to continue on with the budget discussion, and I certainly will respond to specific concerns that he may have. At any time I'm pleased to meet with him or any member of the Legislature who may have ideas that could improve not only our relationship with local government, but the functioning of local government.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave the continuation of the discussion to members of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.