Hansard -- Tuesday, April 29, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 10 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Petitions		6295
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Second Reading of Bills		6295
	Community Charter (Bill 14) Hon. T. Nebbeling B. Lekstrom B. Bennett Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt Hon. S. Santori B. Suffredine S. Orr J. Les W. McMahon H. Bloy L. Mayencourt

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room


Committee of Supply		6310
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued) Hon. S. Bond P. Nettleton J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today I am tabling a petition on behalf of 40 of my constituents in the Pine Hills mobile home park regarding the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act.

Hon. S. Santori: I call second reading of Bill 14, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room I call estimates debate for the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move that Bill 14, entitled Community Charter, now be read for the second time.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It's an honour and privilege to be here today as we move forward with the most empowering local government legislation in the country. The charter goes further than any other legislation of its kind in Canada in treating local government as an order of government based on principles of municipal-provincial relations. The charter is based on principles of mutual respect between the province and municipalities and of public accountability, principles that are enshrined in the Community Charter itself.

The Community Charter is a result of more than a decade of work and effort beginning in 1991 with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and determination of everyone involved in bringing the charter forward. Following this vision, we have worked to build a new relationship between the province and local governments based on respect and increased autonomy of local governments.

We recognize that local governments are the level of government closest to the citizens, and the Community Charter reflects that. Municipalities are in the best position to make local decisions for their citizens and for their community. The Community Charter reflects that as well. However, to make effective decisions for citizens, for businesses and for the community, municipal government must have the appropriate tools. Local government must have the tools to pursue opportunities for innovation and flexibility and to benefit local governments, communities and taxpayers by cutting red tape and out-of-date regulations. Innovative local governments are key to a solid economic base for our entire province. Strong local governments are key to the revitalization of British Columbia, both economically and in spirit.

I'll be discussing the charter shortly, but first I would like to take a few moments to discuss how this legislative framework for local government came about. To say the least, this is a historical moment. Municipal governments have long been a part of the economic and social fabric of British Columbia. In fact, the municipalities of New Westminster and Victoria predate British Columbia's joining Canada in 1871. Just after this, in 1873, the first municipal legislation was enacted, to be followed by two further generations of significant legislation in 1914 and 1957.

In approximately 100 years, the province and the local governments have had only three significant generations in municipal legislation. This was in the face of the province's growth and changing national and international dynamics. In 1991, keeping in mind it was over 125 years since B.C.'s first municipality was established, local government presented a bill of rights for local governments. This was led by the then Vancouver mayor and president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, Premier Campbell.

In the UBCM bill of rights, local governments sought the legal recognition as an order of government, but the work was to continue for another decade throughout which the UBCM continued to lobby for such things as title to municipal roads and mandatory consultation. They wanted to replace restrictive provincial approvals and red tape that incurred with provincial advice. The UBCM sought ability to expand financial resources and enhance municipal powers. They wanted a hand in their own destiny and a chance to help shape the community's future.

In 1995 Premier Campbell, as Leader of the Official Opposition, presented the first community charter as a private member's bill. The charter was to establish a new relationship between the provincial government and municipalities. It called for the prohibition of provincial government downloading. It called for eliminating unnecessary provincial interference in strictly local matters. For example, why do municipalities have to go to Victoria for permission to close a municipal road? With Bill M222, local governments would be more accessible, more accountable and more affordable. There would be less bureaucracy and less red tape, assisting and benefiting both citizens and businesses.

A year later the UBCM and the provincial government of the time signed the protocol of recognition. This resulted in the Local Government Act. While there were some improvements over the previous Municipal Act, we know the act did not go far enough in addressing the needs and the requests of local government. It

We as a government made the new-era commitment to give local governments more control over their affairs and their operations, enabling them to select the ways to meet the needs of their communities and their citizens. Last May I had the honour to present a draft community charter to the House. It is important — and please keep in mind — that this draft was not prepared in isolation. We worked extensively with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and other stakeholders. Their input was actively sought and was invaluable. At this time I would also like to acknowledge the Community Charter Council. This joint provincial-municipal government body oversaw the development of the draft charter. Their work and efforts were remarkable and appreciated.

Following presentation of the draft legislation, we were clear in seeking feedback. Since last May we've received a tremendous amount of feedback on the charter. For example, there were over 43,000 downloads from our website. Over 1,500 printed documents were distributed around British Columbia. Extensive meetings and seminars with local governments and other groups were held throughout the province. We also received submissions from business groups, associations, trade unions and individuals. These submissions, almost without exception, were thoughtful and thorough. We wanted to take them into account before moving forward with the new legislation.

I am well aware that some people questioned the extra time spent on the Community Charter. It's quite simple. The extra time spent working on the charter was for the best possible reason imaginable. While we were committed to implementing the Community Charter in a timely fashion and remain steadfast to that commitment, we would have been remiss if we didn't take the constructive consultations and submissions of those months following the draft legislation into account. We are building the best possible legislative framework for the future of local government, the future of our economy, the future of British Columbia and the future of the communities.

As I discuss the Community Charter further, there is one important thing to keep in mind. The Community Charter is the only local legislation in Canada — the only legislation across ten provinces and three territories — that legislates the principle of municipal governance and municipal-provincial relations. Local governments have long spoken about their common desire to have a real say about the present and the future of their communities. With the Community Charter, municipalities will have the tools and that flexibility to better answer the needs of their citizens, taxpayers and businesses alike. Municipalities will have the tools and flexibility to work with each other effectively to shape the future of their communities.

As we enter this new relationship between the province and municipalities, barriers and restrictions, including some exceedingly petty barriers, are being removed. This is part of a new era, a new rapport between governments and the recognition that innovative and solid local governments are key to revitalizing British Columbia. They are essential to the building of a strong local and provincial economy now and for the future.

To achieve these goals, the concise legislation of the Community Charter embodies three key elements of change: a new municipal and provincial relationship, enhanced autonomy and powers, and public accountability. The first element of the Community Charter is a new era in provincial and local relations. The relationship is based on principles that are enshrined in the charter. Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government within their jurisdiction. In other words, the province commits to treating them as such.

We know that British Columbia, its citizens, its businesses and its economy are best served when there is a mutual respect between the governments and autonomy of local governments. As part of this relationship, the provincial government will not assign responsibilities to municipalities unless there is provision for the resources required to fulfil that new responsibility. For example, with this principle you will not see the downloading of responsibility for social service and social housing to municipalities, as happened in Ontario.

As well, the Community Charter provides that the province will work to consult with local governments and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on matters of mutual interest. This means that we will work with municipalities in the development of the economy of this province in areas like tourism, agriculture and forestry.

Under the charter, we will consult with the UBCM before acts and regulations directly relevant to local governments are changed. We will not be arbitrary, and we will not be capricious. We understand the importance of local government as an order of government. We will not change local government grants or the Community Charter without consulting with the UBCM.

That is not to say that there won't ever be disagreements. As we all know, there are differences of opinions and viewpoints, and we recognize that disagreements or disputes may occur from time to time. This can happen between municipalities and other local governments or the provincial government.

Traditionally disputes had the potential to escalate into adversarial situations, which were not the best use of time and were certainly detrimental to the taxpayer. The Community Charter promotes alternative dispute resolutions, negotiation, mediation and arbitration — but only where necessary. The charter seeks the resolution of difficulties without municipalities becoming adversaries. We believe that the local governments would willingly resolve disputes without waiting for a provincial decision or going to court, both of which are time-consuming and very expensive. We believe that

municipalities look forward to resolving matters over such things as intermunicipal highways and bridges without excessive, expensive wastes of time.

The second key area of the Community Charter is the broader powers the municipalities will have to carry out their responsibilities and achieve their goals. It is hard to believe that traditionally municipalities were restricted in making decisions on such things as buying, holding and selling lands. They were limited in the contracts and settlements they could enter into. They were restricted in how and what they could negotiate. They simply could not operate in the best interests of the communities. In other words, they were restricted in carrying out functions that any other group or government could. Often municipalities had to go through a long and arduous process to get permission from the provincial government on matters of local concern. An obvious example is closing a municipal road.

Now municipalities will have the power to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements on local issues such as municipal services, trees and public nuisance issues. Municipalities will be able to respond to new issues quickly, knowing they have the tools to take action, for example, to respond to graffiti, disturbances in public places or unsightly nuisances.

With the Community Charter, municipalities have natural person powers. This legal term simply means that municipalities will have the power accorded to any citizen in British Columbia. Municipalities will have the power to enter into contracts, to make agreements, to delegate powers and to establish commissions. For example, they can assign responsibility for day-to-day management of an animal regulation and control service to a commission, giving citizens more involvement and clearing the council agenda to deal with the big picture.

I say, Mr. Speaker: why shouldn't municipalities have the choice to sell land to a particular buyer if that is in the interest of their community? Why shouldn't they be able to pursue affordable housing or recreational opportunities for their community? Why shouldn't they have the power to revitalize neighbourhoods? Municipalities can do these things today but only if they have the appropriate powers like the power to enter into agreements, be it with individuals, companies or organizations.

Municipalities can provide municipal services for their communities if they have the freedom to do so. Municipal councils will decide which services they want to provide and how to provide those services. They can help ensure services are sustainable and help reduce pressure, thereby, on property taxes. Municipalities will now have more ability to work together. They can negotiate and enter into agreements with one another, seek opportunities where they can save taxpayers' money and cut red tape for businesses and organizations. This will facilitate municipalities to work together — for example, to develop and implement a tourism strategy for an area.

Municipalities can work together to establish services amongst themselves. For example, it will be easier for one or more municipalities to jointly operate a fire department. With the Community Charter, local governments can create opportunities for their citizens, businesses and the community as a whole. They will have the power to work with businesses in providing services. Streamlined procedures in the Community Charter allow for innovative public-private partnerships. For example, municipalities can seek electors' approval early in the P3 process before lengthy and expensive negotiations take place. This will save time and taxpayers' dollars. These opportunities are about improving our economic climate and municipal infrastructure for the long term. Victoria is a perfect example with the demolition of the Memorial Arena and development of a new multiplex — public land and financing through the Municipal Finance Authority combined with the private sector expertise in project management, operation and marketing. These factors combine to increase recreational opportunities for citizens in Victoria, enhance the city's cultural life and strengthen the regional economy.

These opportunities are about the future. It is also important to keep in mind that the Community Charter is a balance — a balance of interests, a balance of present and future. With the broad powers of the charter, we must remember there must be equilibrium in those areas that are both local and provincial in scope. The Community Charter spells out these areas of concurrent authority — areas where local and provincial interests intersect. With concurrent authority, municipalities will have the powers they need to deal with local interests, while provincial interests or the public good is uncompromised — for example, public health and the protection of the environment and wildlife across jurisdictional lines. They affect all of us and must be dealt with as appropriate, be it at the local or provincial level.

Municipalities will have enhanced general powers. For example, they will be able to provide services outside their municipality. Of course, these will go with the consent of the host jurisdiction. This allows municipalities to use their expertise in delivering services, like fire protection or water for neighbouring municipalities or rural areas. They can also establish intermunicipal systems pertaining to licences or permits. For example, municipalities in the greater Victoria area are already leading the way with a common business licensing system that can be a model for other regions that wish to make regulations less onerous for business.

There are also further specific powers in the Community Charter. For example, municipalities can give the fire chief powers to evacuate public buildings and even close them if they are a fire hazard. Currently, only the fire commissioner has that authority. Municipalities can deal with declared nuisances. For example, municipalities will have a streamlined and effective process for dealing with dangerous structures. It is important to note that these broad powers answer the

longstanding requests made by local government, while maintaining a respectful balance with the overall good of the province of British Columbia.

The theme of balance continues in the Community Charter with public accountability. Municipalities now have enhanced autonomy, broad powers and a new relationship with the provincial government. But it is important to note that these new elements are complemented by the third element of the Community Charter — accountability.

The Community Charter contains quite a number of provisions in this area that call on the public to take part in local government. How do we do a move beyond the outdated traditions in this area? How can a local government be more accountable to the public and community it serves? It begins with the principles in the Community Charter. Under those principles, municipalities are recognized as an order of government that is democratically elected, autonomous, responsible and accountable.

Under the charter, municipal governments must prepare and present an annual report. This annual report is one-stop shopping, as it were, for citizens and those interested in the finances and operation of the municipality. The annual report requirements and the requisite public forum to present the report are at the heart of the charter's third element of accountability. In the annual report, items like audited financial statements are public information, along with reports on services and operations and the progress made on previously set goals.

