Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 22 -- Tuesday, August 21, 2001

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Motions without Notice		1000
	Referral to Public Accounts Committee of addendum and errata to 2000-01 Public Accounts

Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 7)
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Plant	1005

Community Charter Council Act (Bill 12)
	Second reading
	Hon. T. Nebbeling	1020
	J. MacPhail	1030
	Hon. G. Abbott	1100
	Hon. G. Plant	1100
	V. Anderson	1115
	Hon. T. Nebbeling	1115

Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 19)
	Second reading
	Hon. R. Coleman	1120

Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001 (Bill 9). Hon. C. Hansen
	Committee stage	1140
	Third reading	1140

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present addendum and errata pages to the Public Accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001. I'm requesting leave of the House to move a motion without notice.

Hon. G. Collins: Generically, Mr. Speaker, it is a motion to refer this errata and addendum to the Public Accounts Committee, as the public accounts have already been moved.

REFERRAL TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
OF ADDENDUM AND ERRATA
TO 2000-01 PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the addendum and errata pages to the Public Accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Just for the information of members of the House, there was a question asked by a member of the media with regard to figures that were reported in the Public Accounts around salaries, particularly for officers of the Legislature — and there are a number of those — and some others as well. On investigation by my ministry, it was confirmed that there were in fact 13 individuals where the reported salary, which is normally put in the public accounts, was incorrect. It's because of a change in the accounting process. Those errors have been corrected, and the new adjusted figure, which is the accurate figure and which would be very reflective of what was there last year, is now contained in this erratum. The purpose of this is to correct that and to refer that information to the Public Accounts Committee, as the entire public accounts were done last week.

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 7. I know the minister wants to the start, and the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I think, is going to get her items together so that we can do that. I think we had some confusion as to which….

Hon. G. Collins: Okay. That's fine, then. I just thought there was some confusion around which bill was up first this morning, but we'll be starting with Bill 7. I call second reading.

Bill 7 is straightforward in the manner of its expression, and few are its words. Its impact, however, on our political system and our electoral system may be profound.

The purpose of the bill is to provide for a fixed date for general elections every four years. To do so, the act will amend the Constitution Act of British Columbia. That act currently provides that members of the Legislature hold their seats for a maximum of five years from the previous election in the absence of dissolution. That five-year maximum is consistent with the provisions of the constitution of Canada, which are to the same effect.

This act will provide that, subject to the right of the Lieutenant-Governor to prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly as the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit, a general voting day must occur on May 17, 2005, and, following that, on the second Tuesday in May in the fourth year following the most recently held general election. So let this be perhaps the first occasion on which it has been said in this House, in this parliament, that we now know when the next general election will be in British Columbia: May 17, 2005. Get ready now.

It's important, however, to emphasize that this bill is drafted in a way that preserves the constitutional prerogative of the Lieutenant-Governor to prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly and, in so doing, ensures that should a government be defeated in the Legislative Assembly on a vote of non-confidence, the Lieutenant-Governor may dissolve the Legislative Assembly and call a general election immediately. Those are the traditional powers of the Crown. That is the traditional prerogative of the Crown, and nothing in this bill will undermine that basic rule of a constitutional democracy.

What happens is that if an election is called in those circumstances, the next election thereafter would be the second Tuesday in May in the fourth year following the date of the election called as a consequence of the non-confidence vote.

To try to explain that a little bit further, it would be convenient but possibly incorrect to assume that we now know for a certainty the day on which every successive general election will be held in British Columbia. We do know that the next election will be held on May 17, 2005. However, even that date is subject to the possibility that the Lieutenant-Governor may exercise his or her prerogative to prorogue or dissolve the assembly and call a general election.

It is equally the case that while in ordinary circumstances the next election after 2005 will be the second Tuesday in May in 2009, the next election after that should be the second Tuesday in May of 2013. It is possible, of course, that after a general election, the House may be constituted in such a way that during the course of the ordinary four years of the life of the government, the government falls on a vote of non-confidence.

If that were to happen in, say, May 2006, then the next general election after May 2006 would be May 2010. The four-year cycle will start after a general election is held, whether that general election be held as a result of the ordinary application of this formula or by reason of the exercise of the prerogative. It's probably less complicated than I've just made it sound.

The goal is to fulfil the commitment made by the government. It's a New Era document commitment. It's a commitment to ensure that provincial elections will be held on a fixed date every fourth year, subject, however, to the basic principles of the prerogative. Those principles are pretty important to constitutional democracies.

The government believes that this reform will bring about certainty and predictability in our electoral process, with the result that government will become more responsible and accountable to British Columbians. The goal, if you will — the subtext goal of this legislation — is another step along the way to dispersing the power that is concentrated in the office of the Premier under the present rules of our political system.

A key element of that power under our system as it is presently regulated is the Premier's power to determine when a general election will be called. Traditionally, that is the way it's done. It's the Premier who gets to decide when a general election will be called. Of course, he has to go to the Lieutenant-Governor, and the constitutional principles have to be adhered to. But those constitutional principles recognize that in a parliamentary democracy, it's the government's call, in a vast majority of cases, when an election should be held.

It would be nice to think that our political tradition shows an unbroken succession of Premiers who exercise that authority only when it is in the public interest to call a general election. I don't think that is our political history. Rather, I think our political history indicates, at least in British Columbia, that Premiers use their power to determine the timing of the calling of an election as an aspect of their re-election strategy.

They can accelerate election dates if it suits their political strategy, or they can delay election dates if it suits their political strategy. In all of those cases where there is an argument about the use of the timing of an election for political purposes, there is at least an argument that the public interest in certainty and predictability in the conduct of public affairs has been subordinated to the private political interests of the Premier.