The annual report also looks to the future, setting out objectives, the strategies for achieving those objectives and how progress will be determined. Just as important as producing an annual report is public access to the report. A public meeting is required at which the municipality presents its annual report. The public has the opportunity to ask questions of the council, and the public will also be able to provide submissions and feedback to council.

The provision for an annual report, along with the objectives and measures and public involvement, is augmented by other provisions in the charter. The charter also outlines the alternative approval process, meaning that electors may require that certain proposed municipal decisions, such as a new multiplex or art gallery, be put to a vote prior to action by council. A public vote is required if 10 percent or more of the electors ask that one be held.

Rounding out the accountability provisions are new ethical standards for elected municipal officials. Traditionally, there have been restrictions on participating in council's decisions if the councillor is in conflict. The Community Charter goes further in defining ethical standards. There are restrictions on using elected office to influence decisions of a municipal officer, employee or delegate when the council member has a financial interest in the matter being decided upon. It would not bar councillors from engaging in business but would restrict councillors from using their office to further their private business interests — for example, in a real estate development.

Outside influence is also restricted to ensure that council members who have a financial interest in decision-making by another body or person do not use their office to influence that decision. For instance, the mayor of a municipality cannot influence the regional district board or administration to take actions that may favour the mayor's business. There are restrictions on accepting gifts, fees or personal benefits connected with council members performing their duties in office. Benefits such as gifts received as part of protocol are to be disclosed.

We are working to meet our new-era commitment of a community charter, but as mentioned earlier, this is not a process that happened overnight. Just as we wanted to ensure that this was a constructive process in cooperating and balancing the needs and requests of many different stakeholders, we must also acknowledge that implementation will not occur quickly, as it will take time for municipalities to adjust.

This type of innovative legislation simply does not happen in a vacuum, and it cannot be enacted as such either. There are many people involved — many communities and many factors — thus there will be an implementation period before the charter takes effect. This is to ensure that municipalities and others interested in the charter and its new way of doing business are brought up to speed on the new provisions. Municipalities, in particular, must have this time to prepare for and institute these changes effectively and efficiently both for themselves and also for their constituents and their citizens.

During this time, ministry staff will be distributing detailed information on the many aspects of the Community Charter. The ministry will be preparing comprehensive information material, which will be mounted on the website. We know that small communities will need special attention, and we will be responding by placing special emphasis on small communities and the Community Charter.

We will be meeting and working with local governments to ensure this is as smooth a transition as absolutely possible.

With these education and implementation processes in place, the Community Charter will come into effect on January 1, 2004. As well, there will be legislation to make all the necessary consequential amendments that arise from the Community Charter and to ensure that there is a smooth transition between the current rules for municipalities and the new authorities under the charter.

We're also looking forward to the next phase of the charter. The first phase presented today will, in time, expand to include regional district and land use issues. The municipal legislation presented today balances our commitment to the charter while working towards balancing and resolving complex issues such as regional district and land use in the latter phase. I would like to reiterate some points discussed today. We are

committed to the Community Charter, as it answers local government's longstanding priorities to have a principled basis for the treatment as an order of government. This municipal legislation is unique in Canada in that regard.

Today we are successful in meeting the challenges issued over a decade ago by Premier Campbell and his UBCM colleagues and their subsequent work to build relations between the province and local government based on respect and increased empowerment of local government. The Community Charter builds upon the draft legislation and input we have received over the last number of months from local governments, from business sectors, from labour groups, communities and individuals. From the beginning we have worked with the UBCM and other stakeholders. Their input has been invaluable, as has the work of the Community Charter Council.

The Community Charter is concise legislation balancing broad municipal abilities and increased public accountability while protecting provincewide standards in key areas like the environment and public health. Local governments will have more autonomy to make decisions, and to make those decisions they will have the appropriate tools to efficiently and effectively deliver municipal services for their communities, benefiting local government, communities and taxpayers.

Strong, innovative local governments are key to British Columbia's growth and well-being, both economically and socially. With the charter, local governments can promote economic development, pursue opportunities for infrastructure and answer the need of the communities and citizens to better prepare for the future. No longer are municipalities hamstrung by narrow legislation that does not take their individual local situations into account. No longer do local city halls have to go to Victoria for decisions on simple local matters. Municipalities will handle local matters without involving another level of government, saving time and money. With the charter, procedures will be simplified, allowing councils, business, industry and citizens to work together in a timely fashion. Opportunities to harmonize regulations — for example, common licensing procedures — and the ability to work together amongst municipalities will again save time and money. There will be opportunities to improve municipal infrastructure and to improve the economic climate. Red tape will be reduced, public accountability and responsible management of tax dollars will be enhanced, and innovation will be rewarded. In short, municipalities can be responsible and proactive. They are now active participants in shaping the destiny of our province.

Enshrined in the legislation discussed today are principles of local decision-making and accountability. The Community Charter balances broad municipal abilities with increased public accountability. Individuals and organizations will have a chance to voice their concerns. They can step up to the plate and be an active partner with local government. The public will have more opportunities to hear presentations from municipal councils, check the books and consult on the matters that are important to them. But as already said, the work continues. The charter will expand to work with regional districts in the next phase. Consultations and discussions will be integral to the next phase of the charter.

British Columbia is a large and diverse province. Our communities reflect the diversity from large urban to small rural and everything in between. Municipalities and the provincial government have long recognized that one-size-fits-all solutions do not work, economically or socially. Strong, innovative local governments are key to a solid economic base for all our communities and the province as a whole.

The Community Charter is the means to those goals. The Community Charter is an integral part of our new-era commitment. The Community Charter is a key to strong and innovative governments, both locally and provincially. I ask all members to lend their support to this important piece of legislation.

B. Lekstrom: It's certainly a pleasure today to stand in this Legislature and pass my support for Bill 14, the new Community Charter.

This Community Charter has been a long time in the making. It has evolved for many years. I have a history in local municipal government, at which time — once you're elected — you go in and start to learn the ins and inner workings of your job as an elected politician at the local level. One of those jobs is to take the Municipal Act, as it was in the day when I was first elected, and learn what your abilities are and what your responsibilities are. That progressed through the years to a Local Government Act, and through that work — an initiative of our Premier and the minister for the Community Charter — we have evolved today to a document that I think is an excellent document. It is going to allow our municipal governments across this province to deliver on the services and commitments they make to the people that have elected them.

Simply, what this is about is allowing local government to do the job they were elected to do without having the provincial government in their way. People put their trust in the people that they elect at the local level. Many people put their names forward to run for office because they believe they have something to offer their communities. They have the ability and the time, and certainly they have the heart to make their community a better place. Many times, with all the best intentions, they were stifled due to a regulatory regime through the old Municipal Act, which was a permissive piece of legislation that really made it very difficult in some cases to initiate new initiatives for the municipalities and new services that would deliver and increase the quality of lifestyle.

So it's certainly a privilege, as I indicated earlier, and I think this is a very important day for British Columbians — for the people. I've had many discussions with many of my colleagues over the years and certainly now that I hold this position on this document, and many are very excited about the opportunity to be

able to deliver and drive the services in their communities without having to go through the red tape and the problems we've seen in the past.

The accountability issue. This is truly a banner day. Many people talk about the importance of accountability — whether it's local government, provincial government or federal government — and what those government regimes should be doing for the people and, when they do something, how they should report out. The minister spoke on the issue of our reports that will be put forward by municipal councils each year on what they've done and what they plan on doing. It's taken place to a degree, but this really broadens that. I think anytime you can improve on a piece of legislation, that's the job of every government, and that should be their mandate.

The local government consultation process was extensive. The Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which represents all local governments in the province of British Columbia, was extensively involved in this consultation. I would like to thank them and my former colleagues for the work they've put into it. This isn't a new concept, putting a piece of legislation together and enhancing the old legislation to really allow people to do the job. It's quite simply that simple. It's about allowing our local elected officials at the municipal level to do the job unencumbered, to allow them to deliver on what they have committed to delivering and do it within the bounds of this piece of legislation, which makes it much easier. It doesn't make a local council less accountable to the people. I want that to be very clear. That's a very important part.

Many people, when they look at streamlining or elimination of red tape, think it's going to jeopardize another portion. What this does is tell the people of British Columbia, from our government, that you put your trust in the people you elected as local government representatives. You've cast your ballot. They've won a democratic election, and now we're going to let them govern your municipality as they wish under the guise of this piece of legislation within the laws of British Columbia. We're going to step back and quit telling them, on every single thing, what they have to do and how they have to do it. They are the people who were elected. They are the people that the people have put their trust in, in their local governments, to deal with this issue.

A very important part of what we do in British Columbia is the recognition of local government as a level of government. It's vitally important, and far too often I think that was overlooked. We used to elect councils. We used to elect regional districts, and never did it seem that they were a recognized level of government at the provincial or federal levels. That was always, always a problem. Not to be recognized as — what I consider and as the minister pointed out earlier — the closest form of government to the people in British Columbia was certainly a challenge. That was changed. We have built on that, and we continue to build on it through the Community Charter.

I want to go back to the issue of autonomy. When we elect — whether it's provincial governments or federal governments, and in this case we're talking about municipal governments…. They need the autonomy to do the job they think will best suit the services needed in their municipalities. One-size-fits-all doesn't work. It's been shown time and time again in our province that what one municipality needs to deliver for services may not be what the next one needs. The document before us today, Bill 14, allows the flexibility for councils to work cooperatively with each other and, in cases, deliver individual services that they feel are needed within their municipal boundaries.

We talk about roads; we talk about water; we talk about sewer. It's quite interesting. We have had some discussion over the last number of months and some concerns expressed as to what this charter really means. I've had a couple of people talk about…. They have raised a concern, saying it gives a lot of power to the local councils.

Certainly it does, and I'm proud of that. These are people that were elected by the people of their municipalities to deliver. People run on a platform — all councils, whether it be for the position of mayor or councillor. They run, and they deliver a program that they think will improve quality of life. That's really what government is all about at any level. The issue here, when we talk — and I'll go back to the accountability framework — is very clear. I'm proud that we have a document before us today that is going to allow our local governments to deliver on their commitments and to deliver in a timely fashion — one that isn't going to be held up through red tape.

The commitment by the minister — and his dedication to this and the Premier's dedication to the development of the Community Charter — is one that I commend, and I thank them for the effort that they've put in. I thank all British Columbians who took the time to evaluate the discussion paper on the Community Charter. Particularly, again, I will point out my thanks to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities who, I think, do a tremendous job in representing all of the communities and regional districts across this province. With that, simply put, this is about allowing local governments to do the job they were elected to do and to do it in a fashion that will meet the needs of their residents. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to what I think is a landmark day in British Columbia with Bill 14.

B. Bennett: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Bill 14. I personally intend to vote in favour of the bill and am pleased to be part of a government that keeps its commitments. This was one of our commitments that we made in our New Era document going into the last election.

Bill 14, the Community Charter, is a positive response to a number of requests over the years from municipal governments across the province. They needed more flexibility to operate and to service the

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

I've been lucky to be part of a government that, in addition to keeping its commitments, allows its members to express themselves freely. Today I'm going to take advantage of this opportunity and express one concern that I do have about this statute — despite the fact that I do intend to support it and vote for it, and think that generally it is long overdue and an excellent piece of legislation.

I do think that the business community in this province has expressed some legitimate concerns about the legislation — particularly, I think, with respect to what they would refer to as the commensurate accountability that is required to balance the additional powers and discretion given to municipal governments. It remains to be seen, and I guess only time will tell as to what real impact that flaw — if it is a flaw, in fact — will have. In any case, I think that as an MLA, having spent a lot of time in small business myself and having been involved with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce for a number of years, I have to express this point of view.

Many small business owners in British Columbia don't have the resources to go to court if a municipal government decides to do something that hurts their business. They really won't have much by way of practical recourse if this wider discretion that municipal governments have is abused. That is the concern that I think small business has, and that's the concern I'm trying to echo here in the House this morning.

I should also balance my comments by saying I'm aware that there are many, many municipal leaders, mayors and civic officials who are quite pleased about the provincial government's introduction of the new Community Charter. I think that the implementation of the charter will tell the tale. It has tremendous potential to be positive in the province.

I understand that there will be a second stage. Perhaps in the second stage the concern I've just expressed that small business in the province has about the legislation can be addressed. Certainly, I want to offer my support. I want to offer my time and my own personal resources to the minister and to the government on that second stage to try and close the circle that we perhaps left a little bit open with this first stage.

Having said that and having discharged what I think is my obligation as an MLA in this government and representing my constituents, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: I rise in support of what I believe is revolutionary and groundbreaking legislation this morning. I congratulate the Minister of State for Community Charter for his work and the ministry staff and local governments around British Columbia for their contribution to this landmark legislation.

Why would I call this legislation revolutionary and groundbreaking? It's because, for the first time, it establishes communities around British Columbia as an order of government with clear, independent powers. They are no longer the children of the province. As members know, under the Canadian constitution there are only two orders of government in Canada — the federal and the provincial. This bill does all we can under our legislative powers to establish municipalities as an autonomous order of government.

Cities date back to an act of 1849 in Canada when they were limited to looking after pigs on streets — and, more importantly, trying to keep them off the streets — and controlling drunkenness and the keeping of bawdy houses. Under the British North America Act of 1867, which united four colonies into Canada, the responsibility of cities was left the same as in 1849, but they were transferred to fall under the dominion of the provinces. They were called creatures of the provinces and could only exercise those powers that provincial governments gave to them.

One hundred and fifty years ago only a small percentage of Canadians lived in cities. Today it is the reverse. Today over half of Canada's population lives in cities of over 100,000 residents, and when you consider all Canadians living in organized municipalities, the percentage is over 90. Cities today look after child care. They look after housing, sewage and water treatment, community centres, the environment and a host of other functions that were not even contemplated in 1867, but the constitutional status remains the same.

Incrementally, provinces across Canada have added new responsibilities to cities and towns through continuous amendments to local government legislation. When I was first elected to local government in 1981, we operated under the Municipal Act, which had hundreds of sections and hundreds of — and I do say over 1,000 — pages. It was overly prescriptive on what municipalities could do and could not do. The language was equally obtuse and out of date.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Premier in starting the process of greater independence and responsibility for local government. When the Premier was mayor of Vancouver in the early nineties, he was instrumental in creating a document called the local government bill of rights. I remember it well, as I was mayor of Richmond at the time and supported its concept and content. When the Premier became Leader of the Opposition, he introduced a private member's bill entitled Community Charter, which again endeavoured to empower municipalities to carry out their responsibilities as an order of government.

Bill 14, the Community Charter, establishes cities, towns and villages across our province as an order of government and gives them natural person powers. Previously, they had corporate powers that were spelled out in detail in the Municipal Act and, more recently, the Local Government Act. Natural person powers mean that municipalities have the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person rather than a list of corporate powers. The effect of this change means that local governments will have a wider range of powers more reflective of the responsibilities of democratically elected bodies.

In addition, the legislation sets out for the first time the principles that will govern municipal-provincial relations. These principles address the relationship between both levels of government; acknowledge and respect the jurisdiction of each; work towards harmonization of laws, policies and programs; and foster cooperative approaches to matters of national interest. In particular, the provincial government will not assign responsibilities to municipalities unless there is provision for resources to fulfil those responsibilities. In other words, there will be no more downloading.

I want to give a couple of examples. Formerly, all roads in a municipality belonged to the province. Of course, the construction and maintenance of those roads was the responsibility of the municipality, but the underlying property was owned by the province in lieu of the Crown. Now these roads are to be owned by municipalities. Road closures will not have to be approved by Victoria. Unused road allowances can be used by municipalities for housing, parks or other appropriate uses. No permission is needed from the province, and no compensation is paid.

An example I would like to reflect on is one in an area of Richmond we call Steveston, which had a number of unopened road allowances. At the time, the city wanted to put in a non-market housing project on those particular properties. There was considerable difficulty in pursuing the closure of those roads, but the province and the city and B.C. Housing came together to eventually put in a non-profit housing project that today under this legislation would be much quicker and much more simplified.

A second example. Formerly, as we know, all parks dedicated as part of a subdivision required provincial approval to be used for something else. Now, if such land is not suitable for park use and the municipality has identified a better community use for it, the electors of that municipality are the only ones that need to consent to the change.

A final example. Fine ticket amounts for fines will no longer have to be approved by a Provincial Court judge. Formerly, before any bylaw could come into effect that contained fine amounts for non-compliance, a provincial judge had to approve them. The municipality did all the administration, the ticketing, the enforcement and the prosecution, and the fines often bore no relation to the seriousness of the offence. Now, at least, the municipality can establish the amounts and defend them in court if necessary.

Part of the trade-off in giving municipalities more autonomy is that in return, they are more accountable to their citizens. I believe the Community Charter fairly sets out a balanced reporting mechanism to work toward that accountability. Today municipalities must have an annual budget and a five-year capital plan. This is a start. This new legislation requires an annual report that not only includes the audited financial statement but also must include which properties were previously tax-exempt and what the cost of a municipality is as a result of that, a report respecting city services and operations for the past year and a progress report on those services and operations, and a statement of municipal objectives and the measures that will be used to determine progress respecting those objectives for the current and the next year.

Today measuring council's progress on what they said they were going to do is very difficult. With a mixture of political parties and individuals at the local level, with many different viewpoints, measurement is most difficult. Now, in an annual report that must be approved by a majority of council at least, the public will have a clear idea of what the objectives are of various municipal departments and the municipality as a whole. The public can ask questions of the council and hold them accountable as to progress.

Usually when you get a new job or an assignment, there is a job description or terms of reference to go with it. That has not been the case for elected councillors and mayors. You went to seminars for newly elected people, and I would certainly like to acknowledge the hard work of the Union of B.C. Municipalities for putting on these seminars every three years for newly elected people in local government, both in municipalities and in regional districts. You learn from that, or you learn from council members who have perhaps served longer and look to them for guidance.

This new charter actually sets down what the roles and responsibilities of elected officials are. When I was mayor, I was the chief executive officer of the city. I could appoint committees, chair council meetings and declare an emergency, and that was about it. Other duties you carved out for yourself as you met the needs of your community and established a working relationship with staff and the rest of council. Now the mayor, as spelled out in the legislation, must provide leadership to council, recommend resolutions and bylaws, communicate information to council, give general direction on behalf of council to municipal officers and reflect the will of council. The last two points particularly are going to prove interesting for many mayors in British Columbia. Giving direction to staff and direction for the community generally must reflect the will of council. This may create a healthy dynamic tension — on the one hand, to constrain the individualistic tendencies of many mayors and, at the same time, to have the power of council support behind their actions.

Clarity in the charter around gifts, insider information and disclosure is helpful, as local elected officials previously had to rely on shifting legal opinions. The ability to hold special meetings electronically, audiovisually or just audio, or to bring an absent council member in through electronic means is a great step forward. Definite guidelines for closed council meetings, the ability to have staff or a person other than staff attend a closed meeting and the ability to have a closed workshop or a shirtsleeve session for the purposes of council planning are all valuable clarifications to allow municipalities to work better.

The last area that I would like to comment on is part 9, intituled "Governmental Relations." This whole part is new legislation and is the first of its kind, I un-

derstand, in Canada. I know our local government colleagues will welcome for the first time a legislative commitment that there must be — and I underline that there must be — consultation with the UBCM before the amount of revenue transfers are reduced or an amendment is made to this legislation that affects municipalities. This charter spells out how extensive the consultation must be and that all reasonable efforts will be made to reach agreement if differences arise.

The legislation outlines a dispute resolution process to be followed if a difference arises between a municipality and another municipality, the province or a provincial government corporation. This is the first time that a province has been bound to a process to settle a difference with local government — truly groundbreaking in Canada.

In conclusion, I had the opportunity to explore a dispute resolution process when I was chair of the greater Vancouver regional district and mayor of Richmond. There was a difference of opinion between Richmond and the GVRD on the growth management plan — a disagreement between two different governments. Although we only went a little way along the process before it was settled, I felt that the process chosen was indeed fair. Nothing as daunting as binding arbitration works as quickly and as efficiently to prod two parties to agree. Now a dispute resolution process is extended to municipalities, the provincial government and provincial corporations.

I would like to again congratulate the Minister of State for Community Charter for bringing this legislation forward and to thank all locally elected officials and their staff for their ideas and help. I know all local governments across the province welcome the changes it holds. We eagerly await part 2, dealing with elections, land use and regional districts.

Hon. S. Santori: I want to take this opportunity, first of all, to commend the minister on bringing forward something historical with respect to municipal governments in British Columbia and something that has been long overdue. As a former mayor of a community and having spent 13 years in local government, I welcome this change. I welcome the opportunities this is going to provide to municipalities.

I want to comment, first of all, on the process. I believe this was a process that was very inclusive, and it gave municipalities and stakeholders throughout the province a good opportunity to look at what the charter was attempting to achieve. I believe that the minister and his staff were very receptive and inviting in terms of suggestions on how we could improve this revolutionary change in how municipal governments work.

I want to commend the minister for the inclusion of all stakeholders in developing what I believe will be a charter that will serve municipalities. I think that for the first time, municipal governments will be recognized in terms of the value that they bring forth to their communities. For the first time, it is an appreciation that local governments and the people that live in those local communities know what is best for their communities and do not need a prescriptive act similar to the Municipal Act that was there before.

I think that on many occasions the Municipal Act stifled creativity. It did not allow communities and those elected officials who were trying to make decisions and changes in the best interests of their communities…. It would not be conducive to allowing them to exercise their creativity.

The new charter recognizes, as was said by my other colleagues, that one-size-fits-all, especially in an act so onerous as the Municipal Act, can work for each and every community. Each community within this province is distinct and does have different challenges, and most have different approaches on how they want to deal with the challenges. The charters will open up the doors to creativity and the opportunity to think outside the box and to make decisions that will truly reflect the wishes of the community and to do what is in the best interest of the community.

The member for East Kootenay made reference to some concerns regarding the businesses in the province and some of the issues or concerns they may have with respect to the charter. Let me say that I have the utmost confidence in the elected officials of this province in the municipal levels of government. They, too, like this government, are dedicated to creating a friendly business environment in this province, and they will not prove to be a hindrance to the business community. As a matter of fact, I believe that municipalities will go out of their way to work with government to achieve the goals we have set in terms of involving the private sector and strengthening the private sector in this province to meet head-on the economic challenges we have and to achieve economic prosperity in the future.

I remain extremely confident that this new charter will, in fact, enable citizens to have more input, to request and demand more accountability of elected officials who have taken on a tremendous responsibility in governing their local communities and in taking steps and processes that will ensure the prosperity of these communities.

In conclusion, I'm looking forward to the minister coming forward with the charter as it relates to regional districts, as I do believe that in the past we have seen some separation or some lack of clarity between the roles of the two governments, sometimes with conflicting mandates — something that has not always been in the best interests of governing our municipal communities. I'm hoping the charter that will come forward with respect to the regional districts will add clarity to the mandates of those bodies so that we can best serve the people of the communities of this province.

My final note, once again, is that I want to express congratulations to the minister and commend him for

the consultation process that was undertaken with all municipalities in the province through the UBCM and all of the stakeholders. I remain extremely confident that we have put in place now a charter that will allow communities to move forward and do what's in the best interests of those people who elected them in their positions.

B. Suffredine: I'm surprised that the Minister of Management Services could be so brief on this occasion. He had difficulty being that brief on the weekend when he was at the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities. There he waxed on eloquently for quite a while over municipal issues, and I was surprised he could contain his excitement on the Community Charter.

As you're aware, Mr. Speaker, for many, many years what is now going to be called the Community Charter was titled the Municipal Act. It's a massive piece of legislation that even people who have dealt with it for years have difficulty finding their place in. I think it's over 800, close to 900 sections. I was the city solicitor for the city of Nelson for most of a decade, and there were things within the Municipal Act that were absolutely confounding both to the municipalities and to others.

Things had crept into it like the two-month notice section that made it so that if you wanted to sue a municipality for negligence you had to know, as an average citizen, to give a written notice within two months or potentially lose the right to be compensated for damage caused to you by something as simple as an auto accident. It created some very great inequities. For example, if you were in a car accident with anyone else on the street, you had two years to bring your suit against them, but if you were in a car accident with a municipal employee driving a municipal vehicle, you had two months and then six months to commence your proceedings. There were some great inequities that existed in the former municipal legislation.

As well, of course, the municipal councils were relegated to simply a power of taxation on land. They had great difficulties in trying to find ways to bring initiatives like tourism development — trying to promote their cities for tourism projects — and no ability, for example, to put a simple thing like a room tax on a hotel at 25 cents a night or something like that.

The idea of expanding the ways in which municipalities can find sources of revenues…. The promise, at some stage, to do traffic-fine sharing rather than a grant in lieu of traffic fines is a positive thing that will, I think, enable those councils to feel empowered. One of the things that I find, as I go around my riding, is that in almost every area people feel that they have no choice in how things are done. They've simply been told how they're going to be done for years and years.