This bill will make a change in that historical practice by ensuring that the general elections in British Columbia will be held not according to the political agenda of a Premier but rather according to a timetable which is fixed, which is certain and which is predictable. I think the result of implementing those rules will encourage, in the long run, not just greater fairness in our political lives, but it will also encourage a restoration in the basic relationship of trust that should exist between the members in this House and the government that they constitute, on the one hand, with the electorate on the other hand.

It is new. Questions were asked of me yesterday about this. One question was: is this being done anywhere else? I don't know the answer to that for a certainty. I'm quite certain that this is the first time this has been tried in Canada. I can't say whether it's the first time that it's ever been tried in any other system that follows the Westminster model of democracy, as ours does. However, I'm certain it's the first time this has been tried in Canada.

I don't think that should be a reason for us to back off. I think, actually, it may be a reason for us to be proud of the achievement. It's certainly the case that our political institutions in British Columbia have been subject to a pretty significant battering over the past decade or so. I think it's incumbent on government and it's incumbent on all of us in this Legislature to do what we can to rebuild some sense of public confidence in the work that politicians and governments do.

I think this bill is an important step in that rebuilding process. It's an important step because it strikes at the heart of the power that is concentrated in the Premier's office, and it says that we as a government and the Legislature as a whole are prepared to disperse some of that power — to take some of that power out of the Premier's office and to move it into other places.

That could be accomplished in a number of ways. Our government, for example, has established government caucus committees to involve private members in a formal and structured way in the development of government policy. That's an innovation. That's something that's new to government in British Columbia, and while there's a model similar to it in Alberta, it's also a relatively new idea in parliamentary democracy in the provinces of Canada.

I think that is another initiative that is consistent with the general theme of trying to disperse some of the power that is currently focused at the centre of government and primarily in the office of the Premier. In the case of government caucus committees, the dispersal is to sort of move power from outside the Premier's office and outside cabinet into the larger government caucus, from which the cabinet members are selected. It's to say to the members of the Legislature who are members of government, broadly speaking, but not members of cabinet: "You, too, deserve and ought to have a formal role in the development of government policy." They'll listen to the voices that private members bring from their

constituents around the province to the policy development table. I think that's a useful initiative in terms of achieving this goal of making the government of British Columbia more accountable to the people they serve.

There are other initiatives that we have embarked upon and will continue to embark upon that will, in my view, make government in British Columbia more accountable to the people we serve. But there may be no single initiative, in that respect, more important than the one represented by Bill 7, because it is the control of the timing of elections that has, I think, a huge impact on political life in British Columbia. When people are suspicious of the timing of an election, they become suspicious of the work their politicians do. I think that the passage of this bill will begin the process of undermining any legitimate rationale for that suspicion and will restore some sense of confidence that we as politicians are here to serve the public interest. As politicians, we are here to be responsible and accountable to the larger public interest rather than simply to our narrow political interests.

So, yes, Bill 7 is new; Bill 7 is innovative. Bill 7 is about reforming the institutions of government, but I think those institutions are overdue for reform. I think this reform is principled. This reform reflects good principles of public administration in terms of making government accountable and responsible. It's an initiative that will serve the people of British Columbia well in the years to come. I am delighted to be standing here to have this opportunity to speak in favour of this initiative. That concludes my remarks in support of Bill 7.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move that Bill 12, intituled Community Charter Council Act, now be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Mr. Minister. We are still on second reading of Bill 7. Is there any further debate on Bill 7? The Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. G. Plant: Well then, I am grateful to have the support of members of the House. I know this is an initiative that the B.C. Liberal caucus and the B.C. Liberal Party have talked about for a long time. I'm glad to see that it will enjoy the support of members of the assembly. We should get on with the business of making it law. Accordingly, I move second reading.

Bill 7, Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001, 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. T. Nebbeling: I move that Bill 12, intituled Community Charter Council Act, now be read for the second time.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the confusion, but my script of notes was confusing. However, I am delighted to speak today to Bill 12, a bill that will start the process of giving local governments the recognition and the powers to indeed act as partners with the provincial government when it comes to issues of local interest for the citizens.

The community charter concept is not a new idea. It was created in part by the UBCM, when in 1991 the Union of British Columbia Municipalities introduced a bill of rights for local governments that created some principles as guidelines for them when setting a working relationship with local governments and the provincial government toward a new direction and vision. This bill of rights has continued to be part of the UBCM agenda and, on a regular basis during UBCM conferences, the bill's value has been restated by members.

In 1995 the then opposition leader and leader of our party introduced a private member's bill in this House. It was the first time, indeed, that a community charter was introduced into the legislation of British Columbia. For that matter, it was also the first time that any legislation in Canada had the introduction of a community charter. It truly is a new way of creating a relationship between local and provincial governments.

That bill did not pass first reading. Since that time I, during my time in this House as critic for Municipal Affairs, have been working with a very dedicated group of people to rewrite the community charter of 1995 in order to make it reflect the realities of the year 2001. So we brought it into the new era, so to speak. I would like to take the opportunity here to thank all the individuals who have worked with me and with a committee to make sure that the community charter that we will be introducing in the near future will indeed reflect those values that local government truly wants to see enshrined in legislation, thereby recognizing them as a full partner in decision-making processes that are related to local governments.

One of the values that the charter strongly represents is for the provincial government not to impose its will onto local governments. In order to achieve that goal, it's only fair to say that to get the community charter to its next level of discussion, we have to do something that is unique but at the same time deals with that desire of local governments to play a role in the creation of a community charter.

We have chosen the path — and when I say "we," I talk about the UBCM, all the local communities that I've had discussions with and the provincial government itself…. We collectively have chosen to create a Community Charter Council. The Community Charter Council will have one mandate, and that mandate is to entice local governments to become part of the review of the community charter draft that is now in place. The local charter council will be made up

of UBCM members and provincial government members. This group of people, 12 in total, will start the process of not only going over the charter draft but collecting information from local governments on the many issues that we will be addressing in the community charter.

I'm very grateful that all the people we have approached to participate in this process have, without any hesitation, immediately responded to the call to give up a considerable amount of their time to participate on this charter council. This is not a paid position. I want to make it very clear: it's all done by volunteers.

I can also say that looking at the charter council, indeed, the overwhelming majority of members have municipal government background. Many of them are today in the municipal government system, and a number of them have actually been involved with the UBCM and local governments as well. So there is a vast wealth of experience in the group, which I believe will truly assure that at the end of the day, when we have the completion of the charter, that charter will reflect the values that local governments truly need to see enshrined in legislation in order to serve their communities in the very best way possible.

Just to quickly give some further information on how that ever-so-important consultation process will take place, we will meet as a council in the next two weeks, when we will start laying the groundwork for a number of presentations that will take place at the UBCM. The annual conference of the Union of B.C. Municipalities is the highlight of local governments coming together. Traditionally, between 1,500 and 1,800 members do attend the UBCM meeting.

I know, from the many, many calls and the many, many discussions that I've had and the UBCM has had with members of local governments, that there is an enormous interest in these presentations. So it's going to be a lot of work, but again, the council itself has without hesitation committed all the time it will take to get local government members comfortable with the concept of a community charter and how it will create advances for local governments dealing with local issues.

Following the UBCM we are going to go on the road. We're going to go into the province. We'll have a series of workshops throughout the province, and we are inviting all local governments to participate. The workshops will be based on soliciting information from local governments, soliciting suggestions, so that at the end of the day we have truly, as I said before, fulfilled our commitment to consultation with the local governments. That process will bring us into November.

By November, December and January we will incorporate some of the progressive or positive suggestions made by local governments on how we can enrich the charter over what it will already be by the time we go on the road. We then plan to introduce the charter into this House in the spring session. It will then truly be a bill that can claim that indeed the charter is a product of cooperation between local governments and the provincial government. That's the only way this bill truly can be created, as it is a bill that is focused on empowering local governments, and by including local governments in its creation, we can only expect the very best bill that is possible to be created under the circumstances.

It is certainly a bill that would be a lot better than if the provincial government had just taken it on its own to decide what indeed as a provincial government we thought was best for local governments. Local governments reject it. I'm pleased to say that that process will give local governments the assurance not only that we are serious about recognizing local governments for what they are but that we are focused on giving more autonomy to local governments. Thereby, local governments have the tools to serve their communities in the very best way.

That's the Community Charter Council Act, Bill 12, and I'm very proud of this legislation. It's bold reform. Municipalities have for far too long been denied a real voice in the process of creating legislation that impacts local governments. It's true that the Community Charter Council Act heralds a new era of respect for communities and citizens — something that they have strongly desired for a long time. When I say "bold reform…." When talking to staff here in the Legislature who have seen the proposed charter, they all recognize this as one of the boldest and most innovative pieces of legislation they have worked with for a long time. It is not just me believing that we are taking a huge step forward, but it is something that people who work with legislation all the time recognize to be very, very forward-looking as well.

I ask that all members support this bill as it is an important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading on Bill 12, further debate, the Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: My apologies; my comments may be a little bit more drawn out, because I wasn't told that this legislation was being debated right now. So I'm going to take a few moments and put my thoughts on record about the community charter. I'll start from where the minister left off, somehow indicating that the community charter legislation already exists, if I understood him correctly. He was very proud of the fact that bureaucrats who have seen the community charter legislation think it's great. I'm wondering when indeed the draft community charter will be made public so the minister can put that to the…when he makes his closing remarks.

Of course what we have here today is a process being set up by a group of people who will be advising the government on the community charter. I want to just raise some issues about what they won't be advising the government on, and I also want to raise some cautionary notes for the council itself as it proceeds through its work.

I note first and foremost that the Community Charter Council has 12 members, of whom eight come from the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Four are directly appointed, and the other four are recommended. So the UBCM has a two-thirds majority on the Community Charter Council. The reason I note that is that the composition of the charter council is key to this exercise to make sure that it's open and democratic. What we have here is that the Union of B.C. Municipalities is dominating the charter council. They're going to be governed by this legislation, and yet they are ones that dominate the direction of the legislation.

It does seem to me to be a very narrow model for the community charter. It could be putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, or it could be asking the UBCM to do a very onerous task: for them to be their own taskmaster. At best it could be an onerous task for UBCM, but at worst it could be the fox in charge of the henhouse.

I wonder where there's any room in this community charter for consumers of municipal services or municipal taxpayers. I don't see any representation or any allowance for the representation on the community charter.

I also note that the role of the council is preparing a report to the executive council recommending legislation. Again, is the legislation already written, or is this an open process? Is there a possibility for a group of people to submit their own legislation to the Community Charter Council and the Community Charter Council having to examine and accept and comment upon alternate forms of legislation than the one the government may put before them? If there's no representation of consumers or municipal taxpayers on the Community Charter Council and there's no ability to present an alternate form of a charter, then what is the process for? Is it that the Community Charter Council will rubber-stamp the legislation that the government's already written? I hope not. I hope that's not the case.

I also note here an absence of any specific responsibility to review how municipal governments are elected. It may be here; I can't find it in section 3. It does say that municipal governments must be democratically elected, responsible, accountable and accessible. And that's an underlying principle, but is it a principle that the Community Charter Council will actually comment on in its legislation?