The example given previously in debate of the ability to close streets and roads. Now, that's a remarkable example of a place where what existed before made no sense. The streets and roads within a municipality are of no interest to the province of British Columbia, but title was vested in the province under the way the legislation worked, and the procedure required was extremely restrictive and complex. It requires an order-in-council to close a street.

In my community of Nelson some of those streets are so steep that they're hard to walk down, never mind drive down. They're not buildable, and they never were, but on the survey plan they show up as a street. So if a neighbouring owner decided that they'd like to buy that piece of property and use it for something for which it would be practical — make a garden out of it or something — the city council had to go through an extremely expensive process resulting in an order-in-council made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Victoria that usually took six months to a year, in my experience as a solicitor, and cost the applicant and the city a lot of money. What that alone will do is enable cities to use what is useless to them as roads, to turn it into a cash flow so that they can actually create some revenues for the city taxpayers and use the land in a productive way. It's a win-win for them, and it's something that just didn't need to be done in the way it was being done.

Now, there are still some concerns from municipal councillors about what's coming, and that's a natural part of change, a natural consequence. I don't want to be critical; I'm not being critical. I'm sure there will be some adjustments to the act in the fullness of time as we see how things work and how we can improve them to make them even better than what's proposed. For those who have some concerns about what they see…. You know, change is always uncertain. I think I heard quoted the other day that Mark Twain said that everyone wants progress, but no one likes change, and you just have to have both.

Perhaps there are even more sources of revenue that can be found and shared with municipalities. I know that it's not in the charter, but there may even be some consideration of royalty revenues for things like district municipalities that would at least be worth looking at. It's all about empowering those municipalities. It's all about making them feel that they manage the affairs that are relevant to citizens within those communities.

This is the most dramatic change that has been done in municipal law for, from my experience, probably four or five decades. I congratulate the minister for bringing this forward. It's a brave step. I know he'll have lots of work to do as it rolls out and as people start to see how everything is working and where it can be improved.

S. Orr: I wanted to stand up and give my support for this for two reasons. I spent many years, as a lot of us in this chamber did, sitting at a council table. I was an elected municipal councillor for two terms. When I was in that position, I remember thinking many times: "Now, hang on a minute. I am the grassroots politician. I'm the person that's making the decisions on the ground. I'm the person that on a day-to-day basis

I often used to feel that I had this huge responsibility on my shoulders, and yet I didn't have the autonomy that I felt I should have had. It seemed a continual grapple back and forth between the municipalities and the legislation coming down from government.

I can't tell you how important this is not only for the citizens of the municipalities but for the councils and the mayors and various other governing bodies around a municipality, let alone staff, who I know would spend so much time making sure that everything was working back and forth with government.

The Community Charter is the best tool that has been designed and brought forward to municipalities — ever. I thank the minister for taking the incredible amount of time that he and his staff did not only in putting the Community Charter together…. I know that it took a long time, and I know they kept going back and forth and making sure that they had a ton of input.

Again, as a municipal councillor at the grassroots level, input from the community was what we dealt with every week — two, three times a week. What the minister did with the Community Charter…. He did the same thing at the provincial level. He took this piece of legislation, and he worked with the people who work at the grassroots level and made sure that it fit what the municipalities were looking for.

Now I'm wearing this other hat. I still spend a great chunk of my life with the other hat on at the council level. I just think that finally you can sit there and you can make decisions right there in your own municipality. The fact that we have been given the autonomy and accountability, and that local governments have welcomed this, is so very important.

A lot has been said and a lot more will be said this morning, and I wasn't actually going to stand up and speak, but I felt this was so important. Again, relating it back to my former life, it would almost make you be interested in running for a municipal seat again, because finally you could do something at a much more local level and feel you have the power you should have.

So I want to say that I'm in huge support of this. I want to thank the minister and his staff for all the work they have done in putting this forward. I support this 100 percent, and I think the municipal councillors will find their lives one heck of a lot easier with this piece of legislation.

J. Les: I, too, want to take my place this morning and make a few comments with respect to the proposed Community Charter. It has been quite some time in the making, but I think appropriately so. This is very fundamentally important legislation that not only talks about the relationship between the provincial government and municipal governments in British Columbia but also gives municipal governments the tools to be more appropriately accountable to their electorates.

Like many members in this House, I spent a considerable number of years on municipal councils — 16 in total, 13 of those as mayor of the community of Chilliwack. Those were very good years, I must say. I enjoyed every minute of my municipal political career. But, as in many things we do in life, there were some aspects of it I found frustrating from time to time. Those frustrations usually had to do with the fact that there were an awful lot of times you had to go back to Victoria to get approval for, sometimes, the most basic of municipal matters. Many of these things will now be streamlined and put into the context of regular municipal approvals within a municipal administration. That is as it should be.

Municipal councils are elected throughout British Columbia, and in the ensuing three years they expect to be accountable to the people who elected them. We have hundreds and hundreds of councillors, mayors and regional district directors who are elected every three years across British Columbia. These people run in the first place, because they are interested in their communities. They want to contribute to their communities only to find, in years gone by, that they were often handcuffed when they wanted to think outside the box or become creative, or when they found that what worked in Vancouver didn't necessarily work in Chilliwack or that what worked in Chilliwack didn't necessarily work in Vanderhoof. I can draw all kinds of analogies like that.

This is going to bring creativity to the forefront in municipal government in British Columbia. It's going to highlight best practices. It is going to more readily enable municipalities to develop best practices, to think outside the box, to be more accountable and more productive on behalf of the ratepayers in their communities.

One thing that is particularly important in this proposed legislation is the granting of the powers of the natural person to municipalities. This might seem like dry legal minutiae, but it is in fact a very important step forward in terms of municipal powers, and where that really comes to the forefront is in the development of public-private partnerships.

As a provincial government, we encourage the involvement of the private sector in the delivery of public services. More often than not — I would say almost 100 percent of the time — that results in savings to taxpayers and, at the same time, the provision of better levels of service. We have many examples all over this province and certainly in the community of which I was formerly a mayor, where that in fact has been the case.

The archaic rules, though, that were set out in the Municipal Act made it sometimes virtually impossible for communities to intelligently structure a public-private partnership.

Frankly, that still is the case today, and I have a current example. The city of Chilliwack is currently in the final stages of putting a package together whereby, through a public-private partnership, a new hockey arena is going to be built for the community. At a very late stage, after the counterpetition process which is

currently required, a positive development occurred, and that is this. A gentleman by the name of Pat Quinn, who some might recognize as the coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs, has decided to become an investor in this project. That has resulted in this project becoming a better bet in terms of financing. When they go to the financial markets, the involvement of Pat Quinn means that they've been able to achieve a better interest rate.

One would think, normally, that that would simply involve an amendment to the agreement and that — because the electors of the city of Chilliwack had already had an opportunity through the counterpetition process to express their opinion, and given that only two people had registered any contrary opinion — no further process would be required. What is the case, in fact, is that the entire project has to go back through the counterpetition process in order for this very positive development to be put together with the addition of one additional investor. That is the ridiculous extent to which the current act puts municipalities through some very convoluted procedures and acts as a disincentive to often a better way of doing business.

I am and always have been a real proponent of public-private partnerships. I think we can deliver far greater value to the taxpaying public for the taxes that they send to Victoria, which they send to their respective city halls. This municipal charter will be a huge step forward in enabling communities around British Columbia to take advantage of those business arrangements that deliver services to their electorates.

There's been a lot of work that has gone into developing this Community Charter, and I want to commend the minister and his staff and the various advisers that have worked with the minister. I know that some of the people that have worked with the minister, who I've known in years gone by, I guess now sit in the municipal senate. He has very appropriately tapped into those resources to garner their expertise and their insight. I know that collectively we've worked very closely with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. That's been a lengthy and laborious process but a necessary process, because we are dealing with roughly 180 municipal governments across British Columbia. Again, what works for some doesn't necessarily work for the rest, and vice versa.

I want to comment for a minute, as well, about this notion of expanding sources of revenue. I think, in the first instance, what is important here is that municipalities have an opportunity to do a better job with the revenue they have — hence my emphasis on public-private partnerships. The expanded sources of revenue debate sounds, to members of the public who listen to these debates, like another excuse for a level of government to invent ways to extract more taxes from them. I don't think, in the first instance, that that is what this is about. This is about doing more, doing better, being more accountable with the tax revenues that are already collected. I think that is an important distinction.

I know there will be a future phase of this project that will embark on an examination of other sources of revenue that should be made available to municipalities, but I think we need to do that very, very cautiously. We need to allow the act as we now have it to really take its place in the public life of British Columbia and in the workings of municipal government to fully demonstrate the advantages that are available in this legislation before we go into other areas of inventing new ways to broaden the tax take that comes from British Columbians.

With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you for making time available this morning for this debate. I'm interested to see what my other colleagues have to say, and I'm looking forward, as I'm sure many city councils are across British Columbia, to seeing the bringing of this act into fruition in the months ahead.

W. McMahon: It's a pleasure today to participate in second reading of Bill 14, the Community Charter. It has certainly been a long time in the process, and rightfully so. It has been a huge undertaking. There is no doubt, as I look at the Community Charter and the possibilities, that I have to recognize the Kootenays, the area I represent, and what it will do for our communities.

The Kootenays are opening up to economic development. We can look at the Cranbrook Airport expansion or the road improvements to Kicking Horse Canyon and the announcement last week of $1.85 million for the Boundary roads or the Brilliant Dam expansion. Those are all economic opportunities — huge opportunities — for the area, and I know that local governments want to be part of this process of leading in developing the economic opportunities for their communities. The Community Charter, I know, will allow them to do this. It is a historic document. It will give local governments the tools they've wanted to be able to do what's best for their communities.

There is discussion around the province about the B.C. resorts strategy that the Premier spoke about in his state-of-the-province address, and I believe there are huge opportunities for us and for the communities in British Columbia to take advantage of the discussion. Look at what Whistler became because the local government there had the tools under their own charter to move forward. The Community Charter will allow other governments in other regions of British Columbia to do something similar and become their own entities and manage their own futures.

There is autonomy and accountability under this charter. This past weekend I attended the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities AGM, and as I walked around and talked to various mayors and councillors and staff, what I heard there is that Bill 14 is great. I think they're looking to the future. Of course, with change there's always uncertainty, and they're looking to see where that will take them, and I know we will be able to fine-tune the issues within the charter that people maybe come forward with, which aren't quite what we thought they might be.

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

and his staff for their commitment and their work on this very long process and to let him know he has my support as we move forward.

H. Bloy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today to the second reading of Bill 14, the Community Charter.

It's been a privilege to run and to serve the people of British Columbia in my riding of Burquitlam. Unlike a number of my colleagues, I've never served at the city level before, but I've been very involved in my city and in the community. A majority of city councillors and mayors run for the benefit of their citizens. They're prepared to discuss matters in an open manner. They're prepared to go forward. They're prepared to offer positive suggestions on what they should do in their city and for the provincial government. Then we have the sad fact that there are some mayors and councillors that run only to refight past elections. They can't let go. They don't know how to govern. They only know how to complain, and I feel that this is a terrible situation.

The minister has put so much work into this legislation, and I believe that it's truly beneficial and that he should be commended for all the hard work he has done on behalf of all British Columbians.

What is the Community Charter? It's about being open and accountable. The Community Charter sets out a new relationship between the provincial government and local governments. It will provide greater autonomy to municipalities, more accountability and better services to local taxpayers.

The Community Charter enacts the most empowering local government legislation in Canada. It goes further than any provincial legislation in recognizing municipalities as an order of government. The legislation moves provincial authority in areas of local interest to where it belongs — to municipal councils, who are in the best position to respond to the wishes of local citizens.

The Community Charter will cut red tape and reduce regulations. It will give communities the tools they need to realize the full potential of their communities and to stimulate economic growth within their areas. The provincial government will continue to set provincewide standards in areas like the economy, the environment and public health.

There are a number of questions that have been asked about the Community Charter. The charter is about allowing municipalities to have more flexibility in their decision-making. Currently, municipalities are limited in how they can address local needs. The Community Charter will allow governments to be more flexible in addressing the concerns of their local residents and of businesses within their community. Both the provincial government and the local governments are clear that overtaxing creates a poor business environment.

Many of the cities had asked in the past: "We want more autonomy." Well, we're giving it to you. We're going to give you the ability to set taxing levels, but taxing levels that are fair to everybody in your community — residents and businesses. Our government believes that a thriving and successful business leads to thriving and successful municipalities and regions.

Economic development. In fact, the purpose of the Community Charter is to stimulate economic development. Municipalities will now be able to find innovative means to address local needs such as necessary improvements to infrastructure that lead to economic development. They will be able to listen to the concerns and proposals of their area and then be able to make the decisions that will allow these developments and economic growth to actually happen. They will have control of that.

The Community Charter allows for the increased usage of P3s. They are the partnerships between government and business, striving to develop local economies. I believe that the cities and the municipalities and the regions should treat every business in this province fairly, that there should be open tendering on every project and that we should be enhancing P3s — unlike some municipalities that limit it to unions only. I believe this is wrong. When every business and every working person in this province pays taxes, they should have a fair share of every government contract that's put out to tender.

We have to stop this limited in-house working or unions making rules up to support union businesses. Governments have to step back and say: "We're here for every citizen of British Columbia, and we want every citizen and every business to have the fairest opportunity in which to do business in British Columbia." In fact, the purpose of the Community Charter, as I've been trying to say, is to stimulate economic development. Municipalities will now be able to find innovative means in which to make developments and improvements happen in infrastructure.

Getting the economy moving. The Community Charter will allow local authorities to make decisions in a timely manner. No more blaming it on: "Well, we're waiting for another level of government to make a decision for us." They will be able to set the time lines. The authority will allow communities to address challenges quickly and in the best interests of communities. The decision for communities to exceed by taking a timely advantage of all opportunities….

Other questions that have been asked — amalgamation of municipalities. Well, that seems to be a touchy issue in some areas, but let's discuss it. This government and this minister have been open in bringing everything forward for the people of British Columbia. There has been more consultation on this process than at any other time. The Community Charter explicitly lists the approval process necessary for amalgamations to occur. Currently, the province has the power to force amalgamation of municipalities against a community's will. This has been done recently in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Under the Community Charter, each community would have to agree before amal-

gamation could take place. This is where we're being open and accountable, and again I have to commend the minister.

The question has been asked: how do citizens fit into the charter? Currently, councils are accountable through elections, mandatory open meetings, access-to-information legislation and, in some cases, direct resident approval of some actions. The charter will add three new tools to this: annual reports, annual meetings and ethical conduct standards. It is crucial to democracy, to the new spirit of respect and cooperation between all levels of government and its citizens, that public input and public involvement be expanded. These new tools are a way to bring the people under the same roof.

I believe that this is so far-reaching, versus any other province anywhere else in Canada, that we are the leading force. Again I have to thank the minister and commend him for all the hard work that he has done on the Community Charter.

The next question is: how will councils be held accountable? The three new tools will allow citizens, businesses and other stakeholders to hold council accountable for their actions and decisions. The councils will be putting out annual reports. They're going to have annual meetings, just like a board of directors for any major corporation, and they're going to be provided with ethical conduct standards. This is just opening up the process of government and accountability more and more every day. The Community Charter requires these meetings and reports. The meetings and reports will make sure that councils are open and transparent.

Another question that's been asked: does the charter improve relationships between the province and local governments? The charter will recognize local governments as an order of government within their jurisdiction. That substantial move will be the foundation upon which a relationship with the provincial government is built. That provincial government relationship is built on mutual respect, recognition of interest, intergovernmental dialogue and joint management. Currently, the provincial government may change local government legislation without adequate consultation. This will no longer happen. Under the charter, the provincial government will be required to seek input on proposed changes to local government legislation or revenue transfers.

Another question that's been asked is on tourism in the Community Charter. Like any industry, the tourism sector will benefit from the passing of the Community Charter. Local government and municipalities will soon have the flexibility to address challenges faced by all industries, including tourism. Councils will now have the opportunity to employ innovative ideas to meet these challenges.

Tourism is going to grow with the awarding of the 2009 World Police and Fire Games to Burnaby, British Columbia, and I would just like to talk about that for a moment. The 2009 World Police and Fire Games were awarded, but it was really the hard work of two local firemen in Burnaby, Jeff Clark and Miles Ritchie, who each put $2,500 (U.S.) on their own personal credit cards to get a deposit down to host the games in Burnaby.

I want to thank and say what an honour it was to work with my colleagues from Burnaby-Edmonds, Burnaby-Willingdon and Burnaby North. We worked with the minister of aboriginal and community affairs and with the Premier to support this initiative. My colleagues and I were the driving force behind supporting the World Police and Fire Games. We brought the province to the table. We worked with Tourism B.C. and Tourism Vancouver to assist them. We were there. We hosted a reception for the bid committee on the first night.

This is something where local governments will now be able to step in sooner. When they see opportunities arise, they will be able to participate. It should be at the local level, even though it's the British Columbia Police and Fire Games. We were awarded it last Saturday afternoon, and there was a big ball by the Burnaby firemen on Saturday night to celebrate that.

The Community Charter partners business and local government. The Community Charter serves to stimulate business, not hamper it. With the Community Charter we want cities to take an active interest in their communities. We want them to go out. We want them to seize opportunities and be able to act upon them.

I guess the last question that arises is the time line on the Community Charter. It's been asked. Well, I believe we've consulted more than anybody. The minister has gone out, listened to consultation, come back and made changes where necessary. He's been open and accountable every step of the way. When you're about to do something different that the rest of the country hasn't done, when you're about to allow powers to be in another area that you once controlled, you have to do it right, and you can only do it once. You know, sometimes there might be a little tweaking, but basically you want to do it right the first time.

You write a report with consultation. I know the minister consulted greatly with UBCM, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and all the other five or six municipal associations that are a member of that. They were all part of this consultation. The mayors and the councillors have been part of this process from day one. The minister went out, and his staff went out. They consulted, they came back, and it was reviewed. They put another report out again, fine-tuning it, all with consultation.

In the draft legislation we stated that our job was not complete. We asked for further feedback, and the minister received it. The ministry has received over 1,000 comprehensive and constructive submissions pertaining to the Community Charter. That's just amazing. You know, there are some mayors out there that say we've never consulted. Well, I don't know where those mayors are, because we have consulted. When you get 1,000 submissions on a piece of legislation, that is amazing.

The time extension will allow each and every submission to get the attention it deserves. The govern-

ment is committed to an early implementation of the charter. I know that. They want to get it going. The minister wants to see it enacted, but he wants it done right the first time. This extension does not diminish the goal. In fact, it only serves to emphasize our commitment to local communities in British Columbia.

We will use the extra time to properly prepare and assist small communities to develop information and educational material. We're going to work with every municipality, every region in this province, so that they can take full advantage of this and be the best partner ever within their community — within developments, with business, with other governments in their region — and they will be absolutely number one. We as a government are prepared and committed to stand behind them and work with them every step of the way. This additional time also allows us to take the constructive comments we've received and to build the best possible charter for the future of local governments in British Columbia.

I would like to thank the minister for the consultation process he has gone through, for reviewing the over 1,000 submissions that have come in and giving them each their due care and attention. That's a lot of people. Out of those 1,000 submissions, I would say there was a lot of committee structure that went into that. It's not just 1,000 people. It's probably 10,000 people or more that have contributed to this piece of legislation. For the minister to be strong enough to take the time to go through and review this, to look at the constructive comments that have been made and to be prepared to say, "This is good, and this is not, but we're prepared to look at it and implement it into the plan that's before us today," is such a breath of fresh air after a decade of despair under the NDP. I just want to thank the minister and applaud him for all the hard work he's done.

L. Mayencourt: It is indeed a great privilege and an honour to stand in this House to support the initiative of the minister responsible for the Community Charter on Bill 14.

I want to spend just a few minutes talking about why we are introducing this piece of legislation. For many, many years the Community Charter has been a priority for local governments. When I read some of the history of this act — and I just spoke with the minister earlier this week about the fact that this is only the third generation of local government legislation that's ever been introduced here in British Columbia — this is something that has been on the back burner for a long time. So when we came to government, we made a new-era commitment that we would put it on the front burner. I can see by the hard work that's been put into this particular piece of legislation that this minister has taken this piece of legislation to heart. He has dedicated a good deal of time to consulting with communities to find out about their hopes and dreams for the Community Charter. But this is something local governments have been calling for, for many, many years.

Under this charter, local governments will have more autonomy, and they will have the tools they require in order to do their job best. In the past, local governments have been hampered. They've been constrained by narrow legislation — legislation that does not allow them to respond to the needs of their various communities as they see fit.

Local government is a very important part of the many levels of government that we have. It's the closest to the road…. You know, it's where the rubber hits the road. It's where people within communities have the most access to their political leaders. It is where they can go to community meetings, where they can have some input, where they can talk about the issues that tear at their hearts — the things they want to see happen. To constrain that is simply unfair, because the people who elect those individuals to city councils expect that they're going to be able to move forward and bring about change in their local communities. Well, with this legislation we are giving them those tools. We are giving them the power to make effective decisions — decisions that have a direct impact on the citizens they represent.

We've talked a lot about the provincial economy. That's certainly been a guiding principle with all we have done in this Legislature to date, since we were elected in May of 2001. We believe that the basis of a good economic recovery is a strong and innovative local government. That is what this Community Charter is about. It sets up a whole new relationship, one that is based on respect and that recognizes we are equal partners in providing services to our communities, to our citizenry. It is this relationship that we are striving to recognize — the autonomy of local governments. It moves provincial authority in areas of local interest to where it belongs — to municipal councils, to that direct forum of democracy where those people are in the best position to respond to their neighbours, friends, people in their communities and business leaders — to ensure they are meeting the wishes of those local citizens.

This is a dramatic piece of legislation. It's the first time any kind of legislation of this nature has been introduced in a Canadian parliament. It's very historic and very, very important. It empowers local government, and it goes further than any other provincial legislation in recognizing municipalities as an order of government, as people with the right and responsibility to respond to the citizens. Our provincial government, at the same time, will continue to set provincewide standards in areas like the economy, the environment and public health. This is truly appropriate.

Now, the minister took a good deal of time with this particular legislation. In fact, when we look back on the history of this whole notion of the community charter, it really goes back to the early nineties when the Premier was the chair of the UBCM and brought forward this as an idea, as a way of bringing some balance into the various levels of government.

I'm grateful to the minister because last year, when he first came forward with this piece of legislation and tabled it in this House, he made it available to all of the

citizens of British Columbia. You could actually go to a website. You could read what the charter said. You could provide him with input. That input has been very, very valuable.

I believe that we had thousands and thousands of submissions from ordinary British Columbians, from various levels of government, from business and community leaders all speaking in favour of this greater autonomy — this greater level of respect for this level of government. We were very clear about saying we want to get your feedback and we want to know what you think about this legislation.

We heard from the broadest range of British Columbians that you could possibly imagine. Virtually anybody who wanted to go to the website could find this piece of legislation, could look at it and could make comment on it. This consultation period was so good that we now have…. As the member for Burquitlam said, "We got a pretty darn good piece of legislation out of it," and I am very happy that we have this particular piece of legislation before us today.

The Community Charter ensures that before any new responsibility is put to a local government, there needs to be resources to fulfil those responsibilities. We don't view the Community Charter as a way to get rid of some expensive programs. We recognize that if we ask a local level of government to take on responsibilities, they need not only the tools to take that on, but they need the ability to fund those particular things. That's appropriate because those local people, the citizens of a local community, that are calling upon their local elected officials to provide a service are the ones paying for it, and they want to know that they have the tools in order to do that.

I'm just reading my notes here. Apparently over 43,000 British Columbians took the opportunity of downloading this particular piece of legislation. That is a very extensive consultation. That led to us taking a lot of time to make sure that we got it right, and as the other members that have spoken here said, we have had a wonderful opportunity to refine, to get the right kind of legislation here for us today.

The other part of this particular legislation is accountability. This is something that has been a theme in British Columbia for the last little while. It really relates back to the previous government and the need for ordinary citizens, people like you and me, to be able to hold our political leaders to account. This is one of the very important parts of this piece of legislation — the ability for people to understand what a municipality is doing, how they're doing it, what goals they have set for themselves and whether or not they are achieving them.

I am very proud to support this piece of legislation. I am very proud of the consultation that the minister undertook with this. In the midst of running the 2010 bid, he was still able to get this big piece of legislation done, and I really commend him for that work. I am proud to support the Community Charter.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Bond: Before I begin, I would like to introduce the staff that are here with me. I have Gerry Armstrong, my deputy minister; Jim Soles, assistant deputy minister, post-secondary division; Tom Vincent, assistant deputy minister, management services division; and James Gorman, the director of the finance branch.

P. Nettleton: I have a number of questions for the minister with respect to the Advanced Education ministry estimates. I thank you for this opportunity.