I certainly hope so. I certainly hope that this government is actually going to look at the elections at the municipal level, because we are one of the few areas that still have at-large elections in local municipalities. There is no ward system in Vancouver. It's the third-largest city in Canada, and it doesn't have a ward system.

There's a real logical reason why it doesn't have a ward system. The now Premier put such obfuscation on the ability of people who live in Vancouver to vote for a ward system that even when they voted 57 percent in favour of a ward system, the now Premier, then mayor, said that wasn't good enough. He put a bylaw in place that said: "Oh no. Citizens of Vancouver have to vote 60 percent in favour of a ward system." That was the then mayor of Vancouver, now Premier of British Columbia. So he's not a big fan of majority democracy.

Let me just go on. Regional directors. Again, the now Premier was the head of the GVRD. Regional directors such as those in the GVRD are not elected at all. But they're making even more and ever increasingly important decisions.

So if indeed the Charter Council is to examine those issues about how municipal politicians are elected — great. We will be examining that issue very vigorously, and I will be asking every day what steps the Community Charter Council is taking to ensure democracy and accountability in local governments. Again, this goes back to the point that two-thirds of the Community Charter Council are appointed by those very people who need to be elected. So how are they going to do a review that will be…? Actually, I'm asking this question. I put it to the minister, and I'm hoping he'll put it to the Community Charter Council: how are you, the Charter Council, going to ensure that these matters are properly attended to?

I also want to put to the minister, hoping that he will put the responsibility with the Community Charter Council to examine changes that have already occurred with full consultation by the UBCM in the current Municipal Act — changes that were welcomed by the UBCM and in fact put forward by the UBCM but that have not yet been enacted…. They were certainly asked for and welcomed by the UBCM. Again, I spend a lot of my time standing up here saying that I fully understand that this government has a different agenda and that we did have an election. But we've got to be perceived, very carefully, to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Of course, one of those amendments in recent years was very specifically targeted to opening the door to direct citizen participation. I raise this with the minister only because there will be no consumers or citizen taxpayers representing only the citizens on the Community Charter Council. That was an amendment that allowed for counterpetitions. I'm wondering what guarantees the government will provide or what direction the government will give to the Community Charter Council to ensure that the major step forward to allow for direct citizen participation through counterpetitions remains. Perhaps he could point to an underlying principle where that can be assured.

I know that the Community Charter Council will be looking at issues such as taxation. It's very interesting that this government is talking about different forms of taxation. I hope the citizens of British Columbia understand that that's exactly what this community charter is all about. The system of taxation and the right to tax are going to change dramatically if this community charter is passed.

Let me just go through what the Premier has said about increasing revenue sources for municipalities. I hope British Columbians can participate vigorously in

this debate, because this is about changing taxation levels at the local level. The Premier committed himself to increase revenue sources by allowing municipalities to do their work. In 2000 he told the UBCM conference that, and here's a quote:

"We want to make sure you have the revenues that are coming from your communities to meet your community needs. This is not just about handing off responsibility. It's making sure you have the resources to meet them as well. We commit this: you are going to get 75 percent of traffic fines to make sure you can support your policing and your crime prevention programs in your communities."

He also said to the UBCM, the same body, a couple of years earlier: "But in reforming municipal funding, we should be very clear: the overriding principle must be that there will be no net increase in taxes." I'm wondering if there's a principle that needs to be better specified as the government gives away the right to form autonomous municipalities, whereas the provincial government gives away the right for the authority. Let me just read: "Municipal governments have authority to determine the public interest of their communities, including authority to determine the level of municipal expenditures and taxation."

Does the now Premier still stand by his word that there should be no net increase in taxes? Certainly, that's what British Columbians expected when this issue was examined. Even though the provincial government is once again risking the one taxpayer that exists in British Columbia to now let municipal politicians have their right to tax, I hope and urge and ask for this government to live up to its commitment that there will be no net increase in taxes at the municipal level. I think that should be written right into the legislation.

The other aspect of this legislation that I need direction from the minister on is about where the municipal charter council's responsibility lies in determining whether there should be amalgamations or not. I see where the opening principle is: "Residents…have the right to form autonomous municipalities that provide for the residents' needs for community association."

I hope that this municipal charter council does not have a mandate in some other form to examine amalgamations. If they do, could the minister please specify where that mandate comes from? We know that the Premier has made commitments that there will be no compulsory municipal amalgamations. We also know that forced amalgamations have been wildly unpopular in other jurisdictions. It's safe to say that unless they're done very, very carefully, with specific overriding concerns for the interests of the taxpayer who pays taxes and also demands services, they are doomed to fail.

I'm hoping that the government can very specifically address the concerns of citizens that the Community Charter Council will not be the back door toward forced amalgamations. I expect that the community of Burnaby would have very strong views if they were forced into an amalgamation with Richmond or if both of them were amalgamated with Vancouver. I'm sure, if West Vancouver was rolled into anything, they'd have objections — completely. I hope that the government minister responsible stands up and specifically shows where the legislation precludes forced amalgamations.

I also think we have to be very careful in this area to make sure that this is not an exercise in downloading. This Premier and his government are on record now as saying that there won't be any increase in taxes, and we will be holding them accountable to that every single moment. If this government is using this as an exercise in downloading, come clean with it. The now Premier made a commitment that there will be no downloading. That's in the New Era document that the government guides itself by each and every day.