First of all, I've reviewed the service plans for all the ministries and have found something peculiar about the Advanced Education ministry's service plan. At the start of every service plan, there are two things. First, there is an introduction by the minister that is signed, and second, there is a brief accountability statement that is signed. Both of these are signed by the minister. This is in virtually every service plan but one: the Ministry of Advanced Education, the ministry we're presently discussing.

The minister does introduce the service plan, but strangely, there is no accountability statement from the minister. Instead, the deputy minister states in the service plan a few words about accountability but not the minister herself. The question, then, is: why has the

minister, unlike other ministers, not signed an accountability statement in the service plan?

Hon. S. Bond: I would be happy to table this for the member. I would be more than pleased to read the accountability statement I signed on February 4, 2003. It is published with all of the ministry service plans in accordance with my responsibility as minister. I will read it, for the member, into the record:

I have signed it, and my name and portfolio follow. It is dated February 4, 2003.

Following that, you will find a signed statement that outlines the goals and initiatives of my ministry. Those are in the first two pages of my service plan as published with all of the other service plans in government.

P. Nettleton: I take it from that answer that the service plan has in fact been signed. Is that the case?

Hon. S. Bond: For the second time, and I won't read it a second time, but I'd be prepared to table…. I don't know how you would do that, but I'd be prepared to share with you at a later date the signed version of it, which is published with the entire collection of service plans. Frankly, I'm surprised that the member didn't find the signed version of it along with all of the other service plans in government.

P. Nettleton: I have another question related to this subject that struck me as peculiar. The service plan and estimates for the ministry are there for all to see on what the ministry intends to do and what the cost of that might reasonably be expected to be.

However, again, unlike the other service plans, that is not the case with this ministry, the Ministry of Advanced Education. I am looking at page 4 of the service plan: "The service plan does not present a workplan for individual program areas or a detailed account of the ministry's anticipated activities, programs or initiatives over the next three years." It goes on to say that if you want the full details of what the ministry is actually about to do and what it's going to spend tax dollars on, you can't have that yet. The service plan goes on to say that you have to wait for the annual service plan published after each fiscal year. This annual service plan report will contain all the details. Was there an annual service plan report for the first fiscal year of this government?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the role of a service plan is to provide the general direction, the outcome expectations and the vision for the ministry. I am absolutely delighted with how detailed our service plan is. It's the first time in a very long time that those expectations have been made public.

In terms of specific program initiatives, the universities, institutions and university colleges are responsible for the actual program delivery. In terms of your concerns about the resource expectations and the expenditures of public dollars, if you actually read further through the service plan, when you get to page 30, you will find the resource summary of my ministry, which presents a balanced budget for now through the next three years. In fact, we have made very public the resource expenditures.

In terms of the service plan report for the first fiscal year, of course there was one presented. The next one, I believe, will be presented…. The outcomes of my ministry's work will be presented on June 26 of this year.

P. Nettleton: If there is an annual service report for the first fiscal year, I haven't seen it. I'd happy to be proven wrong. My concern was that if there was not an annual service report for the first fiscal year of this government, individuals wanting information about ministry activities for this fiscal year would actually have to wait until the fiscal year is over. Now, the other ministry service plans don't do this, which again suggests there is something unusual about the service plan with respect to the ministry of this minister.

Now, if there is an annual service plan for the first fiscal year, again, I'm happy to be proven wrong. If not, my question to the minister would be this: when will the annual service plan report come out?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the fact that my service plan is one garnering this kind of interest. It is not unique. It is not singular in its approach. It in fact meets the template that is in place across government. There was an annual report published for '01-02, and the first full report on our first fiscal year as government, as I said, will be published on June 26 of this year.

P. Nettleton: Maybe I'm missing something here. In fact, there is not presently available an annual service plan report for the first fiscal year of this government.

Hon. S. Bond: Our government, as the member would well know, came in partway through a fiscal year, so there is a report that reflects the first partial year of this government. Our first fiscal report, I'm pleased to say, based on the service plan will be published on June 26 of this year.

P. Nettleton: Interesting. A question to the minister with respect to this annual service plan report, which, as the minister points out, is coming out on June 26 of this year: will it — that is, the annual service plan report — be presented by the deputy minister or by the minister herself?

Hon. S. Bond: My practice as minister has been that I present all of the work that I do myself. This will not be an exception. I will be presenting our annual reports with my colleagues at the same time.

P. Nettleton: I look forward to it. I'm sure the minister will be doing that on June 26 of this year, and we look forward to it.

Will the annual service plan report be subject to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act?

Hon. S. Bond: As a matter of fact, in my accountability statement, which I read into Hansard, I said that my service plan was prepared under my direction in accordance with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

P. Nettleton: Could the minister give this House an idea of what some of the stated anticipated activities might be that would be in this annual service plan report? I ask because it is perhaps not much use to ask questions about estimates for this ministry today if we don't have all the information on the table and won't get it until June 26 of this year.

Hon. S. Bond: I'd like the member, please, to clarify for me what he means by "anticipated activities."

P. Nettleton: The service plan states there will be a need for approximately $35 million for what are called planned projects. Although these planned projects have yet to be approved, they are apparently to make room for enrolment growth and to replace aging facilities. Could this be the kind of thing we might see in the annual service plan report that's due on June 26 of this year? Does the minister have a priority list or some idea of what these planned but as yet unnamed projects might include, since $35 million would go toward them? I'm sure the minister has some sense as to where that $35 million will be going.

Hon. S. Bond: The projects noted in that particular section refer to projects that are in the planning stages to address issues such as access, growth and the need to meet specific focus areas. While they are in the planning stages, they have yet to be announced. We continue to work them through the process so that we can make those determinations and announce them in the near future.

The minister, then, has no sense yet as to these unnamed projects for which the $35 million is designated?

Hon. S. Bond: As I pointed out, those are projects that are in the planning process. They have yet to be brought to completion. They certainly have not been announced and, in fact, wouldn't be reported in an annual report, because they are actually future projects. The service plan simply identifies the fact that there is a pool of dollars that will be used for appropriate programs. Those are still in the planning process.

P. Nettleton: I appreciate the fact that these projects have for the most part not been committed to and are in the planning stages, but could the minister table in this House a work in progress of this annual service plan report as it relates to these as-yet-unnamed projects?

Hon. S. Bond: As a matter of fact, I would assume that the member will be able to wait until June 26 as the rest of the process unfolds. All the service plan reports will be released at that point in time. We're currently working on drafts, as are other ministries, and they will be released on June 26.

P. Nettleton: I have one last question in this category of things that caught my attention with respect to the service plan. The service plan also includes a strategic objective to balance the costs and benefits of post-secondary education. I know on a personal level what the benefits are of getting a college or university degree. Certainly, it has been my experience that people with…. Well, studies have clearly shown that those with a college or university degree are rewarded monetarily and in other ways with respect to the opportunities that are generated. What might be some of the costs of individuals improving themselves?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's fairly obvious what the cost…. Certainly, the benefits are obvious to all of us. Post-secondary and educational opportunities are critical to the health and success of individuals and our province. What we're debating here today is the cost to government and to the public interest, which is the almost $1.9 billion that we invest and that individuals invest in varying degrees. Certainly, the costs for individuals include things such as tuition, accommodation, lodging, food, transportation. The benefits are obvious, and our goal is simply to make sure we look at the issue of cost and benefit as we move forward with our planning and our thinking.

P. Nettleton: I think that's helpful. I think there are those who have viewed government costs, as the minister puts it, as a necessary investment, particularly in young people and in those who aren't so young who are forced to seek post-secondary education for one reason or another. Particularly given that those of us in this House do have some responsibility with respect to policies as they impact the costs associated with post-secondary education for individuals, I think it's important how we view the cost to government. Viewing the cost to government as an investment in students does make a difference in a very real and practical way.

I will now turn to a major theme for this ministry, if I may, and that is this government's commitment to encourage a strong private post-secondary education

system. My question to the minister with respect to this theme would be: does the minister anticipate growth in the number of private post-secondary institutions offering programs, including degree-granting programs?

P. Nettleton: With growth, then, in the number of private post-secondary institutions, we can infer that more and more students may choose the private route over the public route. My question to the minister would be: would this switch mean reduced funding commitments for her ministry to public post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S. Bond: We do not provide public dollars to private institutions. However, we do provide student financial assistance opportunities to those students who choose to attend private institutions.

P. Nettleton: If reduced funding commitments — assuming there are, in fact, reduced funding commitments — result from more private choices, how would the ministry meet its strategic objectives to expand training and skills development and to expand research capabilities in British Columbia with fewer funds?

Hon. S. Bond: There will be no reduced funding commitments. In fact, the service plan indicates that in the third year of my plan, we actually see an increase in our budget.

P. Nettleton: With growth in the number of private post-secondary institutions, what will this mean for the long-term viability of public post-secondary institutions in terms of the strengths of the programs, research and other functions of such public post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S. Bond: The institutions in British Columbia will continue to be excellent. They will continue to be some of the best in Canada — not simply our universities but our colleges, our institutes and our university colleges. The addition of opportunity and choice for students exists with the addition of the private sector and private institutions. They will not at all hamper the top-notch institutions we have in this province.

P. Nettleton: Does the focus on encouraging the expansion of private post-secondary educational institutions create a higher burden on students due to higher tuition costs at these private post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly have no influence over the cost of tuition at private institutions. It's simply a matter of choice. There are students who will choose to take a private course at a private institution, and that's an important option in this province.

P. Nettleton: Does the focus on encouraging the expansion of private post-secondary institutions — because that is the stated objective of this government and of this ministry — create a higher burden for B.C. student loans programs, including grants to students?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, as more students have the opportunity to attend institutions of their choice, it will add challenges for us in the student financial assistance area. That's a good challenge to have. This is a government that has increased funding in that particular area of my ministry.

P. Nettleton: How will increased expenditures for student financial assistance programs be apportioned among repayable loans and not repayable assistance? How will this be determined?

Hon. S. Bond: We have a very clear process for student financial assistance in this province. As you know, it's a balance between the Canada student loan part of it and the provincial student loan. We have a grants and loans division, in terms of some parts of a student's financial assistance being grants and some being loans. Students are also eligible for loan forgiveness if they are challenged in managing the debt they incur.

P. Nettleton: Okay. Short on specifics but, I guess, a general response to my question. I think specifics are important, though, as someone who has certainly had to rely to some extent on student loans in the past. I know from practical experience that how this breaks down in very specific and practical terms is very important to those who rely on student financial assistance.

In any event, a degree quality assessment process is being developed that will ensure that degree programs at private institutions are of the highest possible quality. Is a degree quality assessment similar to that of the private sector being developed? Or, does parity exist for public post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S. Bond: We've had a degree program review committee in place since 1995 in this province, so each time a new degree is granted, it goes through a process that ensures it is a quality degree being offered in British Columbia. Public institutions will continue to go through a process of quality assessment similar to that of the private institutions.

P. Nettleton: Although, as earlier stated, a degree quality assessment process is currently being developed with respect to degree programs at private institutions…. My question really was, in fact: once that is developed, is there a commitment by this minister and this ministry to a similar degree quality assessment along similar lines with respect to public post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S. Bond: The new part of what we're doing is the private side of things. In fact, as I suggested, the

public process has been underway since 1995. What we decided to do was streamline the process and see both public and private go through an amalgamated process. The publics have been undergoing a process for quite some time. We are now creating a process to include the privates. In fact, the degree quality assessment process will include both public and private.

Hon. S. Bond: The vast majority of the baseline work has been done. We intend to bring regulation into place by spring or early summer of 2003.

P. Nettleton: I'd like to move on, then, to another topic and talk briefly about tuition fee levels, which is certainly an issue for students. The service plan reports that British Columbia's average tuition fee level in the 2002-2003 academic year was up 25.3 percent from 2001-2002. Now, a ministry goal, or a stated objective of this ministry, is to increase choice in post-secondary education. My question to the minister is: do regular tuition increases increase choice for students?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we have asked institutions to demonstrate the use of the increased tuition revenue, and, of course, it has been used to increase choice. It has added new sections. It has allowed institutions to bring new faculty on board, and it has allowed them to deal with libraries — a number of issues. Certainly, the whole focus in terms of tuition is to provide benefit to students.

I'd like to point out that while the member points out the increase in one year in British Columbia, the fact of the matter is that as we look back over the years across Canada, other provinces' tuition has been raised incrementally. Those needs, in fact, were being addressed over a number of years. Ours, simply, once we recognized the challenges for institutions…. The increase reflects the challenges that have been faced over the last number of years as other provinces raised their tuition fees incrementally.

P. Nettleton: I take the minister's point with respect to British Columbia, in contrast to other provinces, not having moved incrementally toward tuition fee increases as dramatically as her government has — 25.3 percent. Nevertheless, one cannot discount the fact that there are students who, faced with this dramatic increase in tuition costs, have been excluded or limited from post-secondary education and from choices in and around post-secondary education. I think that should be a concern not only for myself and others who are perhaps critical of that move but for the minister herself.

In any event, given that institutions such as UNBC and the College of New Caledonia in Prince George have seen sharp tuition increases in each year for the past two years, does the minister have a maximum target for tuition levels?

Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact, our government made a policy decision that the people best in the position to make decisions about tuition are at the individual institutions as they address the needs of their students and look at the economic situation in their particular communities. It will be the institutions that determine the appropriate levels of tuition for their students.

P. Nettleton: If public post-secondary institutions have the degree of latitude to set tuition rates, to which this minister has made reference here today, what assurances can the minister give that the ministry's stated vision of affordable access will be retained?

Hon. S. Bond: I am confident that those people who govern institutions and manage them have…. Their priority is the same as mine. It is what's best for students. When they make those decisions, I know they will consider the best interests of students and also demonstrate the benefit that additional tuition revenue provides to those students.

P. Nettleton: One last question, then, with respect to tuition and tuition fees. How would the minister define, in terms we can understand, what might be considered affordable access?

Hon. S. Bond: Tuition isn't the biggest cost for students, as we know, especially those who need to move and live and be accommodated in other cities. As institutions consider their tuition levels, they will consider the issue of affordability and what is most appropriate for particular areas or regions or for particular institutions. I'm confident they will do that, and they will consult with students and also demonstrate the benefits that any change in tuition might bring for students.

P. Nettleton: Moving on from tuition fees and the implications with respect to the establishment of those fees, the service plan says the ministry is committed to developing an accountability framework for the post-secondary system. What might such a framework look like?

Hon. S. Bond: The accountability framework for post-secondary education is a systematic and systemic approach to planning and reporting on post-secondary education. The components of the framework would be identifying the goals and the objectives for the system and allocating the goals and objectives to our system partners. We would want to identify the performance measures that will be used to assess achievement of the goals and objectives. We expect there to be a public reporting to the Legislative Assembly and a review and evaluation of the framework itself to make sure that we got it right in the first place and that it continues to work in the province.

P. Nettleton: Would there be compliance measures in the accountability framework and means to ensure non-compliance?

Hon. S. Bond: The framework has generated healthy discussion and debate with institutions and a variety of groups. We have an advisory group of presidents that has met a number of times and provided a great deal of constructive advice to us. The framework has been developed very much in a collaborative manner. Institutions know and want, actually, to be held accountable. This process will allow us to have institutions that can look at each other's progress and compare the progress they're making and the satisfaction they're providing for students in their particular institutions.

It's not my intent for this to be a punitive process. In fact, I am hopeful we will begin to see a process developed where we can create incentive funding, so that when institutions do extremely well, there would be incentive and, eventually, resources available for them to access because they've been successful. It's not a punitive approach but one that looks at incentives for institutions to do better.

P. Nettleton: The minister made reference to the collaborative approach of her ministry with respect to the development of an accountability framework. Further to that question and that thought with respect to the approach of the minister, what stakeholders are being consulted on the development of this accountability framework? She made reference, I believe, to a presidential council of some sort. I'm not familiar with that term or the implications. Perhaps the minister can enlighten me, please.

Hon. S. Bond: We have consulted with institutions, as I pointed out, which would include board chairs and administration. In fact, we did place a discussion paper on the ministry website and encouraged response to that process generally through the website.

P. Nettleton: This accountability framework is to be implemented, as I understand it, over 2002 to 2006. My question would be with respect to that time frame. Should a framework take four years to implement — and not only that, but beyond the life of the present government's mandate?

Hon. S. Bond: We began the process of implementing the accountability framework this year. We called the letters that are typically called budget letters — budget and accountability letters…. The reason it spans a number of years is that it will take time for this process to evolve and for us to refine and evaluate the work we're doing. Certainly, the work has already begun, and institutions have had their first sense of that accountability framework this year in the letters they received individually.

P. Nettleton: If it takes four years, or however many years, to implement, what is the cost of this implementation?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have a specific dollar target, because all this work has been done as part of the work of my ministry staff. It has been done using existing ministry staff and resources. What I did was reorganize the ministry and look at a more efficient way to manage this particular process, so it was done within our budget, with existing staff, and was simply a redeployment and a reorganization of our ministry to accommodate it.

P. Nettleton: I anticipate a response similar to my earlier question. Nevertheless, I'll proceed. What is the cost of developing an accountability framework?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is right. We think we've actually saved money by using my ministry staff and organization more effectively. I can certainly tell you this: it's a lot less expensive than not creating an accountability framework.

P. Nettleton: Would such an accountability framework step on the toes of the boards of governors of public post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S. Bond: Institutions also want to be held accountable for their use of public dollars. That's why we had a lot of discussion with them about this. It isn't being held accountable; it's what we measure that's important to institutions. That's why we worked very closely to develop the measures and to collaborate with them on this process. It's in their best interests to be held accountable for the use of public dollars as well.

P. Nettleton: Great. No toes stepped on. I guess that's what the minister is saying.

In any event, moving along, I want to touch on a few points regarding a shift to Internet-based learning. Again, the service plan talks about implementing a Web-based system to manage the degree approval process. Is this system ready to go?

Hon. S. Bond: The post-secondary institution proposal system is a Web-based application process for submission of new degree proposals for approval by the minister. I'm pleased to say that phase 1 of the process for degree approval applications by public post-secondary institutions was implemented in September 2002. I'm pleased to note that 18 new degree proposals have been submitted through that system to date. Phase 2 of our process for degree approval applications by private post-secondary institutions will be implemented later this year, after we bring the new Degree Authorization Act into force.

P. Nettleton: What has been the cost of developing this Web-based system to manage the degree approval process?

Hon. S. Bond: Phase 1 implementation has cost approximately $125,000, and it is estimated that phase 2 will cost approximately $180,000.

P. Nettleton: The minister, I believe — and I'm not trying to put words in her mouth — had made refer-

ence to the implementation as being sometime later this year. First of all, I'd ask her to comment on that question. If, in fact, it's later this year, roughly when would that be?

Hon. S. Bond: Phase 1 was implemented in September 2002, and we anticipate that phase 2 will be in place by the summer of 2003.

P. Nettleton: Another thing is to expand on-line access to post-secondary education. This would be through something called the BCcampus on-line initiative. It was announced last October and is mentioned in the service plan, but there is no information on when this will be fully operational. Any ideas?

Hon. S. Bond: The committee working on BCcampus has been extraordinarily successful to this date. It is unprecedented in terms of the cooperation of all the institutions in the province, and we have student representation on it as well. It is working extremely well in terms of the initial phases.

We expect there to be a significant rollout and development, particularly in the next 18 months. We will have a full complement of learner services in place by that time. That's really phase 1, in a sense, because we intend to continue to build upon the framework and foundation we lay with BCcampus.

P. Nettleton: The service plan also gives targets for the number of student spaces to take courses over the Internet. It references 780 spaces by 2005-06. Any sense of the cost to the ministry associated with the creation of these spaces?

Hon. S. Bond: Dollars are provided to institutions through block funding. The number of on-line opportunities and seats, as the member points out, are actually being increased to 780. I think it's 650 in '04-05 and 520 in '03-04. Those dollars are included in the block funding grant that's given to institutions each year.

P. Nettleton: I see there is a steering committee working to get this BCcampus up and running. How was this body selected? With reference to that body, I'm also wondering why there is no northern representative from UNBC, since this university has a specific mandate to serve small outlying communities, communities that would greatly benefit from more on-line learning.

I know from my past experience, having been a member of government caucus, that there's a great deal made of representation on various bodies from the north — not always successfully, but certainly that was an issue. If the minister could please respond to those concerns.

Hon. S. Bond: The BCcampus implementation steering committee was selected by asking representative bodies from various post-secondary institutions to provide nominees to sit on this particular committee. As a result, this committee includes representatives of the universities, and Dr. Jago from UNBC would have been part of the discussion as they chose the best representative for their particular group of institutions.

I'm pleased to say we also have representation from the private sector and student representatives. I should point out that the interests of rural and smaller institutions are reflected by the fact that we have a student from the Kootenays, as a matter of fact, and we also have an institution president from a small and rural college in the province.

P. Nettleton: Nevertheless, it remains the case that there is no northern representative from UNBC on this body. That's a shame.

A question, then, if I may. Are public post-secondary courses presently developing on-line courses for BCcampus?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. As a matter of fact, we know currently that at least 14 public post-secondary institutions are actively involved in the development of courses for BCcampus.

P. Nettleton: What are the costs associated with developing a political science course for this initiative at Douglas College?

Hon. S. Bond: The cost of the development of the course would obviously depend on the complexity and nature of the course. We've set aside approximately $10,000 for the development of a political science course at Douglas College.

P. Nettleton: How was it that Douglas College was selected to provide this service? UNBC in Prince George — your neck of the woods, minister — has provided on-line political science courses for about five years. It's my understanding that they were not contacted to help on this.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I can certainly speak personally to the quality and the credibility of the political science programs at UNBC, having chosen to go back there. It was a great program.

Having said that, our ministry used an appropriate process. We issued a request for proposals on the Centre for Curriculum Transfer and Technology website as well as to vice-presidents academic, and proposals were evaluated according to published criteria. As far as I'm aware, UNBC did not submit a proposal.

P. Nettleton: On another matter, I'm just wondering how the minister is doing with respect to her enrolment in her courses at UNBC. Is she making the grade? Is she currently enrolled?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, because I work virtually 16 hours a day to be an MLA and a cabinet minister, I have not actually been taking courses. Having said that, as I've visited every institution in this province, I've become known as the highest profile co-op student in the province, out getting relevant practical experience after having had the academic side of my courses.

A couple of further questions, then, and I'm going to pass it along to the Leader of the Opposition. Will individual post-secondary institutions offer specific on-line courses, or will something else offer all the courses?

Hon. S. Bond: Institutions will continue to develop and offer on-line courses. What BCcampus will do is create one place. It will coordinate and allow students to find one point of access. The great news is that they will be able to look at all the courses available in a particular field of study in a very practical and strategic way and make choices about which institution they'd like to study with.

P. Nettleton: If the Open College and Open University programs will eventually not deliver these on-line courses, what will happen to them?

Hon. S. Bond: We anticipate that the services and programs offered by the Open College and Open University will be transferred to another public post-secondary institution or institutions. We recognize the value and merit of those opportunities for students. We have currently…. An expression of interest has been issued for the Open College and Open University services, and I'm very much looking forward to the responses we'll receive.

J. MacPhail: Thank you to the member for Prince George–Omineca. He is ill and did an excellent job in asking questions. I will try to only expand on his questioning or accept the answers, not repeat the questions. There are areas of overlap which I want to explore, but I'll try to approach new issues.

I'm back where I left off last night, and I want to review the announcements that the minister made and how that relates to the overall budget. The budget that was tabled on February 18 is repeated in the resource summary of the service plan at page 30. Subsequent to that, the minister made several announcements of money. In the debate on Bill 21 she announced, or promised, an increase of $11 million for B.C.'s five universities and an increase of $9.7 million for B.C.'s colleges. Then on March 17 and 18 there were separate announcements — one for $10 million of one-time funding and another for $12 million of funding. The minister explained that the $10 million one-time funding will come out of the '02-03 budget. Let's just clear that one up first. Is that the '02-03 contingency fund?

Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact, it's not out of contingency. It's out of lower than anticipated debt-servicing costs and administrative savings within the ministry.

J. MacPhail: There was a contingency allocation for the Ministry of Advanced Education in '02-03. What was that for?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, $3.25 million was accessed from contingency, because it did not fit within the vote description. In fact, if you look at the bottom line for my budget, we had $5.67 million remaining in our budget.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. You'll have to go more slowly. I thought the minister said…. I'm dealing with two $10 million pockets, as I understand it.

The $10 million that the minister announced either March 17 or 18 and said yesterday and today came out of her budget is a separate item. There was a $10 million allocation from contingencies for the '02-03 budget. Well, I was told that…. The Minister of Finance explained that it was for Advanced Education, as far as I remember.

Hon. S. Bond: The number that was accessed by contingency — by my ministry, at year-end — was $3.25 million.

J. MacPhail: Okay. That changed from the budget that was tabled February 18. The Minister of Finance and I had quite a toing and froing about this, because it was about what gets allocated at year-end. I'll just put it in context. This was to do with when a minister comes in on budget, etc., and gets his or her pay. There was a $10 million allocation out of that contingency for Advanced Ed, but the minister is now saying that was, at the actual year-end, only $3.25 million. If so, what was that used for?