I know that the members don't like engaging in debate, and they change the schedule to make sure that you can't debate. But I think these are really, really important questions that they need to ask, now that they're in government. I don't think they're unreasonable questions at all, Mr. Speaker. In fact, these are the questions that need to be answered now that the government is in power. We see them changing their minds on all sorts of other things, so it's absolutely essential that this government reassure the citizens of British Columbia about what their intent is.

Let's look at how one could define downloading. We may want to specifically ask the government: does the commitment to no downloading include a commitment to no rebalancing of fiscal obligations without the consent of municipalities? This concept of rebalancing of fiscal obligations was the process that Premier Mike Harris in Ontario went through in order to off-load responsibilities. Every single municipal politician should be very concerned about the concept of rebalancing of fiscal obligations. All the minister has to do is stand up and reassure British Columbians that that isn't the intent of the legislation and that what took place in Ontario would never, ever take place here. That's absolutely all this government has to do.

The other point I would like to raise in making sure the government does a full review of all of the issues is that they make sure that this is it, that the community charter will be it for this government and that they will commit that this round will be the round of changes that are necessary. They're bringing about radical change. I think it may be risky, but who knows?

I also want to just put in front of the government, who is here to bring about change…. Somehow they think that they don't have to answer for any of the change that they're bringing about for the citizens of British Columbia at virtually every single level of responsibility they have. Somehow they sit here with a smugness that says: "We don't have to deal with any of these questions." I think the citizens that are having their taxation levels changed need to have these answers. Their municipal government is being radically altered. I think citizens of British Columbia

The other thing is, of course, that the government is claiming that there is some great wide-open and accountable process to examine all of these changes. So far I see nothing of that. I see a council appointed that has two-thirds members by those that will be affected by the change making those recommendations to the government, and I see a piece of legislation that the minister says is already drafted. I hope the citizens of British Columbia will at some point have input into the reforming of municipal governance and municipal authorities, the creation of a third order of government and also changes in taxation.

I put those comments to the minister. The process of the Community Charter Council is one that must be fair and open and accountable. There will be vigorous participation by the opposition in the hearings that the Community Charter Council will conduct. I look forward to the minister responsible making those hearings open and public and well broadcast, because they will be well attended. Just recently the GVRD, the greater Vancouver regional district, wanted to change the way it operates its water system, and there was huge interest from the public. In fact, the GVRD wanted to privatize its water. There was a big change that a government, at the municipal level, was trying to slip through. The public rose up and said, "No, we're not going to put up with that," and the GVRD had to back off.

So I want to know where this government is going in terms of never allowing that to happen again, where the GVRD has to be forced into holding a public hearing, because that's exactly what happened. They weren't going to hold a public hearing. They had to be forced and shamed into holding a public hearing. Hundreds of GVRD residents showed up and said, "Sorry, your scheme isn't going to work," and they had to withdraw.

That's what this legislation should be trying to achieve: greater accountability at the local level and greater democracy — not the ability of local politicians to prevent local consumer and taxpayer participation in the government. All I want to do is make sure that is the responsibility of the Community Charter Council and, as these major changes are brought forward, that it's also a responsibility that the government changes it so municipalities become more democratically elected.

There are already critics in the process. There are well-respected critics of the process who are very concerned that the municipalities will gain even more power without direct accountability. There are others who are very concerned that the real intent of the community charter is to just open up and pave the way for developers to have their way at the local level. So I'm hoping the Community Charter Council…. Of course, none of these people who have these concerns are represented on the Community Charter Council — none of them. There's no consumer representation, and there's no taxpayer representation.

In the past the minister responsible has said that the citizens of British Columbia will have to wait for the legislation to be introduced in the fall. So I am wondering what he meant by saying that there is draft legislation already and that the bureaucrats are thrilled with the draft legislation. I am hoping that the minister responsible can clarify his remarks. What is it that he has in his pocket? Why do people have to wait until the fall to see the legislation? Perhaps he's changed his mind, and he is going to table the legislation for the Community Charter Council to go into the public domain with.

It's interesting to note how the government sits there and somehow thinks that to question them is wrong. For the government to sit there and say, "How dare anyone raise questions," and they hold up their New Era bible…. Well, citizens throughout British Columbia are questioning this government every day. Some of them just want answers. Some of them just want to have clarification, and others want to question the government on what its real intent is. That's all.

I think there will be many people who will have real, solid questions about what the community charter means for them as taxpayers and for them as receivers of services at the municipal level. This process which the government has set up with some legislation that…. I don't know. Is it hidden? Where is it? I apologize; maybe I missed the minister's opening remarks about his intent and where the legislation is. Maybe he did promise that the draft legislation that he has ready and is so proud of will be part of the Community Charter Council's responsibility to take out to the public. If that is the case, I apologize right now. If it isn't the case, can the minister please explain to British Columbians why they have to wait to see the legislation?

I urge all British Columbians to participate vigorously in the examination of the community charter, and I hope the government is courageous enough to open up the process in a way that allows every British Columbian who wants to, to participate in this process.

Hon. G. Abbott: I wanted to take just a couple of minutes to offer my support for Bill 12, particularly in the context of the thoughts offered up by the opposition.

First of all, I think we want to remember why the Community Charter Council Act is being put forward here today, why the concept of the community charter has been advocated by this government. It is to enhance local autonomy, and it is to prevent downloading of responsibilities from the province without consultation and without corresponding resources.

Why do we want to do that? Particularly in light of the ironic comments from the opposition that we've just heard, we want to remember why we want to do

this. We want to cast our minds back to November 1996 and the former government's unilateral and egregious breach of the Local Government Grants Act. That act, you'll recall, was put in place by the former NDP government back in 1994. They put it in place because they said it would offer certainty and predictability around provincial transfers to municipalities.

I find it completely ironic that the member for Vancouver-Hastings is offering up a bunch of bogeymen around the community charter when, in fact, her government is the best example ever of why this legislation is needed. The Local Government Grants Act was supposed to protect municipalities. It did not. In November of 1996 that government breached it. They ripped back from municipalities $113 million in local government transfers. They did it without any kind of notice. They did it without any kind of consultation. They simply said: "Sorry, we're breaching the act. We're grabbing $113 million out of your coffers without any kind of notice or consultation." And that's what they did.

In UBCM's estimation, the cumulative effect of that unilateral breach of the Local Government Grants Act has cost something like $1 billion over the period since 1996. So that member is the last person in the world who ought to be offering up bogeymen about assets and grants being taken away from municipalities, because theirs was the worst breach ever of that protocol.

Secondly, I find it very ironic, as well, that she offers up the bogeyman of forced amalgamation. It was in fact an NDP government, back in the early 1970s, that provided us with the last forced amalgamations in the province, and those were the forced amalgamations in Kamloops and Kelowna. So, again, I guess the heart and soul of the former government was hypocrisy and broken promises, and I find it disappointing and ironic that this member would stand up in the House and try to throw out bogeymen about this bill that simply don't exist.

I thank you for this opportunity to vent, Mr. Speaker, because I think I certainly wanted to do that.

Hon. G. Plant: I, too, want to add my voice in support of this bill, partly by way of comment on some of the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition, whose job it is to come in here, ask good questions and offer up an alternative vision for the issues that we're debating. I don't think I heard that today. What I heard instead was something that, I have to say with great respect, I'm getting tired of: the hidden-agenda argument.

I'm starting to get a sense of how the opposition member lives her life. She wakes up in the morning, and she dreams about the possibility of a hidden agenda. She looks in the newspapers, and she turns the pages of the newspapers upside down because she hopes that if she sees the print upside down, she'll see a hidden agenda. For ten years she was a member of a government that promised one thing and did another. She knows about hidden agendas from first-hand experience; she had a bagful of them for a decade. She can't abide the possibility that the people of British Columbia elected a government that made promises to them, that put the promises in writing and that will actually keep those promises.

Her political strategy is completely devoid of the development of an alternative vision for British Columbia. Her political strategy is a one-note tune: "Where's today's hidden agenda? Look for the hidden agenda. These people must have a hidden agenda; they can't possibly be a government that could actually keep its promises." No wonder she can't believe that. For ten years that was not the government that she participated in.

I imagine her coming to the House in the morning when the House begins its sitting, listening to the speeches of the members of the government introducing the legislation they promised to deliver and asking herself: "Where can I invent a hidden agenda in this? Where can I manufacture some alternative hidden agenda in this, because woe betide that we should have a government that would keep its promises." Woe betide that she should be so bereft of her own ideas that the best she can do is stand up and pretend there is something other than what there appears to be in this bill.

What there appears to me to be in this legislation is the implementation of a promise that the B.C. Liberals made to the people of British Columbia. This was the promise: we are going to reform local government legislation. You know, we actually went to the people in the election campaign. We had a 28-day discussion with the people of British Columbia about issues, including the need to reform our local government institutions. I won't attempt to improve upon the observations that my colleague the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services has already made, which demonstrate — if further demonstration were needed — that we need to reform local government legislation.

We're not doing that in a vacuum. We're not just inventing the reinvention of local government. We're doing so according to principles we took to the public and said were part of our commitment for change.

Let's see what those principles are. Those principles include passing a community charter that will increase autonomy for local governments. Well, that is a pretty sound statement of a principle. We could argue about whether it's a good principle; I didn't hear any argument from the member opposite attacking the principle. She had a lot of questions, digging, desperately searching, unearthing every grain of sand on the vast beach that lies before her, hoping that somewhere, under a grain of sand miles beyond her reach, she will discover at last the holy grail of the hidden agenda of the B.C. Liberal government.

There is no hidden agenda. It's time to reform the institutions of local government so that we can give local governments the autonomy they need to make decisions that are right for the people who live in the communities of British Columbia, to serve the public

interests of the communities instead of worrying day by day what missive they're going to receive from the minister of municipal affairs that will undermine their ability to make decisions that are in their best interests.

You know, there is more; that's not the only principle. The New Era document talked about outlawing off-loading of provincial government costs onto the backs of local property taxpayers. That was a commitment we made in the election campaign. The member asked the question about that commitment, and in fact, it is a commitment we made and intend to keep. There is more in the New Era document about what we intend to do to ensure that local governments have the tools they need to make the decisions they need to make to serve the public interest of their communities.

How are we going to get there? Well, this bill is, I think, a relatively straightforward process of how we're going to get there. This bill constitutes a council of people, a council of individuals appointed by cabinet and by the UBCM, who will get together for the purpose of preparing a report to cabinet recommending the precise form of the legislation.

This bill is a process bill; it's an enabling bill. It says that we've done some work over the years thinking about what a community charter ought to look like. But we've done that work from the perspective — and the outside perspective, if you will — of opposition. Now that we're in government, we want to make sure this bill works. It has to work for local government. It has to work for the citizens that local government is elected to represent. That's how we'll get there. We'll sit down with representatives of local government, and we'll take the ideas. We'll take the principles — including the principles that are set out in section 3 of this bill — and the group, the council, will prepare draft legislation. That legislation will be introduced in the House.

You know, the introduction of legislation in the House is about as public a process as you can get. It will be tabled; it will be read here for a first time. We're not talking about a five-page bill or a ten-page bill. We're talking about reinventing local government. It will be comprehensive legislation, and it will be debated. It will be debated in second reading, and the member opposite will have an opportunity to see whether it meets her principles — whatever they are — about local government in British Columbia. Then we'll have the line-by-line scrutiny of the legislation in the committee stage debate. I look forward to that debate. I think it will be an opportunity to test, in a detailed way, whether the legislation that has been drafted does in fact give effect to the principles that we've talked about.

It's important work. I think that it's overdue, but now is the time. We've been given an opportunity by reason of a mandate from the citizens of British Columbia to reform local government institutions. The mandate is set out in, yes, the New Era document. The mandate, the principles, the ideas that will inform what we believe is the vision for local government are set out in this bill. They are set out in plain language; everyone can read them. They are the objectives, the goals and the vision that we have for local government.

The member opposite didn't attack them. I didn't hear the member opposite argue or offer an alternative vision for local government in British Columbia. Her entire line of attack was to try and raise questions about things that aren't there — to hope against all reason that in fact there is some hidden agenda in this process. This is our public agenda. It is our open agenda. It is a new way of doing business in government. It's a way of doing business that is open and accountable and, I think, also will result in legislation that will be as good as legislation can be made to be.

I commend the minister on the project that he is about to embark upon. I wish him well. I wish well to all those who will be helping him. I look forward to the introduction of the community charter when it is prepared in the spring session of the Legislature in 2002. Let's get on board; it's a great ride. I urge the member to get on board and join us in this project of making the institutions of government in British Columbia work for the people that they are intended to serve.

V. Anderson: I'm pleased to rise to support the introduction of the community charter bill and to give a little context that this has been before the public for a great deal of time. One of the first things that the present Premier did shortly after he was elected as leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party and came and sat here in the Legislature was develop, in consultation across the province, the Community Charter private member's bill, which was presented at that time. That bill was presented and sent out to every municipality in British Columbia for them to look at and to revise. It was revised in the light of their suggestions. It was presented in a workshop at the national convention of the Municipalities of Canada so that they would know about it. It was one of the few leading highlights of new direction in municipal government.

This has been before the people of this province for many years now. It's a delight to see it coming forward, and we'll look forward to its final completion in 2002. It creates a new era for municipalities, a new recognition of their power and their authority, and it brings closer to the people the decision in the municipalities of their everyday living in their communities. I commend the minister for bringing it forth at this time.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I have some closing points to make. First of all, I've certainly listened with much interest to the member opposite. The first thing I noted is that she started to build a base for all her arguments by giving us some very serious misleading information, trying to tell the House that the Community Charter Council will be composed of eight members of the UBCM and four members of the provincial side, including myself.

For her to do that in this House is quite something. She has the bill in her hands, and it says very clearly in the bill, when it talks about the composition of the board, that four members of the council will be appointed by the UBCM, not eight. Introducing the concept that two-thirds of the council will belong to the UBCM, therefore representing a special interest in an overpowering manner, is fundamentally wrong. I think it was actually the basis for all the other arguments she was trying to make.

What really appalled me, when she started to question so many of the principles that we will introduce through a charter…. I kept thinking: "This member was part of a government that was sitting in this House for ten years, that worked for three years on reforming local government, that worked for three years to undo the Municipal Act and create the Local Government Act." You have to wonder why, if this member has so many concerns about what's happening today in local government — what we recognize as hindering local government from doing their job — this member didn't take the opportunity through the three years of working on the Local Government Act to introduce in that act all these elements that would have satisfied local governments, what they needed to do in order to serve their community the very best. I argued with this government during the process, three years in a row, to make amendments to represent a lot of the principles that we will introduce in a community charter.

It is appalling that local governments today are under financial stress because the provincial government off-loaded $1 billion of provincial costs onto local governments. And what did local governments have to do? Well, they had some options; that's fair to say. They had an option of increasing property taxes. At a time when the citizens of British Columbia were already burdened with heavy taxation, that was not an option in many communities. So then they had to look at the programs they were running as municipalities: parks programs, bylaw programs, community events. Many communities had to make the horrible decision to cut many of these programs in order to make up for the dollars that the provincial government basically took away from them.

That was in spite of the promise, as was explained by my colleague from Shuswap.... The provincial government guaranteed, in 1994, that certain funds would come to local governments to assist them with infrastructure, with special community programs. Arbitrarily breaking that promise in 1996 by denying communities the $113 million that they were legally and rightfully entitled to is the problem that has created the need for a charter, which indeed has one very strong principle, and that is not to allow off-loading onto local governments any longer — to prohibit it.

So for this member to raise that as a point of doubt — "what do we really mean?" — is not only appalling but, if the member truly believed that off-loading should not be permitted, she should have taken the opportunity, when that member was part of a government, to entrench that off-loading prohibition in the Local Government Act. She failed to do that.

The other point she was pursuing…. I do not want to talk about future legislation, but she made a point of one of the principles that the charter council is empowered to deal with, and that's amalgamation.

If there is one government that has a record of forced amalgamations of communities, it is that government. My colleague already explained about some communities in the seventies that were amalgamated against their will. But remember that amalgamation is not just for communities; it is also used for hospital boards and school boards. It was this government that introduced legislation to force school boards to amalgamate and to force hospital boards to amalgamate. It created a tremendous outcry of opposition from all these groups that were being affected by it. At the end of the day, the government had to drop the idea. If there is one thing that member believes in, it is the fact that forced amalgamation is okay in her book. Well, it is not okay in our book, Mr. Speaker.

We will guarantee, through the charter, that no community will ever be forced to amalgamate. If amalgamation happens in this province, it will be based on communities finding common ground to go together and seeing the wisdom of doing so. It will be up to the individual communities to make that decision and not the provincial government.

There were a number of other issues that the member brought forward: representation and consultation with various groups. She mentioned taxpayers. Well, guess what. Every member on that council is a taxpayer. Many of the council members are actually working in local government, but not as a full-time job; they do it to serve the community. It is their community contribution, but they do have another life as well. They pay taxes related to that other life. They pay property taxes; they pay income tax and school tax. So to imply here that we will not be talking to the taxpayers is, again, discrediting the members that have to be chosen to be on the charter council.

I think the member was hypocritical in many of her arguments. She found some foundation by introducing misinformation into this House about the composition of the Community Charter Council. If, in the future during debate, this is going to be the way the member wants to debate the various issues, I look forward to it because we can demystify many of her arguments and certainly expose her real reason for doing it. She has an agenda. One of the members already said that she is in pursuit of a secret agenda. We do not have a hidden agenda. I'm very proud about the fact that we are so focused on getting a community charter together with the people who, in the future, will have to work with the charter and local government. To include them as much as necessary and as much as we can to have the voice of local government heard in the process is something I am very proud of. It is an approach that we as a whole caucus embrace, and it is the only way.

Bill 12, Community Charter Council Act, 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. R. Coleman: I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill 19, which again demonstrates this government's commitment to promises made in the New Era document. In particular, there is the movement of my ministry to begin to cut the red tape and regulatory burden by one-third in the first three years that we are in office as a ministry.

This bill, the Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, eliminates the requirement that direct sellers obtain licences from government every year. It also eliminates the current requirement that credit reporting agencies register with government on an annual basis. These amendments to the Consumer Protection Act and the Credit Reporting Act will help reduce the red tape on business and will ensure that consumers are protected from dishonest and inappropriate business practices.

The Consumer Protection Act was passed in the 1960s, a time throughout North America where there was new interest in legislating to protect consumers from fraud and pressure sales tactics. Some thirty years later in 1994, in response to concerns about vulnerable consumers, particularly elderly, being taken advantage of, provisions were added to the act to require direct sellers to obtain annual licences. Direct sellers sell such products as home renovations, cosmetics and vacuum cleaners at a place other than their permanent place of business. Typically, this involves door-to-door sales.

Shortly after the addition of licensing to the act, B.C. began working with other provinces and territories to develop harmonized rules for direct selling. These rules addressed the abusive practices that licensing was introduced to combat. They include a cooling-off period that provides a consumer with an absolute ten-day cancellation right. Additional harmonized provisions address required disclosure and specific contract elements.

Licensing is not a required element of the harmonization agreement, and B.C. legislation remains consistent with these harmonized rules following these amendments. The removal of the direct seller licensing requirement will not negatively impact customers or consumers. The rules around sales contracts, cancellation rights, maximum down payment amounts and refunds remain in place to protect consumers.

One of the intended consumer protection benefits of direct seller licensing, the fact that government can suspend or cancel a direct seller licence in the event of inappropriate conduct, has also been retained by Bill 19. The bill provides that in the event of egregious conduct by a direct seller, the director under the Consumer Protection Act can order that direct seller to stop conducting business for a set amount of time or until the director rescinds the order. This order would be used only in the most extreme cases and only after other, less intrusive remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act or the Trade Practice Act were found inadequate to address the direct seller's conduct. Enforcement powers against bad industry actors are thus maintained without subjecting all, generally law-abiding, direct sellers to licensing requirements.

The Credit Reporting Act was originally enacted in the 1970s. The act established a registration requirement for credit reporting agencies, agencies that collect information from credit grantors and sell the information to businesses in the form of credit reports. Credit reports contain information about an individual's credit history and are used by lenders to make decisions about whether or not to grant a loan. Equifax and TransUnion are two well-known examples of credit reporting agencies. Currently, there are fewer than 20 credit reporting agencies registered in British Columbia.

Under the Credit Reporting Act, credit reporting agencies are required to follow certain rules. They must give consumers access to their own credit reports and correct any incorrect information in those reports. Agencies must have procedures to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the information they collect, and they are prohibited from collecting certain types of information. The removal of the registration requirement will not change the rules that credit reporting agencies are required to follow. The only difference is that they will not have to go through the unnecessary process of registering with government.

So what will happen if a credit reporting agency breaches one of the rules contained in the act? With the elimination of registration, the suspension or cancellation of registration will obviously no longer be available as sanction. As with the direct sellers amendment, Bill 19 provides that in the event of unlawful conduct by a credit reporting agency, the director of credit reporting agencies can order that agency to stop acting as a credit reporting agency for a set amount of time or until the director rescinds the order. This order would only be used in the most extreme cases and only after other, less intrusive remedies available under the Credit Reporting Act or the Trade Practice Act are found inadequate to address the problem.

Along with the removal of the licensing requirements from the Consumer Protection Act and the registration requirements for the credit reporting agency, in the near future government will be examining the feasibility of other licensing and

This is the beginning of a process in the consumer protection area of British Columbia that comes as a result of allowing a professional public servant to do the job of a professional public servant. We will move through a process to the spring session of the Legislative Assembly with a process to deal with all consumer protection in a much more streamlined manner, an act that will be there for the main reason it's supposed to be.

When it comes to enforcement and consumer protection, we want our people concentrating on enforcement and consumer protection and not being bogged down with unnecessary administration when they should be doing the job on behalf of the consumer. That is what this is about. It is a step down the road to reaching a goal of a ministry to meet the goal of the New Era document.

Bill 19 is a message to people that work in the civil service of British Columbia. If you have an idea and you meet with a minister and can justify the direction you want to go in, the ministries of this government will listen to you, take your professional advice, move on it and act on it. That's a good thing.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, 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 the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 9, Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.