Hon. S. Bond: The total was $3.25 million. It was for items outside my vote description, and announcements will be made shortly about that particular project.

J. MacPhail: Okay. All right. That's the contingency fund for '02-03. The one-time funding we're still on for '02-03, then, was from administrative savings and reduced debt servicing. Can the minister break that down for me?

Hon. S. Bond: Program management underspent by $1.2 million, debt servicing was underspent by $21.1 million, and amortization was underspent by $1.3 million.

J. MacPhail: Debt servicing, clearly, was the big savings of the government last year, and that makes sense, because interest rates were at an all-time low. I'll deal with the issue of interest rates and debt servicing later on, in the '03-04.

That takes care of one $10 million announcement that the minister made. We still have the $12 million announcement made March 17-18 and the words the minister put on the record during the debate of Bill 21. I assume — and maybe I'm wrong — that the Bill 21 debate comments of the minister forecast the announcement of $12 million, but I could be wrong. Could she go through again what exactly…? Either in the Bill 21 debate or on March 17-18, what is the total of new spending announcements that she made?

Hon. S. Bond: The $12 million was a lift to institutions — $9.6 million, which went to universities, and $2.4 million, which went to colleges and university colleges. Where did that come from? Net savings from Tech B.C. were $7 million. Targeted programs within that envelope — CEISS and C2T2 — were $4.2 million. There was also $800,000 from the prudency contingency that we carry in our ministry, for a total of $12 million.

J. MacPhail: So the $12 million reflects…. That's the only new money the minister has announced. The contribution she made to Bill 21, saying that there was going to be more money, was merely an advance notice of the $12 million? I have the Hansard here. I'm just reading from the Hansard. That was contributed through quite a little heated debate on Bill 21, but then an announcement followed.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have the advantage of the Hansard in front of me. It was a heated debate, as I do recall. As I've said, the $12 million was the lift provided to a combination of our institutions. The total was $12 million, and I have given the Leader of the Opposition the breakdown.

J. MacPhail: Yes. It was very specific into the Bill 21 — a commitment — and they were very specific numbers: $11 million for the five universities and an increase of $9.7 million for B.C. colleges. That was during Bill 21. Where did those numbers come from?

Mr. Chair, I'll actually quote it. This was done on March 12 at 6:43 p.m. It's from the minister. It says:

Hon. S. Bond: When the quote was read, what it reflects is that in last year's budget letter, institutions were given an expectation of a certain amount of money. What we were able to do through hard work and reallocating some things was to increase the amount of money they expected. The $11.9 million for universities and the $9.7 million for colleges was the lift from the anticipated budget number that they received for the year prior.

J. MacPhail: Do the $11 million and the $9.7 million encompass the $12 million that the minister announced on the 17th-18th? I'll let her answer that question first.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, that amount does include the $12 million. In fact, there is no new money in the sense that we didn't get a lift to our budget. What's new about it is that it is more money than the institutions expected. The reason we could do that is because we worked hard in order to manage the budget that we had. Plus, there was the $10 million that was obviously new money, because that was year-end savings. So in fact, it was the same envelope of dollars.

Institutions expected, actually, to drop in the money they received. We managed the ministry, and they actually received more than they anticipated. The total amount is the two numbers that I indicated in that comment.

J. MacPhail: In '02-03 the restated estimates for the educational institutions and organizations…. Let me just stop for a minute here.

That line encompasses the envelope given to all of the institutions. Is that right? That's the line?

J. MacPhail: Okay. I just want to make sure we're dealing with the right thing.

The restated estimate for educational institutions and organizations, according to page 30 of the service plan, is $1,407,232,000. In '03-04 that line is now the funding envelope for educational institutions and organizations and is $1,400,805,000.

In the new $1.4 billion, which is a $7 million drop year over year…. There's still the $7 million drop, but the minister is saying that in that overall drop, there is an allocation of a total of $20.7 million new to individual institutions. The minister is nodding yes.

Hon. S. Bond: It is new to the institutions simply because they expected to receive less.

J. MacPhail: Yes, all right. The minister went through quickly, and I'm going to ask her to do it one by one — where the reallocation of this $21 million came from. The first allocation, I remember, was Tech B.C. Could she explain that?

Hon. S. Bond: The $7 million comes in a net savings from the transfer of the student responsibility to Simon Fraser University. The transfer was $7 million less than we anticipated having to make, had Tech B.C. continued.

J. MacPhail: Are we talking savings because Tech B.C. was shut down, or is it that there's $7 million more to reallocate to other institutions because SFU, from '02-

03 to '03-04, needs less to provide the services they've been asked to provide when Tech B.C. was shut down?

Hon. S. Bond: It's actually a combination of both. We had a budget for Tech B.C., and it costs $7 million less for SFU to provide the services that were anticipated in the budget by Tech B.C.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could give me more detail on that, because this is not a new exercise. SFU took over those services last year. What has changed? The reason I'm asking this is that I want to…. I'll just give some background that may help. What services is SFU providing now in the area of education in the technological programs that would require them to spend $7 million less this year?

Hon. S. Bond: We had a budget in place for Tech B.C. that did assume a certain degree of growth. We were able to transfer not only the current students but those growth expectations to Simon Fraser University. They are continuing to meet those targets. In fact, one of the biggest factors was the lack of necessity to move to a very expensive building and all the costs that were associated with that. Simon Fraser had the infrastructure in place, and there were some efficiencies in terms of the scale of the operations, so we were able to save $7 million and continue to provide services through Simon Fraser.

J. MacPhail: So SFU has absorbed all of Tech B.C., provided for growth and required $7 million less.

J. MacPhail: That's very interesting. I get a different story out of SFU, and I'm very happy the minister is clarifying this. The administration of SFU says something quite different. I'm very interested in this.

For the per-student transfer from Tech B.C. and the growth, perhaps the minister could say what the per-capita or the per-student funding is that SFU got and continues to get in this year for providing those services.

Hon. S. Bond: I should point out that the main cost increases come from the expectation that we were in the process of trying to ramp up. The budget reflected a ramping-up of the number of Tech B.C. students in preparation for moving into a building. When that didn't occur, that in and of itself generated savings.

In terms of the number of students and the cost, Simon Fraser University has the Tech B.C. students included in the block funding, and they receive consistent funding for the students they are responsible for that came from Tech B.C., as they are for the other students in their institution.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but the transfer last year…. The ministry didn't keep the budget of Tech B.C. in '02-03 the way it was in '01-02, because the government had made the decision to shut it down. I assume…. Sorry. It was my colleague who did the Advanced Education estimates, so I may not have had this information. Is the minister saying that in '02-03, the former Tech B.C. — including chairs, computers, buildings and students — was just completely transferred over to SFU and that now in '03-04, the budget finally reflects the fact that there's no building? Those changes, I understood, were made in '02-03.

Hon. S. Bond: We did not know the final wrap-up costs of Tech B.C. until, obviously, through the majority of fiscal '02. As a matter of fact, it was September of last year, so this is the first opportunity that the budget has to reflect the savings that were garnered with Tech B.C.

J. MacPhail: Where my next line of questioning was going was this: does SFU get over-penalized for this? In other words, is their budget reduced year over year? Perhaps the minister could just, for reassurance on my part and so that I can make sure I have proper discussions with the institution…. What was SFU's grant, or what money was transferred from the government to SFU, at the beginning of '02-03? What money was added to that as a result of them absorbing Tech B.C., and what's the change this year?

Hon. S. Bond: The transfer was slightly in excess of $3 million, and certainly, if the member would like a specific breakdown, we can get that for her. Additionally, I want to point out that the decision to transfer the Tech B.C. students to Simon Fraser University was worked out with a very thoughtful, strategic and lengthy debate, as one will remember, with Simon Fraser University. They agreed to the terms of the transfer and, in fact, were excited about the opportunities this provided for them as an institution.

J. MacPhail: No one's questioning that — nor is SFU. I'm just trying to figure out whether we're robbing Peter to pay Paul or whether there are real savings here and whether other institutions have more or less to say about this $21 million that is being…. It is a redistribution of $21 million. It's not new money; it's a redistribution.

Let's just finish with SFU as it relates to Tech B.C. What are their requirements for access in the area of providing student spaces that previously would have been provided through the institution of Tech B.C. in '02-03 and '03-04?

Hon. S. Bond: The anticipated growth from this group of students that were Tech B.C. would be that last year, there were 400, and we will be adding 200 to 600, and 800 in the next year — in essence, more than doubling the number of students that would have been present at Tech B.C.

J. MacPhail: How much of the redistribution of $7 million from Tech B.C. savings to all institutions, all universities, does SFU itself get to keep?

Hon. S. Bond: The $3 million transfer was made to Simon Fraser University before the savings were generated. The $7 million was then redistributed among all of the institutions in the sector.

J. MacPhail: Yes, yes. I know. I assumed the $7 million…. Oh, I see. Well, anyway, so the minister is saying the $7 million becomes part of the $21 million that was redistributed.

Hon. S. Bond: The second chunk is $4.2 million, and it is reflected by a variety of reductions across a number of programs outside of actual institutions. Let me give you an example: the Centre for Education Information Standards and Services, fondly known as CEISS; the Centre for Curriculum, Transfer and Technology, known as C2T2; miscellaneous, including looking at such things as equipment, student services, systems support, data collection, etc. The total amount for the reductions made across those programs outside of direct institutions was $4.21 million.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. Okay. Then there was a third chunk, was there? If we could just go through them chunk by chunk.

Hon. S. Bond: In our ministry, because of the conservative budgeting approach we take, we have two what we call prudency provisions. One is in the educational institutions and organizations, and we were able to draw that prudency provision down by $800,000. We have a ministry prudency provision as well. One of the things we look at there is student financial assistance, and we make very conservative projections there. Much of that is based on interest rates, and as the year unfolds, we look at that particular amount of money. We were able to draw that down by $9 million. That should add up to the $21 million.

J. MacPhail: Yes, it does. Thank you. My curiosity is this, then. These seem to be one-time savings. I wonder how institutions can assume that this is money that can be provided for expanding access when they're one-time savings and one-time reallocations.

Hon. S. Bond: Okay. The net savings, for example, from targeted programs such as CEISS, C2T2 and also Tech B.C. were core funding, so those will continue. That was base funding, so those savings will continue to be generated. In addition, we carried a ministry prudency provision as part of the base budget. We have now drawn that down, and the amount we carry forward from now on will be smaller by the amount that we dropped it. It will continue to be carried through the future years.

J. MacPhail: So the Tech B.C. is core funding. That's interesting. I'm not saying it's not true; I'm just saying it's very interesting. What is the prudency provision at now, after these changes are made?

Hon. S. Bond: Just to clarify, and I probably didn't say that as well as I could have, Tech B.C. was base funding. It had been budgeted from now until eternity. In fact, it is an ongoing savings for us. The prudency provision we're carrying forward into '03-04 is $6.9 million.

J. MacPhail: How does that compare with — I guess this is the minister's third budget — previous prudency provisions?

J. MacPhail: I want to move into, if I may, a discussion around the $21.1 million savings, as I think the minister said at the beginning, in debt-servicing costs for '02-03. On the resource summary on page 30, I'm at loss. It's not anybody's fault. I just didn't bring my blue books up with me. I don't have the original blue book for '02-03. What was the debt service cost and amortization of prepaid capital advances in the blue book for '02-03?

Hon. S. Bond: Just for clarification, would you like that before it was restated?

J. MacPhail: Okay. Sorry. I need help here. I'm on page 30. See the line under "core business"? The third line down says: "Debt service costs and amortization of prepaid capital advances." I don't have the original blue book estimate for that.

Hon. S. Bond: The answer, after a little bit of collaboration and the fact that my assistant deputy had a bit of a challenge there, is $239.1 million.

J. MacPhail: Okay. That's what it says here. That's what the number is for the restated estimates, but I thought there was a savings on debt servicing of $21.1 million from '02-03.

Hon. S. Bond: You don't restate because you've underspent a budget. You might restate for organizational changes or some sort of policy change but certainly not because you've underspent a budget.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Is it possible to assume, then, that the real debt-servicing and amortization costs of '02-03 in the public accounts will be around $218 million or $219 million? Therefore, it's $219 million. Is that where it will reflect?

J. MacPhail: I'll carry on after. Just for the minister's advance notice, I want to compare the $21.1 million saved in '02-03, the direction of interest rates and the allocation of the prudency provision of $9 million that was for interest debt servicing.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY