Hansard -- Wednesday, May 7, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 15, No. 5 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6553

Tributes		6553
	Bill Hartley J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6553
	Hospice palliative care T. Christensen Child Care Month W. McMahon Merritt Mountain Music Festival D. Chutter

Oral Questions		6554
	Funding for special needs children J. MacPhail Hon. G. Hogg Boliden mine operations in Strathcona Park J. Kwan Hon. J. Murray West Nile virus I. Chong Hon. S. Hawkins Alaska tax on cruise ship passengers J. Bray Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt Simon Fraser University Surrey campus enrolment T. Bhullar Hon. S. Bond Boliden mine operations in Strathcona Park J. Kwan Cattle industry in B.C. W. Cobb Hon. J. van Dongen

Tabling Documents		6557
	Self-Governance in the Health Professions: The Ombudsman's Perspective, ombudsman special report No. 24

Committee of the Whole House		6557
	Community Charter (Bill 14) J. Kwan Hon. T. Nebbeling B. Bennett

Reporting of Bills		6597
	Community Charter (Bill 14)

Point of Privilege		6597
	J. Kwan

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to introduce a group of visiting legislative interns from Washington State who are in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon.

There are 13 interns from both the Senate and the House of Representatives internship programs that were established over 50 years ago. They are accompanied by Judi Best, the Senate intern coordinator; Brad Hendrickson, human resource and accounting director for the Washington State Legislature; and the Senate intern assistant, Tanya Jones. Please join me in bidding welcome to our young friends from across the border here to visit our legislative interns and compare our democratic systems.

J. MacPhail: I note with sadness the passing of Bill Hartley, who was an MLA in the '72-75 Barrett government. Some of us worked with a younger Bill Hartley. Some of you also will remember Bill Hartley from 1972-75. He was an activist cabinet minister in the first NDP government in this province, and he grew old with dignity but with activism around Victoria. Many of us would see him promoting Victoria here. Mr. Speaker, it is a day for all of us to join together and, I hope, send condolences to the Hartley family.

Hon. M. Coell: In the gallery today are 44 members of my community, members of the Probus Club of Brentwood Bay and their coordinator, Mr. Hurley. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisbeck: I have two introductions to make today. The first one is Noel Armeneau, raised in Kelowna, currently one of our newest additions working for the Liberal caucus as the assistant deputy technical coordinator. The second introduction is a good friend, Mr. Chris Gibson, who is the regional manager of Autoplan operations. Would the House please make these two people very welcome.

J. Les: Rumour has it the member for Nanaimo is celebrating his birthday today. Would the House give him a thunderous ovation.

S. Orr: When we undertake to do this job, we tend to lose contact with a lot of good friends and people that we've known; we get so absorbed in here. Today I had the great pleasure of coming across two very dear friends as part of the group that the member for Saanich North and the Islands just mentioned. I was very happy to see them, and I'm very happy to see them in the House. Would the House please make Ina and Bill McGregor welcome. Thank you.

T. Christensen: May is Hospice Palliative Care Month, recognizing a very important part of our health care system. Those living with terminal and chronic illnesses and their loved ones depend on the invaluable services provided by palliative care facilities around the province.

In my own riding of Okanagan-Vernon, the Vernon Hospice House is a shining example of just how effective such facilities can be in providing medical, emotional and spiritual support to the dying and their families. The staff and volunteers work hard to provide a compassionate environment in which patients' last days are made as comfortable and pain-free as possible. Hospices such as Vernon Hospice House also make excellent use of resources. They rely on fundraising and donations from the community, and well-trained volunteers are a major part of their operations. But more is needed to ensure that this quality palliative care can continue to be provided.

I would like to commend the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care on her end-of-life discussion paper, which welcomed public submissions from all over the province on how to improve palliative care provision. I know that the Vernon Hospice Society welcomed the opportunity to have a voice in the dialogue, as I'm sure others around the province did. The paper shows our government's commitment to expanding and bettering end-of-life care for patients all over the province by receiving input from those directly involved in and affected by the provision of palliative care.

Currently, the majority of terminally ill patients die in hospital acute care beds, in a setting not very accommodating to the family and friends most of us would like to see in our final days. Acute care beds are also the most expensive resource in the health care system. As the demand for palliative care service rises, it is important that society examine how the most appropriate care can be provided.

This last year was the first year that Vernon Hospice House received funding from government. That funding resulted from the health authority having the flexibility to determine the most appropriate way to provide palliative services.

The services provided by hospices and palliative care providers are invaluable to the citizens of B.C., and it is important that government continues to rec-

ognize their significance by working with them and the health authorities to ensure their success.

W. McMahon: I rise in the House today to recognize the month of May as Child Care Month in British Columbia.

More than 4,500 licensed child care providers offer quality care for children in this province in a healthy, safe and nurturing environment. Child care is an economic issue; 61 percent of women with children under the age of six work outside the home, and 71 percent of couples with children have both parents working. Child care is an essential support that allows parents to participate in the economy and children to receive early learning opportunities.

This month the Minister of State for Women's Equality will meet with child care providers, early childhood educators, parents and children to recognize and celebrate Child Care Month. Our government is committed to creating a sustainable and equitable child care system for the future.

In the past two days I have visited some child care centres in my constituency, and I was impressed with what I saw. This year our government will provide $2.5 million in capital funding to build and renovate child care centres. That's $1 million more than last year. The new capital program recognizes the unique situations of rural communities by providing them with a greater share of capital funding than they have received before.

The new child care operating funding program came into effect this April. This program provides funding to assist in children's programming, wage compensation for child care workers and administration. About 70,000 child care spaces will be eligible for operating funding, up from 45,000 in the past. This means more options for parents in the type of care they choose for their children.

Our government is creating a sustainable, equitable child care system that will help parents participate in the workforce and provide early learning benefits to children for the long term. This is something that all of us can celebrate during Child Care Month.

D. Chutter: Mr. Speaker, 1993 was the first year of the Merritt Mountain Music Festival and the beginning of a new opportunity for the city of Merritt. Thousands sat in the mud with rain pouring down and sang along with legends such as George Jones and Tanya Tucker.

Merritt has always been a place that has prided itself on country living and hometown values. It is one of those places where real cowboys walk the streets, and on a dry summer day tumbleweed rolls through the surrounding grasslands. But the Merritt Mountain Music Festival has put this small western town on the national map. We have now laid claim to the title of country music capital of Canada.

The spirited and hard-working people of Merritt are taking advantage of the opportunities this gives their community. "Build it and they will come" has been proven true as attendance continues to grow. While last year's four-day festival brought 135,000 day visits to town and dropped $9.6 million into the local economy, there is a lot more to do to capitalize on the country music capital of Canada theme.

Plans are underway to create a walk of stars where the handprints of country music stars collected over the years will be bronzed and imprinted into local sidewalks. Tourists will stargaze on the streets of Merritt and spend money in our small businesses. The Merritt Chamber of Commerce has a vision for a Merritt country Christmas, a country-style celebration to attract tourists to downtown Merritt.

We're going to get those country music fans who drive the Coquihalla Highway out of their motor homes and RVs and into Merritt. I want to invite each and every member to the heart of the heartlands, the country music capital of Canada, for this year's annual Merritt Mountain Music Festival. The show takes place July 16 to 20, and so I ask you to dust off your cowboy hats, put on your jeans and become part of a fine country tradition.

J. MacPhail: Parents and advocates for children with special needs are very worried that as a result of the Minister of Children and Family Development's botched transition to a new governance model, he is now going to cut special needs programs to meet his missed budget targets. The minister gave these parents a solemn promise that these programs would not be cut. Now he's waffling. These parents have asked me to put a simple question to the minister. Will he recommit that not one single dime will be cut from programs for children with special needs, and will he put that verbal commitment he made to these parents in writing?

Hon. G. Hogg: I can assure the member and I can assure the people of this province that we will ensure that all of the funding we have will go to those who have the greatest need. We will make sure we will allocate and will support and will respond to those who have the greatest needs with respect to health, with respect to safety and with respect to services. We're going through a process using evidence-based research and using a sound set of principles to ensure that we do focus those dollars where they have the greatest need.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure that waffling will come to the parents with absolute shock and dismay, because he is

reneging on his promise he made to them. He's reneging on his promise he made to thousands of parents and children who rely on programs delivered by this minister and which are now, by his very own words, at risk because of his own incompetence.

Six weeks ago this minister signed contracts with child development agencies across the province. Those are contracts for foster care, for adoption services, for at-risk sexually exploited youth and for other vital services. The opposition has now been told that after signing these contracts, this minister has gone back to the providers and asked them to cut $30 million from their programs. That's about the same amount of money that this minister has wasted on a botched transition. Will he stand up and confirm the $30 million cut, and will he then explain to parents and children why he's breaking his promise to them?

Hon. G. Hogg: There are no secrets. Everything has been in our service plan, and everything that we're following through with is consistent with the service plan that was put out. The member has made reference to the money that has been used with respect to transition — and there is $25 million that has been used over two years — to help communities develop capacity, to help communities respond to and provide services.

I've said many times that we have inherited the largest bureaucratic service delivery model in Canada to provide services to children and families. We need to ensure we do that more effectively, and we need to make sure we do it more efficiently. To do that, we have to involve the communities to be a part of that. This is about the most vulnerable children and the most vulnerable adults in this province, and this is about ensuring that we provide the best services possible to them. That's exactly what we're doing.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday we learned that this minister has wasted $25 million on a botched transition plan. Today we learned he's cutting $30 million from programs for kids with special needs. It is clear to perhaps everyone but this minister that his plan is failing, that millions of dollars are being wasted and that as a result, big budget cuts are coming to kids at risk.

I wonder what the member for North Coast has to say about that. The minister thought it would be easy to arbitrarily meet a 20 percent reduction for children in care imposed upon him by the Minister of Finance, but he has discovered it's just not that simple. Now his budget, his service plan — indeed, his whole grand scheme — is in absolute chaos.

Yesterday the minister was forced to admit that he was at risk of not meeting his budget targets. Will he promise children and families in need of support today that he'll sacrifice his salary bonus instead of sacrificing programs for kids to pay for his own incompetence? Give up the salary bonus.

Hon. G. Hogg: Mr. Speaker, the goals and objectives of this ministry have not changed. We are taking time to make sure that we do this exactly right. We have learned a lot over the past two years, and we want to make sure we apply that in ways that are sensitive to and responsive to the needs of the children across this province.

The member has made reference to people being concerned about it. We had 2,300 people involved in community living looking at that, supporting the initiatives and directions we've taken. We have letters of support from across this province, from the chairs of different committees who are all in support of this governance model. We have research from around the world saying that this is the right way to go and that this province is on the cutting edge of providing services that are community based, responsive to and involved with communities. We are engaged with a community that wants to do things differently, and we are going to be able to provide a service which is different, which is more responsive and more respective to the communities we're working with.

J. Kwan: Can the minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell this House if Boliden-Westmin Mines received a park use permit to siphon water from Carwithen and Greenview lakes?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: Well, then let me share some information with the minister. Recently hikers discovered the siphoning of water from Carwithen and Greenview lakes in Strathcona Park, B.C.'s oldest provincial park. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has yet to receive either an application for a permit or an environmental report on the proposal, as the minister has just admitted. Can the minister tell this House and explain why she's allowing a mine to siphon water from lakes in B.C.'s oldest park in violation of the Park Act, which she is entrusted to enforce?

Hon. J. Murray: This government and my ministry have not received any formal proposals from Boliden, so there has been nothing to make decisions on. This project has not been considered and will not be until the proposal is received.

I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, there is a risk that the West Nile virus could soon be here, and I understand that the B.C. Centre for Disease Control has begun the process of testing crows found within the province.

I. Chong: British Columbians are becoming increasingly worried about the effects of West Nile and the possibility of contracting this virus. To the Minister of Health Planning: can she let us know what is being done to identify the presence of the West Nile virus and what is being done to reduce the risk of transmission here on Vancouver Island and throughout British Columbia?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The West Nile virus hasn't been identified in B.C. to date, and the provincial health officer has advised that the risk of getting infected is low. However, he does advise that we need to be vigilant and be prepared. Certainly, our experience with SARS has shown that if we take a coordinated approach, if we work together, we will be successful in controlling public health risks such as this virus.

We are taking a coordinated approach. There are several ministries that are working together: the ministries of Health Planning; Health Services; Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; Water, Land and Air Protection; and Ag, Food and Fisheries. Certainly, we're working with our provincial health officer, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, the health authorities and the municipalities to coordinate a response to the threat of West Nile virus.

Basically, our strategy involves testing mosquitoes and dead crows for West Nile infection, providing West Nile testing for patients through the BCCDC and raising public awareness to prevent mosquito bites, because that is the way it is contracted. We want people to know that breeding grounds in their back yards are ways of making sure…. If they reduce that, they're making sure the risk is reduced. We're making sure we're planning appropriate mosquito control programs with the municipalities.

J. Bray: My question is to the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. Each year cruise ships en route to Alaska stop in my community and leave millions of dollars in the local economy. However, it has come to my attention that the state of Alaska is considering a $100-per-passenger tax on all cruise ship passengers arriving in Alaska. If this bill goes ahead, it has the potential to severely decrease cruise ship traffic through B.C. en route to Alaska, which would have a devastating effect on small businesses in my community. Can the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations tell me what he is doing to fight this tax?

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: The member is quite right. The Alaskan and B.C. cruise ship industries are directly linked, and anything that adds a cost to that industry on those cruises through British Columbia is certainly going to have a negative impact on our ports and our coastal communities, including the city of Victoria.

The bill that would impose this head tax has not yet become law. It's currently before the Alaskan committee on economic development, trade and tourism. I've been in contact with the chair of this committee, representative Cheryll Heinze in Juneau, and she assured me that this bill will not be passing the Legislature, that she and many of her colleagues in their government are opposed to it, and that, as a matter of fact, it may be contrary to federal law in the United States.

Despite these circumstances I want to promise the member that my ministry will continue to monitor this situation in Alaska, because obviously our government and, I'm sure, that of Alaska are committed to growing the cruise ship industry here in British Columbia.

My question is on the progress of the SFU Surrey campus. How many students are currently enrolled, and what do you anticipate the annual growth of students to be?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the really exciting things we've managed to do as we looked at what to do with Tech B.C. and the challenges we faced there was to transfer that program to Simon Fraser University. I'm pleased to be able to tell you — I don't have the specific numbers — we are ahead of the target growth that we expected there. The number we anticipated was 400. We think that for '02-03 it's approximately 490. That would include some graduate students.

We're on schedule to see an increase there to 600-plus in the next year and probably 890 or so by the year after — very exciting growth patterns. We're working on a coordinated strategy right now between Simon Fraser University and Kwantlen to look at increased growth over the next number of years. So, it's a great success story, and one that we're going to continue to see bring great things for that area of the province.

J. Kwan: Does the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection agree with the Attorney General that the

Earlier this session we in the House had the opportunity to highlight the value of cattle ranching in B.C.'s economy. This is a growth industry and a significant source of revenue for jobs in British Columbia.

I'm sure we have all heard the question: where's the beef? Well, Cariboo South is the home of a large number of ranches and one of the largest cow-calf operations in Canada. Expansion would provide opportunity for a number of my constituents. Can the minister tell us what is being done to help the heartlands agriculture industry expand and prosper?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We do see significant potential for expansion of the cattle industry in British Columbia, and we are working on a number of fronts to facilitate that. We do have a small but effective program to encourage expansion of the cowherd in British Columbia and to retain more calves, rather than have them go to Alberta.

We're working on a number of fronts with other ministries to seek expansion of the land base available to the cattle industry, as well as improving the productivity of that land base. So we're looking at things like stumpage policy on agricultural leases. We're looking at transitioning agricultural lands or agricultural development lands in the Vanderhoof area into agriculture. We're looking at grazing lease renewals and facilitating new grazing leases.

We're also looking at the water resource. Water is a critical resource for watering cattle and for producing forage. This is combined with a lot of other issues, with a lot of other small impediments that we're working on collectively with other ministries to expand the land base.

I appreciate the member's support and all of the members that live in the B.C. heartlands.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the ombudsman's special report No. 24, Self-Governance in the Health Professions: The Ombudsman's Perspective.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of committee stage debate on Bill 14.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Mr. Chair, before we proceed, I would like leave to make an introduction.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Mr. Chair, I just noticed three ladies in the gallery: Marijke Edmondson, Meagan Curdley and Cecilia Chandler. They have been working within the ministry responsible for local governments on the charter as well. So to recognize they're here to watch the proceedings and make them welcome.

J. Kwan: Section 1. We have, in this legislation, the Community Charter. In this section, a statement is made with respect to the order of government thus being recognized, and at the outset the minister had actually made a statement: "Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government." Furthermore, a careful reading of the minister's message on March 11 announcing the current legislation stated that the charter replaces the tradition of legislation — an intention to replace section 92(8) of the Constitution Act of 1867.

Can the minister please advise: has there been some consideration given to the constitutionality of this piece of legislation?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Well, let's first of all say that the Community Charter does not change the constitu-

tion of Canada. What we are doing by including the statement recognizing local government as an order of government is allowing them to determine the best interest of their own communities as far as we can go within the legislation and the constitution of Canada.

J. Kwan: I think it should be pointed out that advocates of the earlier drafts of the Community Charter, who include the Premier, have pushed for establishing municipal governments as an independent third order of government. In fact, the Liberal caucus chair once pushed for "the overt recognition of municipalities as a bona fide order of government, which would elevate municipal governments to appropriate recognition in the scheme of governance of this country."

Therefore, can the minister clarify the statement in the first sentence in the legislation establishing the Community Charter, which states, "Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government," by confirming and qualifying whether or not this legislation intends to establish municipal governments as an independent order of government?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said before, by including the statement in the principles of the Community Charter, we intend to recognize local governments as far as we can within the constitution of Canada.

J. Kwan: Yes, I heard that answer, but the question is: is that intention to establish municipal government as an independent order of government?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: We are recognizing, as I said before, local governments within their own jurisdiction as an order of government being democratically elected, autonomous, responsible and accountable, but not in any way are we saying thereby that we are challenging any other legislation, including the constitution of Canada.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying and confirming for the record, then, that this legislation does not establish municipal governments as an independent third order of government? If that's the case, we should be clear about that, because the legislation actually says that municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government within their jurisdiction.

I understand the point from the minister that they're trying to go as far as they can in recognizing local government, and, yes, of course they're democratically elected, and so on and so forth. But keep in mind that the Premier as well as the caucus chair of this government have lobbied and advocated for local governments to be recognized as an independent third order of government. And I quote once again that "an order of government will convey to those who believe in the establishment of municipal governments as a bona fide independent third order of government that have established this objective…."

So is that the intent? If it's not the intent, will the minister simply make it clear and say it's not the intent to establish municipal governments as independent third orders of government?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In order to change the constitution of Canada in this respect, there have to be certain steps taken that are obviously not intended. We are expressing our intent to local governments, how the relationship between local government and the provincial government will be in the future to the recognition of local government as an order of government within the jurisdiction.

J. Kwan: If it's not the intent of the minister and therefore this legislation to set out the recognition of local governments as an independent third order of government, then the words that have been chosen for the legislation, which states…. I quote once again from the act: "Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government within their jurisdiction."

Why is the word "order" chosen? I think the word "order" creates confusion or ambiguity, if you will, in that context. It could be interpreted to mean what the Premier and the Liberal caucus chair had advocated for, which is to say that local governments should be recognized as a third order, an independent order of government.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, I'm a little bit baffled by the member's insistence on bringing this same subject back. The Local Government Act today has in its preamble exactly these wordings. That was in the Local Government Act that was introduced by the member opposite.

The ultimate, at the end of the day…. If we want to change the constitution of Canada, that's a whole different process. We have no intention of starting any other process. In the principle we are clearly recognizing local governments as an order of government within their own jurisdiction in order to set a benchmark of the relationship between local governments and the provincial government as it will be under the charter.

J. Kwan: Well, no, actually, the previous act does not have in the legislation "an order of government." It's in the preamble but not in the legislation. It is very different from what the minister understands it to be.

The issue that I want to convey to the minister here is this. I don't want there to be a constitutional challenge. I want to be clear from legislative counsel that the minister has consulted with legislative counsel to make sure this does not create that impression.

Quite frankly, when I was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we attempted to address some of these issues, and legal counsel advised us at that time that you could not go further than what we had already done in the preamble. Hence, I now ask the question. Perhaps with a new era, a new government, there is a new way of doing things within the legislative legal

counsel, and they found another way to address this issue without challenging the constitutionality in recognizing local governments as an order of government in legislation in itself, which is why I asked the question.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Yes, we have had legal advice on all the sections. Let me quickly show the member opposite part 1, the purpose and principles of the Local Government Act of 1996. "The purpose of this act, recognizing that local government is an independent, responsible and accountable order of government within its jurisdiction" — exactly the wording that she's arguing…. That was the act passed during the time the member was a member of cabinet of the previous government.

J. Kwan: The point is that the recognition was actually in the preamble of the legislation, not within the legislation itself. As I mentioned to the minister…. The minister well knows this, because he advocated for it to go further than that when we first brought the legislation forward. We were advised by legal counsel that we could not go further than that, and that's as far as we could go.

Now things have changed. But even with how things have changed, I'm still hearing from the minister, though…. What he's saying is that even by putting in the words "an order of government," it does not recognize local government as a third, independent order of government. Will the minister confirm that?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to go any further on the Local Government Act of 1996. It was not in the preamble. It was actually in part 1 of the act. The recognition was already established in 1996 by the former government.

What we are doing here is, as I said before, recognizing local government as an order of government within its own jurisdiction. We as a provincial government are determined to go as far as we can under the constitution of Canada with this particular statement.

J. Kwan: Then, for the record, this legislation does not establish municipal governments as an independent third order of government. If I don't hear the minister refuting that, then for the record, that's what this is. I do want to make sure that there is no confusion with respect to the constitutionality of this issue.

I would like to ask the minister this question, then: what does this section do? And how is it different from the act from before?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: What is different is the fact that in section 1 we established the principles for local government governance and the principles of municipal-provincial relations in the second part of it.

Well, maybe the minister can ask his staff: what does "adequate powers" mean under this section?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I stated, we have not defined "adequate." One of the reasons is that there are 100 to 150 different municipalities in the province, and each province will look at the principles under which the new relationship is based and the municipal governance has been established. Based on local circumstances, they will decide what adequate is.

J. Kwan: Well, I mean, that's a very broad sort of description of what adequate powers are. Are there limitations within what adequate powers are? To what extent would adequate powers enable what local governments do? What are their limitations? Are there any?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The powers are established in a broad manner. Where the control mechanisms come in place when necessary will be dealt with in future or in other sections that we will be dealing with when we go through the Community Charter.

J. Kwan: So is it to say, if the powers are not prescribed within this legislation in other sections of the act, then those powers would not be entitled to the municipal governments? So the scope of adequate powers is only what is described within different sections of this act.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The quickest answer is that the powers are in this act or in other acts.

J. Kwan: I just want to be clear about what adequate powers mean and what the scope is. So that is to say: if it's not described in this act or any other legislation, then those authorities or powers, if you will, are not entitled to local governments?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The scope of powers that local governments have will have to be in one way or another in a form of legislation. As I said, it may be the Community Charter. There will be other powers that are established in different acts. So that's how the whole scope is covered.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please also advise: how will future community needs be determined?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The fact that the principles of municipal governance are broad are indeed done for the purpose of recognizing that in the future, things will be different, and communities must be allowed to deal with future community needs. A broad sense of the powers will allow the making of adjustments at the

time they are needed. As I said before, as well, there are many different communities with different needs. Again, accommodating the broad needs of different communities and different needs will be done through the broadness of the governance, so it is open-ended in the sense of dealing with future needs.

J. Kwan: The minister's answer basically talked about that there will be future needs — a recognition of that — and that things change over time. Everybody knows that. Things do change, and there will be future needs. The question is: how will those needs be recognized? How will those needs be determined?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, the reason that the principles we have established under the municipal governance are the principles and have the flexibility to adapt to various circumstances…. It will be the communities that will be the driving force behind identifying different needs in the future. We are creating here the tools, through principles, to accommodate these future needs.

J. Kwan: Given that we don't know what those future needs are and that this section of the act allows for the identification of future needs, does that mean to say the identification of these future needs must meet what is prescribed in this legislation? And if it's not prescribed within this legislation, then the adequate powers that have been talked about in the legislation would not allow for enactment to meet these needs by local governments.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said, these are the principles of municipal governance. Future needs will be dealt with in part because the principles reflect an adequate system to deal with future needs, as well, even if they're not identified today. As I said, there is a true sense of flexibility in the principles that can accommodate future needs that, as the member said, will be different in different communities and not necessarily identified today.

J. Kwan: If the scope of adequate powers is only what is prescribed within this act and other legislation, the municipalities could not exceed that scope. They could not exceed that scope, so if they identify down the road some other future community needs, and if those community needs violate or even contravene this act or if those future needs are not identified or prescribed within this act, does local government then have the adequate powers — the power and the authority — to meet their needs? It's contradictory. You can't have both.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Obviously, if in the future something develops in a community that requires action under the Community Charter, the beauty of this document is that it's a living document. No doubt through a process of change in legislation and amendments, these future needs will be addressed. That is the simplest way I can say it. This is not something that will now establish forever and ever what the scope of power is. It will, over the years that it will be in place, see changes.

The existing Local Government Act had its foundation in the Baldwin Act, which was in 1849. Since 1849, quite a number of changes have been made to the Local Government Act to reflect what is there today. That it does not reflect the needs of communities today and the charter is just a testament that things will, over the years, change. It's not copacetic. It is not that once it is created, that will be it forever. I feel very comfortable that the tools to adjust and make amendments in the broadest sense of the word, if needed in the future, are covered here.

J. Kwan: It's interesting, because it would appear to me that by the minister's own admission, adequate powers to local governments are only what is prescribed within this act and other existing legislation and that local governments could not exceed beyond that scope.

In the future, if other requirements are identified by local governments, they could not actually exceed their authority under this same clause of the act to meet their needs. Really, you can't have it both ways. I mean, it sounds very nice to say it will be recognized that local governments require adequate powers and discretion to address existing and future community needs. If we don't know what those future needs are, and given that the scope of adequate powers is limited, then those needs would not be met unless there's legislative change. In due course, then, I would expect there will be new legislation in order for those needs to be met.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Of course, there will always be need of changes, and that is recognized. The thing is, of course, that we are talking in this section about the principles. We're not talking about the specific powers.

Legislation has always been the tool for local governments to get powers. It is the case today, and it will be in the future. So I don't see the problem the member has, unless maybe she can provide me with a specific example of the reflection of her concern.

J. Kwan: As I've mentioned, the issue here is this. The principle, as the minister would like to call it, is that there's limited scope within the adequate powers which this act gives local government. The minister just admitted that in my earlier question to him when I asked him about what "adequate powers" means. He advised that they are powers afforded to local governments contained within this act, in other sections of this act and in other legislation.

There's limited scope within the powers given to local governments. Given that future community needs can only be identified in the future, we don't know what those are and whether or not they are being addressed in this act or any other act. Nobody can anticipate that.

On the one hand…. I'm trying to point out to the minister that you can't say that here are adequate pow-

ers for you to meet all of your needs, including future needs, recognizing that there is limited scope within the adequate powers for one to exercise. That's the point I'm trying to make, and so it would appear to me that this section of the act, particularly (2)(a), has two contradictory messages for local governments. I don't want to belabour this, because I expect that the minister is going to say the same thing over and over again, and we don't need to keep hearing him repeat the same thing.

I want to ask the minister this question, then. Under subsection (2)(b), it references "balance and certainty." Can the minister please advise this House: what does the "balance and certainty" in this section mean?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, we establish here the principle that local governments will have the power to deal with circumstances that may well be different in different communities. It is not a specific power we're talking about here. We're talking about the principle that local governments have this tool available to react to their specific needs in their specific communities.

J. Kwan: Let me just read this section of the act into the record, because I don't think the minister answered my question. It reads: "In relation to subsection (1), the Provincial government recognizes that municipalities require…(b) authority to determine the public interest of their communities, within a legislative framework that supports balance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of their communities…."

My question is: how does the minister define "balance and certainty"? What does that mean?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said, this section is clearly the establishment of a principle of how, in the future, local governments will have the authority to do the things that are in the interest of their communities but still within a type of framework, a balanced framework. That is very important, of course. There will be sections throughout the book that will show examples of how that accountability and balance is being achieved with other stakeholders and interested parties in the communities, be it the business community or be it organizations.

This is not a specific power. This is the principle that will drive how we find all the community interests to come together in a direction that is balanced and accountable. That's the purpose of this section.

J. Kwan: The word "certainty" is often used with aboriginal title, for example, to ensure that there's certainty to rights, and so on and so forth. The words "balance and certainty" are chosen in this context. Does it have legal ramifications? What is the meaning when the minister says in this legislation: "…within a legislative framework that supports balance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of their communities"?

Perhaps another question that the minister can better answer is: why aren't these terms, then, to be defined in the legislation so that we understand them clearly? Obviously, in my view, they have huge ramifications in terms of how they're interpreted and their meaning for our communities as well. People should know what it means. Broad, general understanding of words is one thing, but when it needs to be applied in the local government context, people need to know what scope they have and what the definition and intention of this legislation is.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: My answer that I gave the first time stands for this one as well, but I should also say that there is no relationship with any type of wording that is used when we deal with first nations and land settlement issues. The word "certainty" here is really created, as I said before, to make sure, first of all, as a principle — not as a specific power — local governments will have the opportunity to find, in dealing with local issues that are of interest to citizens, balance in a solution that reflects the needs of the community as a whole. That is the people, the businesses, as I said before. It also has an element that indeed, what the local governments create to deal with an issue, with the interest of the community as a whole in mind…. That aspect has a level of certainty so that what is being done is indeed certain for the community as a whole.

J. Kwan: That's what one hopes would be achieved, but how does one enforce that principle then?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The member will see when we get through the other sections that from time to time there are sections that deal specifically with the powers — not the principle but the powers — that are given under these principles and how these powers are exercised. The aspect of accountability to all stakeholders is part of how these powers are going to be used by local governments to serve their communities and identify the needs of their communities specifically.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can advise this House which sections of this act, then, deal with the notion: "…within a legislative framework that supports balance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of their communities."

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Well, first of all, there are throughout the charter elements of accountability woven into a number of sections. If the member wants to start somewhere, part 4 includes the accountability provisions. That would give her some more clarity on how we feel that this principle(2)(b) was needed and will be the tool for local governments to work for the best interest of the community as a whole.

J. Kwan: Is part 4 the section and the only reference, then, to deal with the notion of balance and certainty, and if not, what other section…? I don't want just to know generally where it is. I want to know specifically what sections refer to that, because the minis-

ter says balance and certainty will be enforced in different sections of the act.

What section of the act would actually enforce that? How does one go about enforcing this principle? I actually see it will be very difficult for it to be enforced. How does one give and recognize local government as a third order of government in this legislation and then at the same time define for them in legislation how to balance and provide certainty in balancing different interests of their community?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I can't start identifying specific sections, because the accountability aspect is really, as I said in my first response to the question, woven through many of the sections if not all of the sections.

It's a concept of accountability that we instil into the whole system of the Community Charter and the new relationship between local government and the provincial government and between local governments and their citizens and all stakeholders. It is in part 4, as I said before, where the accountability tools are really described.

You can't identify an individual section to say: "Here's an example of how that principle is included in a particular section." It's throughout the whole Community Charter sections.

J. Kwan: It's interesting, because the Attorney General at another debate, when we were talking about the human rights legislation…. When I asked the question, "Why would this government take away the right, the responsibility of the government, to promote human rights within British Columbia?" the Attorney General's response was that it was too Big Brother and that government should not be in the position to do that. I disagree with the Attorney General.

The reason I bring that example up is this. In this context, the principle here that the minister is talking about is to make sure that local governments balance and provide certainty in relation to differing interests of their communities. My question is: how does the minister expect that principle will be followed by local governments? If the government can't even enforce something that could be easily prescribed — the promotion of human rights — how can this minister through this legislation enforce and ensure that local governments provide for balance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of communities?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: What this legislative framework does is provide the powers for local government, but it also provides the limitations. That's, again, reflected in this particular section.

J. Kwan: That's only a part of it. It says: "…authority to determine the public interest of their communities, within a legislative framework that supports balance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of their communities." So the question is: how do you ensure that local governments actually go and balance the differing interests to ensure that there's certainty in the differing interests of their communities? How do you enforce local governments so that they are, in fact, doing that? How do you measure that they are actually doing that? Those are the questions where I fail to see the principles this minister has established in this legislation that could be followed.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said, this is the legislative framework that allows local governments to act, as the section says, to support or to find balance and certainty in relation to the different interests of the communities. This is not a section that is focused on enforcement. It is the tool for that balanced power. As I said before, throughout the Community Charter that framework certainly includes powers but also limitations without being specific on how to enforce these powers and limitations.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister has failed to understand the point altogether. It isn't just about enforcement; it's about the definition of it. How does one define that the local governments are balancing and providing certainty in relation to differing interests? If the Attorney General says it's too Big Brother for the Liberal government to go and promote human rights, how could this minister claim that he could go and make sure, in principle, that in legislation — in this legislative framework — local government is providing balance and certainty in relation to differing interests of their community?

The fact is that I don't believe the minister can do that. I don't believe they can do that. You can say it's your intention, but I don't think the minister has any ability whatsoever to follow through with this principle in this legislation.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Well, I can't add a lot more to what I've said before except that if the member is looking for the values this principle represents, she has to go back again and wait till all the sections come up where these tools are described. Again, I'm talking about balance and limitation and accountability. These are the values that will be part of achieving these goals that are established here within the principles. The answers are in many other sections throughout the Community Charter for the member to find.

J. Kwan: Well, as I said, I actually fail to see how this minister can go and enforce and adequately define the notion of balancing and providing certainty in relation to differing interests of the communities. I fail to see how this legislation could do that, even in the other sections of the act. It simply cannot meet that objective, I think, because different people define different interests differently. Who is to decide when that is balanced or not, and how could one put in legislation that that is the principle behind it when you can't even define what it means?

I'm going to move on to sub-subsection (c), because here's another area that needs to be canvassed with

respect to the intention of this act. Sub-subsection (c) states: "…the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs." This sub-subsection talks about the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs. What ability is that, and to what extent does this go?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Obviously, the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs depends on the circumstances of a community. It depends on the involvement of a community in pursuing programs. Again, this is not a statement of the tool — how to adequately finance community needs and interests. This is just the principle upfront where we say that if a local government is involved in an activity, then they must have the tools to finance these activities. Again, it's not a statement of identifying what type of areas resources are needed for. It's purely a principle to say that if you're involved, then there have to be adequate financial resources.

J. Kwan: The issue that I take in this section is not just with the words "ability to draw on financial and other resources" — not just the word "ability" but also the word "adequate" — "that are adequate to support community needs." Again, what are the limitations of what's adequate and what's not adequate?

I'll give broad examples of what's happening right now in the province. We have community services that are being cut all over the place. Women's centres are being shut down, and that's off-loading the pressures onto local government. Housing programs are being eliminated; affordable housing is not being built. There are no new housing programs from this government. That adds pressure onto the local government, and that's off-loading all those things onto local governments, just to use a couple of examples.

The ability of local government to meet the off-loading pressures as a result of this government's other policies is going to be incredible. They will have incredible financial needs in order to meet and support their community adequately. People, including this minister, will often say: "We don't have the funds; therefore we cannot meet the need." But it does not mean, for local government, that their needs have been met adequately, because their resources are limited. They have limited resources.

What ability is this government, under the principle of this act, giving local governments for authority to have the financial resources to meet the needs of their community adequately? I would argue that the communities' needs are not being met adequately if people are sleeping under bridges or on the street, as an example. If women who are being battered have no women's centres to go to, their needs are not being met adequately. So how can the minister say that within this act, in the legislative framework of this act, their intention is to ensure that local governments have the ability to draw on the financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said in my first response, this is the principle; this is not the description of the tools, of how adequately financial needs are being taken care of. There are other parts in the Community Charter that deal with financial tools and various forms of creating revenue for a local government, and to focus on specific issues or areas is not an issue that is related to the principles.

J. Kwan: The way I see it, the reality of what's happening out there is that local governments in the era under this government — where they're faced with off-loading left, right and centre from the Liberal government — will find it increasingly hard to have adequate resources to meet and support the community's needs.

The fact is that they would not be able to meet that demand with the ongoing off-loading from this government. It's hypocritical for the government to actually have in legislation to say to local government: "Our intention is for you to have the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs." It's hypocritical, because they would not be able to meet their needs with the ongoing off-loading. That's the reality of it. The words "ability" and "adequate" are not clearly defined in terms of how one could go and achieve the goals that are required.

I want to ask the minister another question in relation to the issue around the ability to draw on financial and other resources. What ability is that, and to what extent does this go for local governments?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Well, at this time, of course, the abilities today for local governments are numerous. Taxation is one; charging fees is one. Provincial grants are tools to deal with needs and adequate funding for local governments. There are a number of grants available.

So local governments have tools today to deal with the financial needs that they experience in serving their communities as well as they can. I know in the future there will be other tools — although that's not part of this Community Charter — that will be established through a process of consultation with various other institutions, including UBCM. Once that work has been done, that will come to the House, and we can have another round on the financial tools with the member.

J. Kwan: Would the minister agree that for any level of government, there's only one source, and that is the taxpayers themselves?

J. Kwan: If you're taxing somebody, you're taxing the same person, whether it be from the local, the mu-

nicipal, the provincial or the federal government. There's only one taxpayer. Is that not right?

J. Kwan: The point is this: There is only one taxpayer, and when the government says it's going to give them more authority or the ability to draw on financial and other resources — authority for the local government to do that…. The minister mentioned taxation and fees as two options to go after. You know what? That's just simply off-loading. That is the point, when this government actually outlawed off-loading in their promise, and here we are.

What this government is doing in legislation is allowing for off-loading onto local governments. When services are being cut, the impacts are being off-loaded onto the local governments. They have to deal with it in their municipalities, in their cities and in their towns. They will have to face the problems that surface as a result of the cuts in services from the provincial government. When that off-loading takes place and the minister says, "But we will ensure that they have the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs," then all the government is doing is off-loading the taxation onto the local government so that they will tax the same source, the one taxpayer that exists.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to correct the member. She stated that taxes and fees are an option. I mean they are the existing tools today. We are looking at new tools as well, as the member knows, but it is not part of the Community Charter. But local governments, in general, are in a much better situation with the Community Charter, for example, to work together with partners, which has financial consequences in the positive.

Without belittling it today, this principle establishes the continuation of local governments having the tools — be it taxes, be it fees collected at the local level rather than by the other forms of government — to be in place to support community needs.

J. Kwan: Well, if the minister says there are no new authorities given to governments to have financial resources that would be available to them, then how could they meet the community needs when there is increased off-loading? The numbers don't add up.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If the member wants to talk on that subject, I would suggest we wait until we get to section 2, where off-loading is being discussed.

J. Kwan: Yes, we will get into the discussion around off-loading, as the minister admits that section 2 allows for off-loading from this government, and we'll engage in that discussion. To use the minister's words exactly, he says that off-loading is being discussed under section 2. Those are the words of the minister. By the minister's own admission, this government is indeed off-loading onto local government. It's not just the accusation of the opposition who says this is happening. It's not just local government who's saying this is happening. It really is happening.

The intention here is this. "The ability to draw on financial and other resources" means off-loading onto local government, and therefore it also means off-loading taxation and fees onto local governments. We're clear on that section there, on sub-subsection (c), and to what extent this ability to draw on financial and other resources actually means.

Then let's move on to another question around this. I'm interested to know: are there any limitations on setting the level of taxation under this section?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No. This is just the principle. It is not the tools of how to establish or collect. This is merely the principle that is driving the abilities of local governments dealing with the financial issues.

J. Kwan: Is there a dispute resolution process if the provincial government assigns responsibilities to municipalities?

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise: with whom will the minister consult regarding proposed changes to local government legislation?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, this is an issue that falls under section 2. So if the member wants to move on to section 2, we can deal with these issues she's beginning to raise now.

I would like to ask the minister this question: how will the provincial government respect the varying needs and conditions of different municipalities in different areas of B.C.?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Are we on section 2 or not? That, again, is a principle in section 2, and that is principle (d). So if we want to start discussing section 2, we should call the question on section 1.

I know the minister would like to say, "Well, this is being dealt with in section 2," and I can ask those questions again in section 2. But the reality is this: under section 1 the principles, purposes and interpretation of the act are enlisted in this section. The act actually goes on to talk about — as an example, section 1(2)(e) — "authority to provide effective management and deliv-

The questions I'm asking are within the context of these principles that are broadly laid out, so I can ask them here and I can ask them there. It doesn't matter to me; I can ask them later as well. I'm going to keep on canvassing them. Just in case, when we get to section 2, the minister may say, "Well, you know, that should have been dealt with in section 1," I don't want to miss the opportunity to ask my questions. I'm marking these questions the minister says he'll deal with in section 2.

So let me ask another question relating to the issues in part 1. How will the province ensure that municipalities' concerns are addressed in interprovincial, national or international discussions that affect municipalities?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Sorry, but again that is an issue specifically addressed in section 2. So the last four questions the member has asked, and sometimes asking questions whereby she quotes verbatim the section in section 2…. I really think we have to call on section 1, because I can't answer any of these issues, as they do relate to section 2 and come from section 2.

J. Kwan: As I said, I'll be happy to ask these questions again. The principles do deal broadly with a whole range of issues, including the questions that I've asked. I don't want to miss the opportunity to ask the minister the questions.

Well, then let me ask the minister another question. Under section 2(1)(b), which states under this section…. Are there any immediate or future plans for harmonization?

J. Kwan: The questions I asked the minister previously are under this section, he said. So will the minister answer the questions that I've asked?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Can the member repeat each question? Then we can deal with each question.

J. Kwan: For the minister again, let's start with this first one: is there a dispute resolution process if the provincial government assigns responsibility to a municipality?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The provincial government cannot and must not assign responsibilities to local governments without providing the necessary tools to fulfil that new responsibility. If there is a dispute between the local government and the provincial government on that aspect, then there is a dispute resolution process, and that is in part 9. That is part of the charter to deal with disagreements between local and provincial governments.

J. Kwan: When the minister says that the provincial government must not assign responsibilities to local government, would the minister categorize the assignment of responsibilities to local government when, as an example, the provincial government stops funding to women's centres that exist in municipalities, and municipalities are no longer able to provide for and meet the needs of women who need the services of women's centres? Is that an assignment of provincial responsibilities to municipalities? While one may not call that an official assignment of responsibility to local governments, is the net effect the same — the off-loading of those services onto local government and therefore the impacts onto local government?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In general, if the provincial government decides to stop providing a particular service or providing assistance to a particular service, that service is not at the same time told by the provincial government to be absorbed in the local government structure. There is no off-loading. If the government will no longer provide funding for a particular service, there is no commitment, no requirement and no expectation that local governments will pick up the bill to continue providing that service.

No, there is no mandate by the provincial government to order local governments to take on a service. If they did, then it could not happen without the financial tools to take on the new responsibility. But the provincial government walking away from providing a specific service is no reason for local governments to think that they have to take it on. That would be a local decision.

J. Kwan: The minister says that there is no assignment of responsibilities to local government when a service is being cut by the provincial government. The municipality is not required to provide for that service. The net effect, though — would the minister not agree? — is that the impacts are on the local governments. Would they not have to deal with it in some way, or do they just ignore, then, the problems that surface as a result of the loss of those services in their community as a result of provincial cuts?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It's totally a local decision. Let me illustrate for the member. Last year we decided not to cut grass along the highways. The provincial government, in its process of finding the funds for important projects that we are working on, was looking for a saving of $5 million, so we stopped cutting the grass. Some municipalities wanted to continue to see the

grass cut, and they did it themselves. Or the communities just let it grow and had no problem with that. It's a local decision.

That's within the spirit of the charter, very much so, because the charter is really driven by the principles of letting local communities make decisions that are of importance to the local communities themselves and the people they serve. There is no direction from the provincial government to take on the new service without adequate funding under the no-off-loading provisions, but if a community wants to take on a service that is no longer provided by the provincial government, that is totally a community choice.

J. Kwan: So, then the option for local government is this. Where provincial government programs are being cut — and they are being cut throughout British Columbia — and the impacts will be felt by the municipalities, towns and cities across British Columbia…. When the provincial government does not say, "You have to take up this responsibility," then the local governments should just ignore the problems. Like the minister says: "Let the grass grow."

Alternatively, for women's centres, let the women who need the services, who are fleeing abuse, be left on the street or perhaps go back to their abusive relationships or…. Well, I don't know. I don't know what the options are.

Alternatively, I suppose, the local government can find funding somewhere, of which they have none — and has been off-loaded from the provincial government…. So the minister's advice then, when local governments don't have this money for a provincial service that's been cut, is that they should ignore the problem and just let it grow like the grass is growing on the boulevards?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It truly is a local choice. It is up to the local community, the local council, to make that decision. It is not mandated by the provincial government. It is a local decision, and that's what the member has to recognize.

J. Kwan: Another analogy I would like to draw is that it would be like the Minister of Education, who has frozen the education funding. There's not enough money in the education system. Trustees are saying that, parents are saying that, children are experiencing that, but the Minister of Education is saying: "Don't blame me; it's the local authority who gets to make that decision to cut that program. I'm not doing it."

The same principle is being applied here under the Community Charter. The only difference is that it's far greater in its scope, because it applies to every single service that would impact the local government at the local level when a provincial service is being cut.

The option, then, for these local governments is to ignore it. Just let the problems proliferate sort of like grass that grows on the boulevard and ignore it. It's their choice to do that. It's not the choice of the provincial government's, which has caused this problem for the municipalities. That's in essence, then, what the minister is saying.

Well, by the silence from the minister, one can only assume that that is what it means. So then I would say to local governments, "Heads up," because this act allows for off-loading. For the Liberal government to say that they're not off-loading to local governments because they are not specifically assigning that responsibility to the municipalities…. But at the same time we know that those services are being cut and that those impacts are being felt in their respective communities.

When women who are fleeing abusive relationships, as an example, are piling up in their community, then by the analogy the minister had used by way of comparison, it's their choice how they would deal with it — sort of like watching the grass grow. Interesting. That's the new-era approach and the principles in the legislation that are defined in this act, the new Community Charter. Let me canvass this question. With whom will the minister consult regarding proposed changes to local government legislation?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The sections that the member brought up about consultation, again, are the principles. When we get to part 9, we will be able to identify who the partners will be in the consultation process, including the UBCM, of course. The member seems to be confused about what the intent is of these issues. These are not active…. That's maybe not the right word. These are not directions how to proceed in the process of negotiations or consultations. These are the principles that demand or require consultation. That's the explanation for this.

J. Kwan: This is fascinating, because earlier I asked these questions under section 1, the same questions that I'm asking. Now the minister says: "Ask them in section 2." We're now dealing with section 2, so I'm asking the minister these questions, and he says: "Oh, ask me in part 9." Perhaps the strategy here is this: don't answer the questions. Then he thinks he might be able to get away with it. Maybe that's the strategy here. I don't know.

It's simple. Under section 2, it deals with the principles of municipal-provincial relations: "The relationship between municipalities and the Provincial government is based on the following principles." Then under (2)(b) it says: "…the Provincial government must not assign responsibilities to municipalities unless there is provision for resources required to fulfill the responsibilities."

Then (2)(c) says: "…consultation is needed on matters of mutual interest, including consultation by the Provincial government on (i) proposed changes to local government legislation, (ii) proposed changes to revenue transfers to municipalities, and (iii) proposed changes to Provincial programs that will have a significant impact in relation to matters that are within municipal authority."

So it would be reasonable — would it not, Mr. Chair? — to ask the question: with whom will the minister consult regarding proposed changes to local government legislation within the definition of these principles? Isn't that a logical question to ask?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The member reads out clearly what this section does. I will read it out for her benefit as well: "The relationship between municipalities and the Provincial government is based on the following principles…." Nothing more. It is not the section that describes how these principles are enacted. It doesn't say in here what the necessary steps the provincial government will take or must take, based on the principles, in dealing with issues that are of interest to local governments.

If the member wants to know who and when and where and how that process is started, I would suggest she take the time and actually read the Community Charter that she's debating here. Then she would have known that part 9 deals with these issues. That's the best answer I can give on that section, and we can get back to the questions that the member has asked when we get to part 9.

J. Kwan: Well, that's the strategy that the minister has adopted: to not answer the questions and keep on deferring it to some other section.

I've read the Community Charter. As far as I can tell, the only requirement for consultation is with the UBCM and with nobody else. But there are a lot of people that, I would argue, the minister needs to consult with. Maybe it's the minister who actually needs to look at the legislation. When you say that in principle there's consultation that needs to be done, then, in principle, with whom is the minister intending to consult? I would say that's a logical question to ask under this section of the act.

Maybe consultation works kind of like this, and it has been the case with this government, to date, on consultation. They campaigned that they would consult with the public, but what really happened is that they don't. They don't consult with the public. They think they have the power and authority to just ram things through, and then they do it. The difference here is this.

With the Community Charter there's a whole lot of ramifications for every single community across British Columbia, and the opposition wants to make sure people are properly consulted and that consultation takes place not just with the UBCM. The consultation requirements, in any definition…. The ramifications are huge as to what's being looked at, and changes to local government are broader than the impacts on the UBCM. It's every community, with many people and stakeholders who, in my view, need to be consulted.

We now know that the minister's strategy is to not answer the question but to move it on to another section. He has admitted that the government will off-load, and when that off-loading takes place…. You know, they can claim that they are not off-loading to the local government, because when provincial service are being cut, they've not assigned those responsibilities to the particular local government. When the impacts are being felt by the municipalities, when those services are being cut, the minister's advice to local government is: "If you have the money, deal with it, but if you don't have the money, then just watch the problems grow like grass on the boulevard; just let it grow." This is what local governments can anticipate, in part, under the new and better, improved Community Charter with this minister, with this government, with the new era, with the Liberals. We've got that clear.

Let me ask this question that the minister said to ask him under section 2. He may well now refer me to another section and not answer the question, because has done that already with the previous questions I've asked. How will the provincial government respect the varying needs and conditions of different municipalities in different areas of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Let me, first of all, give a brief background for the member's benefit about consultation. We have taken two years to discuss with local governments, on numerous occasions and in different parts of the province, the creation of the Community Charter. Approximately 1,500 submissions were received from local governments based on the various workshops we have had in the province. We created a draft that was sent to 1,500 different bodies, and 43,500 copies of the Community Charter draft were taken off the Internet. We have had further consultation, after the release of the draft, with various stakeholder groups — be it business, union, individuals or organizations.

We have gone through a tremendous process of finding out what local governments and citizens feel is the best way we can go about not only how, in the future, the relationship between local governments and the provincial government is developed but also how to work very much focused on the principles that local governments are the governments closest to the people they serve and know best what's happening in their communities, what the community's desires are and how to fulfil these community desires. That is the essence of the charter: local decision-making based on local issues. That is for the member's information.

As far as how we deal with this in the future, well, in principle we will always consult with affected parties. We don't know yet what the circumstances of these issues are, but that is, again, an issue or a way we will work directly with local governments under the Community Charter and with the UBCM and from time to time with other stakeholders as well, because I think it's important that this be a very inclusive process.

J. Kwan: If the intention of the consultation process is as broad as the minister has outlined it to be, then

why is it that in this legislation the only requirement is that the consultation take place with the UBCM?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I think I made it very clear that the process we have gone through has been in order to create a Community Charter and in order to ensure that the Community Charter truly reflects how local communities in the future want to be in charge of their own destiny.

I'm not talking about future legislation; I'm not talking about future direction. How that consultation process will take place is in part 9. If the member will wait till we get to part 9, she will see how we, in the future, will consult with local governments, how we will consult through the UBCM and how we will consult directly through municipalities.

J. Kwan: Let's just be clear what this section says. These are the principles that the minister says he's intending to follow, and I am canvassing with the minister what exactly his intentions behind these principles are. Then the minister has referred me to part 9 to say: "My intentions are clear under part 9."

When you go to part 9, he says very clearly that in the legislation the only requirement for consultation is with the UBCM. It requires no other consultation with any other stakeholder. This is about future legislation, about future changes, and so, too, is the principle section which deals with future changes — proposed changes to local government legislation, proposed changes to revenue transfers and proposed changes to provincial programs — that will have a significant impact in relation to matters that are within municipal authority.

It follows that these questions are being asked. It follows that if the government would like to claim they are broadening their consultation process, then why isn't it in the legislation that it states they would be required to consult with other parties — a list of people that the minister just puts on the record — and not just with the UBCM. That is the issue here that we're discussing.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Maybe the member should look at section 2 again. This is about the relationship between municipalities and the provincial government and is based on a series of principles, including how, in the future, we will formally work together with UBCM to deal with issues that are of interest to local government.

Let me also say that today we do exactly the same thing through a memorandum of understanding. We have a commitment with the UBCM — and a commitment was part of the member's former government's initiatives — to have consultation on an ongoing basis on issues of mutual respect dealing with local government issues. That has never stopped us — and in the past, I hope, the former government — from meeting individually with community members or community leaders who have specific issues they would like to see discussed with the minister. That's on an ongoing basis, and I have no doubt that that will continue to happen.

The principle that is needed is to establish a vehicle for local government access to the provincial government when these discussions have to take place on issues of municipal interest. That will have the form of body as is expressed in part 9, and that we will get to much later, I take it.

J. Kwan: The legislation says very clearly that the only party the government is required to consult with is the UBCM, when the minister knows — and if he doesn't, he ought to know — that the ramifications of many changes, including changes to provincial programs — that is to say, cuts to provincial programs and services — will have significant impact in relation to matters that are within the municipality authority. It impacts the municipalities. It impacts community groups. It impacts the unions. It impacts the individuals who need those services and the families and children who need those services.

One would have thought that a government that claims it's big on consultation and has committed to consultation with the public would actually prescribe in legislation that it would consult with these other stakeholders. That is the point. The legislation does not require that. This legislation does not mention any other stakeholder except for the one. When the minister knows very well that these program cuts in services that are taking place — and more are to come — will impact their communities and the individuals, he ought to perhaps consult with them and be required to do so under the legislation.

When he isn't requiring himself to do that work — this government to do that work — why isn't he? Is he afraid to go and talk to the public? Why doesn't he prescribe it in legislation to say that these other stakeholders must be consulted as well?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Briefly, these are the principles that establish the new local government–provincial government relationship and how discussions will be happening on provincial issues that have an important element for local government or that impact on local government. That's what this does. That doesn't stop us from ever talking to other parties.

I'm really surprised that this member is bringing this point constantly to the front, considering that she was part of a government during the last decade that went through a local government review, and at no time did they ever introduce the principle that she is now standing up for and very seriously lacking in this document…. She was part of rewriting the Local Government Act or the Municipal Act, and she had the opportunity at that time to introduce the principle that the public had to be consulted. They didn't do it. For her to now stand here on a high principle that she so strongly believes in, I think she can only say to herself that she failed the public, if that is what she believes should be done, at the time she had the chance to do it.

These are the principles that establish the relationship between the provincial government and local government, how we deal with issues that have to be discussed. As far as any other issues, the doors are always open for other individuals to come in if they feel the need to discuss matters with individual ministers.

J. Kwan: Let me get this straight. The reason the minister says he's not doing it is because we didn't do it. He says: "Don't worry, because as the minister is the government, we have the authority to go beyond what the legislation says, and that's to go further than the consultation requirements as prescribed in this legislation." So he says: "Don't worry."

The reality is this. Yesterday, Mr. Chair, we debated a piece of legislation that impacts all British Columbia on the forestry issue. The Leader of the Opposition put forward a hoist motion to say: "You know what? We need to go and consult the public, so let's put a hold on this legislation for six months so that we can do that."

In other sessions there's been other legislation put forward where the opposition had advanced the notion that we should go out and consult with the public on the impacts of these changes and, of course, with the hope of finding better solutions to the challenges and problems that we're faced with. The government, including this minister, voted against every one of those motions — every single one. Given an opportunity to go and do consultation broader than what is prescribed and in this instance what is prescribed in legislation, the government refuses to do so consistently. The government rejected that opportunity at every turn.

When we're talking about the Community Charter, where the ramifications of changes are enormous and where future changes are also significant, it states clearly under the principles — which then, of course, provide one with the understanding — that the intention of the government is as follows. The intention of the government would be based on the principle that consultation would be required on matters of mutual interest, including consultation by the provincial government on — I'll just pick one area here — proposed changes to provincial programs that will have a significant impact in relation to matters that are within municipal authority.

When you look at that one clause alone, you have to acknowledge the fact that when proposed changes to provincial programs are underway — which is, by the way, a euphemistic way to say "cuts to provincial programs," whether it be cuts to children who are sexually abused, as the Ministry of Children and Family Development is doing; cuts to education, as the Ministry of Education is doing; cuts to the Water, Land and Air Protection area; cuts to the Advanced Education area; cuts to welfare, the Human Resources area — you name it — cuts to the health care programming area; respite beds, which I just asked questions about yesterday…. When all these cuts are taking place, they are called under this piece of legislation "proposed changes to provincial programs" that will have a significant impact in relation to matters within the municipal authority.

The consultation is only required in this act under part 9 with the UBCM, but the impact is being felt by every individual, I would argue, in the local authority, whether it be the individuals or families or the children who need those services; whether it be the service agencies, the non-profit societies that provide for those services; or the businesses that operate within those communities. Everyone would be impacted as a result of these changes. Why doesn't the minister require consultation with these other members of the community and not just with the UBCM? The answer, the minister says, is: "Don't worry. It's all in hand." Yet at every turn when the opposition puts forward the motion to engage in broader consultation, this minister and every government member vote it down. That is the record.

I have no faith on the issue around consultation here in this legislation when it is not prescribed clearly who else should be consulted. It is not clearly prescribed. I have a lot of concern about that.

We've established the government's intention on consultation. They will only consult with one party, and that is the UBCM and nobody else in legislation. All right. I disagree with that, and I have problems with that, but I do want to ask the minister this question. When I asked him the question earlier under section 1, he said, "Ask me the questions under section 2," so I'm going to ask the question under section 2. How will the provincial government respect the varying needs and conditions of different municipalities in different areas of B.C.?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If the member reads subsection (2)(d): "the Provincial government respects the varying needs and conditions of different municipalities in different areas of British Columbia…." That will be reflected, and dealing with the uniqueness of different communities will be dealt with through the principles that have been established. How we will communicate and work together with the UBCM or…. UBCM is the best word to say for dealing with local issues of interest.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer the question. The question is: how will the minister attain and ensure that objective is met?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: We're dealing with the principles of the charter. It's the principles here. There are in different other sections, again, aspects of how we deal with unique situations, enabling bylaws and other opportunities for local governments to have their situations dealt with.

One of the things that drives the charter, as well, is that we do not believe that one solution fits all situations. The need for recognizing unique situations in different communities is recognized through a series of other elements within the charter, including part 9 as well.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer the question. He keeps on saying: "Well, these are the principles." Well, the principles speak to the intention. The intent of

the legislation is critical in terms of how it is being carried out. To get clarity on that is simply impossible from this minister, because he refuses to answer the question. He simply refuses to answer the question. The minister won't answer the question in terms of how the provincial government would respect the varying degrees of needs and conditions of different municipalities in different areas of B.C.

How will the province ensure that municipalities' concerns are addressed in interprovincial, national and international discussions that affect the municipalities?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The same applies here as it has applied with the other areas the member has been trying to raise. These are the principles. The tools are in part 9. I hope that the member will remember all these questions when we get to part 9, because by that time we can give the answers.

J. Kwan: It's an interesting approach from the minister. For every single question that's been asked under section 1, he says: "Go to section 2." When the same questions are being asked under section 2, he goes: "Oh, go to part 9." Then he goes: "I hope the member remembers to ask those questions."

The issue here really is that I hope the minister actually will have the answers for those questions, because so far we have spent — what? — about an hour and 15 minutes, and we have basically obtained no answers from this minister on any of the questions that have been canvassed.

The other area that I want to canvass under section 2 from this minister — and he said, "Ask me under section 2" — so here goes again…. I suspect he probably won't answer the question, but here goes again anyway. Under 2(1)(b), are there any immediate or future plans for harmonization?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In (1)(b): "The citizens of British Columbia are best served, when, in their relationship, municipalities and the Provincial government work towards harmonization of Provincial and municipal enactments, policies and programs…." It's a statement of principle that is also a call. There are no tools in the principles, obviously, on how to achieve that. That will be part of the discussions that are ongoing between local governments, through the UBCM, and the provincial government. So, again, this is not something that an example can be given of how it works. It is an intent and a statement that the best way for the local government and the provincial government to achieve harmonization in these areas is to the best benefit of all of British Columbia.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Like I say, there are not specific plans on the table to say, "Okay, here are areas where we could harmonize," but local governments are already involved with that whole process of harmonization. We see it here right now in the greater Victoria regional district, where municipalities work together in the issuing of business licences and building permits. That not only saves a lot of money for the communities, but it makes it much easier for builders, developers and people who do renovations to get their permits in place. That's just an example of how harmonization of policies and regulations is already working. We expect, with the charter, that we're going to focus more attention on how we can harmonize municipal, provincial and regional issues as well. So this is almost a statement of intent.

J. Kwan: On the issue around dispute mechanisms, there is a whole notion about arbitration, mediation, attempts to get an officer to come and mediate, etc. Is it the intention, under the principles of this section of the act, that municipalities can have a veto power over the provincial government in the case where there's a disagreement, or is it the case that the provincial government has veto power over the municipalities where there is a disagreement?

Part 9 sets out how consultation, negotiation and arbitration are offered, how they will work and what goals we try to achieve by using the alternate dispute resolution processes. This particular statement is purely the principle that the government and municipalities should attempt to resolve their disputes through an alternate dispute resolution rather than what happens now — going to court to find their way.

J. Kwan: Yes, part 9 talks about arbitration, mandatory binding arbitration, voluntary arbitration, final proposal arbitration, etc. But the question here…. The intention of the act under the principle of the act talks about "the Provincial government and municipalities should attempt to resolve conflicts between them by consultation, negotiation, facilitation and other forms of dispute resolution." The dispute resolution forms of how to settle issues are dealt with under part 9. My question is this: is it the intention of the government, under the principles of this act, to allow for any one party to have veto power over the other when there are disagreements?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There is no veto power here on the discussion. This is a form of dispute resolution where we find, or try to find, two partners to come together to find mutual grounds to solve an issue. So it's nothing to do with veto.

J. Kwan: In other words, the provincial government can unilaterally cut funding to municipalities and off-load programs to them even though the municipalities may disagree. The provincial government can do that

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I have explained to the member before why her statement is wrong.

J. Kwan: I'm seeking a confirmation from the minister that in the case where the provincial government off-loads a program and cuts funding for a particular program for the municipality or impacts the municipalities, the municipalities will have no say if they disagree at the end of the day with that decision. They would not be able to veto. Will the minister confirm that the provincial government can unilaterally, then, cut funding to municipalities and cut their programs?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said, the member was wrong before, and she continues to be wrong.

J. Kwan: I wish the minister would actually listen to the question and then perhaps answer the question. His answer to the question is that I am wrong and that I continue to be wrong. I asked the minister: can he confirm that it is the case that the provincial government can unilaterally cut funding to the municipalities? Is he saying, then, that the provincial government has no unilateral power to cut funding to municipalities if the municipalities disagree? Is he saying I'm wrong?

The Chair: Shall section 2 pass? Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on section 2.

J. Kwan: I'm waiting for an answer from the minister. I think that it's not just me who would want to know what the answer is. I think every single municipality would want to know what the answer is. Can the provincial government unilaterally cut funding to municipalities? Can they unilaterally off-load programs to municipalities? If municipalities disagree in their discussion with the provincial government on the funding cuts, can they have a veto power?

The minister says they don't have a veto power. Does that mean the provincial government has unilateral authority to cut funding? I don't think it's good enough for the minister to just sit there and not answer the question. Municipalities want to know, and I would expect the people who live in our communities want to know, because this has huge ramifications for each and every one of our neighbourhoods across British Columbia.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Okay, Mr. Chair, I'll try one more time. If the member looks at subsection (2)(c)(ii), if there are proposed changes to revenue transfers to local municipalities, there is a requirement to consult with municipalities. How that process will be triggered and how the process will develop is in part 9, where it can be discussed in more detail.

J. Kwan: The minister can try and sidestep all he wants. He giggles when I say that he's sidestepping these questions that I would expect the municipalities would want to know. I would expect every citizen in their respective communities would want to know, because it has huge ramifications for them. For the minister not to answer the questions that are being posed and to giggle in his seat is simply unacceptable.

We're talking about the principles of an act that go to the intention of this piece of legislation, which deal with the notion of cuts or, as the minister likes to call it in this legislation, proposed changes to provincial programs that equate to cuts in programs. Yes, there is a reference to the need for consultation, and, yes, it refers to arbitration for dispute as a dispute mechanism — whether it be voluntary, mandatory or otherwise.

But the question is this: is it the intention of this minister under this act, under the principles of this act and in this section of the act, to give the provincial government unilateral powers to cut funding to municipalities where there's a disagreement with municipalities?

J. Kwan: I'm glad the minister answered that question and it is now on record. The provincial government does not have unilateral power to cut programs or cut funding to municipalities.

When the municipalities disagree with these cuts, they then have veto power. When the municipality comes forward and says, "No, provincial government, I do not agree with that cut in programming; I do not agree with that cut in funding that impacts my municipality," the provincial government then has to back off, because they do not have the unilateral power to cut it. They must then seek the agreement of the municipalities.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just for the record, Mr. Chair, because the member is beginning to play with words again, as she has done before in other sessions. She asked, "Is it the intention?" and I said no. Her response is: "So now it is confirmed that it will not happen." The member is putting a different scenario on the table in her response than the question she was asking. She asked, "Is it the intention of the provincial government?" and the answer was no to that part.

J. Kwan: You know what? When we deal with the intention of legislation, it is critical, because the intention of legislation is the interpretation of what the legislation is. When people understand what the intentions are, the intention ought to translate into action. It follows that the intention must be complied with.

When I ask the minister the question — is it the intention of this legislation and this minister to allow the provincial government unilateral authority to cut funding and programs to municipalities? — and when the answer is no, then the interpretation of the intention of this act is that provincial government has no authority to do that and that local governments, when

they do not agree with those cuts, could say no. Another translation of that is that municipalities do have veto power over the provincial government. Isn't that so?

It's logical. I hope I'm being logical. I know I'm a bit sleep-deprived. I only had four hours of sleep last night with a newborn, and I know I'm a bit sleep-deprived. But I think that's a logical argument, following what the minister has said in his answers to my question.

J. Kwan: Given that there's no response from the minister, then I can only interpret that non-response to mean concurrence — that the minister actually agrees with the arguments that I have laid out. If the minister doesn't, I ask him to rise in this House and dispute it now.

The Chair: Shall section 2 pass? The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on section 2.

Then there is no dispute. I will be asking my staff to send a letter to every single municipality to advise them it is the intention of this government and this minister that the provincial government have no unilateral authority to cut funding or programs to municipalities that impact them.

If the minister is not disputing that, then we're going to send that out in Hansard and make sure every municipality understands the authority and the voice they do have in speaking up for their communities, because these cuts are taking place in the province and more are to come, and the municipalities will be impacted. I'll give the minister one more chance to say that I'm wrong.

J. Kwan: If I'm wrong, then I would ask the minister to correct his answers. Which part of it is wrong? I asked the question: is it the intention of this minister and this government under this section of the act, where it speaks to the principles of the act, to allow for the provincial government to have unilateral powers or authority to cut funding to local governments or to cut programs that impact local governments? The minister's answer is no. It was a clear-cut answer. He said no. We'll verify it with Hansard. I'm sure that's what the minister said.

So when you interpret that answer, what it means to me is that the municipality has veto power. They could say no to the provincial government, and it cannot unilaterally off-load these programs, make these cuts. On which part am I wrong here?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'll say it one more time: these are the principles. If there is any intent of reducing revenue transfers to municipalities, in part 9 it is described how there is a requirement to consult with local governments, and that's it.

J. Kwan: We dealt with the consultation issue. The requirement under this act is for this government, this minister, to consult with the UBCM. The issue is where there is a disagreement through that consultation on cuts to the programs. Does the provincial government have the unilateral authority to cut these programs? The minister's answer was no. So he's not disputing that part. He's saying they will consult, and they will do all of that. Fine. I'll just leave it and move on to another question. We'll look back in Hansard. It will say very clearly what Hansard says.

The section of this act which deals with interprovincial, national or international discussions is section 2(2)(e). Since the consideration of municipal interests is needed when the province participates in interprovincial, national or international discussions, does this mean that the municipalities will have some say in the provisions in international trade agreements, including areas such as NAFTA, which are causing concern about municipal purchasing powers?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: What this section says is that when participating in interprovincial, national or international discussions on matters that affect municipalities, the provincial government, indeed, must be thinking about local governments or municipalities. In part 9 it describes how we can, through consultation with local government, include the voice of the local governments in that process.

J. Kwan: So the intention here under this section that deals with the need to…. Let me use the exact words: where "consultation is needed on matters of mutual interest, including consultation by the provincial government on" and "consideration of municipal interests is needed when the Provincial government participates in interprovincial, national, or international discussions on matters that affect municipalities."

So the intention under the principles of this section of the act is simply to have the provincial government think about the municipalities, and then that's it. It stops there?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Yes. This requires the provincial government to think about municipal interests. If there is a mutual interest, then we can, in part 9, arrange how a consultation process would take place.

J. Kwan: Yes, and so when those discussions take place or when discussions take place where there are disagreements or concerns raised, such as the issues around the provisions in international trade agreements, including NAFTA…. What happens when there are disagreements? Is it under part 9, then, that an arbitrator will be brought in either voluntarily or mandatorily?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As is said in the principle, the provincial government must consider the interests of local governments.

J. Kwan: Then all they have to do is just take that into consideration. "Well, thank you very much for your thoughts," and then that's it. Then the provincial government can do whatever they want. Is that right?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The principle that the provincial government keeps in mind or thinks about the interests of local governments when dealing with national or international…. International discussions are a requirement as principle. In part 9 there are some tools for how that interest can be represented through consultation or other forums. If there are other forums, maybe it is consultation. That's the essence of the principle, yeah.

J. Kwan: Well, actually, under part 9 the only authority there is really just for consultation to take place. The issue is this. Where consultation does take place and where there's a disagreement, or where concerns are raised and the government is just sidestepping or bypassing those concerns and still moving forward with whatever decision they want — even though the municipal governments don't agree — then in essence the municipal governments have no authority whatsoever to try and influence the provincial government to change that course of direction at all.

I suppose one could say, then, that the majority of this section of the act…. While it may be well intentioned, the act does not actually have any teeth. It gives no powers to the local government. In this area here — where there may be concerns raised with issues that are interprovincial, national or international — all the provincial government has to do is think about it in terms of the municipal interests, go and talk to the municipal government and then shelve what they say if there's disagreement and then move on. There are not a whole lot of teeth in this legislation to that end.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise: what is the purpose of this section, and what is his intention?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This section is not unlike a similar section in the Local Government Act. It is a message to the courts that the interpretation of this act should be done in a broad way. Courts in the past have often interpreted local government regulations in a narrow type of form. This is an indicator of the intent of the provincial government that we'd like to see this or that we expect these acts to be interpreted by the courts in their broadest way.

J. Kwan: Section 4 deals with…. Its heading is "Broad Interpretation." It reads as follows: "Section 4(1). The powers conferred on municipalities and their councils by or under this act or the Local Government Act must be interpreted broadly in accordance with the purposes of those Acts and in accordance with municipal purposes."

Subsection (2) reads: "If (a) an enactment confers a specific power on a municipality or council in relation to a matter, and (b) the specific power can be read as coming within a general power conferred by or under this Act or the Local Government Act, the general power must not be interpreted as being limited by that specific power, but that aspect of the general power that encompasses the specific power may only be exercised subject to any conditions and restrictions established in relation to the specific power." That's a whole lot of specific and general powers and conditions that are under there.

This relates to earlier when I asked a question under section 1, which deals with adequate powers and the authorities within which…. Is it to mean that under section 4, adequate powers are the broad powers within which there are specific powers that are being prescribed within the act, and those specific powers will then generally stipulate the scope of what those broad powers would be?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Section 4 is identical to section 3 in the Local Government Act, so there is no change there.

It's a highly technical answer — not being a lawyer — that I'm going to try to give. The interpretation of broad powers — for example, animal control powers — should be interpreted in the broadest sense of the word. The specific powers applying to cat control do not mean that, by being specific, they interfere with the broader powers. One does not exclude the other. One power does not eliminate the other power. So in this particular case, animals and a cat — different types of power. But they do not exclude the broader power to apply to a cat, I believe — right?

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. Actually, I didn't understand a word the minister said. Maybe he can try it again. I'm sorry. I'm not being facetious. I just didn't get it.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If we take a broader power — for example, an animal control power — and we take a specific power, which is a specific animal like a cat, the terms are different because there is a specific power on that cat. It doesn't mean that the broader power that would apply to animals as a whole does not apply to that cat as well.

J. Kwan: In other words, broad powers and specific powers both apply. Is that right?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The purpose here is that if you only had a specific power for cat control, without this section the court would interpret that…. As you do have a specific bill for cat control, which is a specific power, the broader powers would apply on the specific powers as well.

If we didn't have this section, then if you had a situation with the specific power related to a cat, you could not imply the broader powers on that cat control as well, because the court would say no. Because you have a specific power for that cat, it is excluded from the broader powers on animal control.

J. Kwan: Thank you to the minister and to the staff who were nodding when I asked a question.

Then in that instance, what you're basically saying is that broad powers and specific powers both apply, and that's the intention of this section of the act — to ensure that that is the case. I see the staff of the minister is nodding. I understand that. If I'm not interpreting this wrong, then I have no further questions for section 4.

J. Kwan: On section 7, which deals with municipal purposes, my question on this section is: in what circumstances can the municipality regulate an activity by bylaw? Can the legislation prevent an independent homeowner from doing virtually anything with their property, as an example?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: These are not specific powers for municipalities. These are the purposes applied to providing for good government in its community — providing for services and so on. How they provide these services and stewardship issues is in other parts of the Community Charter — in other sections.

J. Kwan: Is the question that I've posed — can this legislation prevent an independent homeowner from doing virtually anything with their property — being addressed in another section? Could the minister advise which section deals with this issue?

On that note, as he's getting that information from his staff, let me also ask this question: does this mean that a municipality can ask a homeowner to do anything with their property at their own expense? Would that section also deal with that question?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just for the member, the power to regulate is section 8. We're going to get to that very soon. That's where the answer will be found.

J. Kwan: Okay. Then I will ask these questions under section 8. But I'd also like to perhaps ask for a five-minute recess.

I know that the member for East Kootenay, before we began the discussion, had said that he wanted to ask the minister questions on section 8. Perhaps he could take the floor and ask these questions — so that he could actually get here to ask those questions. I have lots of questions under section 8, and I don't want to dominate the floor, so I want to yield the floor to the member for East Kootenay.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move the amendment to section 8 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

B. Bennett: I have questions for the minister on section 8 but also on sections 50, 51, 59 and 64, which all define or help define the fundamental powers set out in section 8. I'll be dealing mainly with those fundamental powers in section 8, but, again, you can't really deal with them without also going…. I can't deal with them the way I want to deal with them unless I go also to sections 50, 51, 59 and 64, and I'll take them one at a time.

I want to say before I start my questions that I am very much aware that significant changes and improvements, actually, have been made to the draft bill. I also want to acknowledge the difficulty for this minister in this exercise of trying to balance our commitments from the New Era document around reducing regulation, enhancing business investment and providing more flexibility and power to municipal government. That's a difficult balance, and I think he's done an excellent job at that.

I want to ask a question, to start with, on section 8(3)(c) around trees and the related sections 50 and 51. I

think the charter grants powers to councils to cause trees to remain uncut, to remain standing. It also gives municipal councils the power to have these trees cut, I think, and also to order that trees be planted — so three things in relation to trees coming out of section 8(3)(c).

Section 50, I think, restricts the authority around trees by stating that if the exercise of the powers in section 8 have the effect of preventing all uses or preventing development to the density permitted, compensation must be paid or a development permit must be provided. Nobody's nodding.

The problem with section 50(3)(b) is that a municipal council can prevent a developer from cutting trees and, therefore, from developing in accordance with the legal zoning bylaw by simply issuing that developer a permit that forces the developer to develop on the minimum density for the uses that are allowed by the zoning bylaw.

I think it's fair to say that zoning bylaws typically contain multiple uses. In other words, a developer might have the right under a zoning bylaw on a piece of ground to do a number of different things. He might have the right to build a single-family dwelling along with multiple-unit condominiums. It might be a large piece of property that even includes some right to build something on the commercial side.

My concern about section 8(3)(c) and the way that section 50 impacts it is that councils will have the right to say: "Okay, you can't cut those trees — all right? We'll issue you a permit, but that permit is only going to allow you to build some of the things that you would have been allowed to build under that zoning bylaw." I'd just ask if the minister and I could have a discussion about that or if I could get a response to that.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm surprised, because the prohibition that the member talks about in section 8 is today in place. That's an existing prohibition, so there's nothing new there. The other thing is that the limitation under section 50 that the member expressed concerns about is, again, the same as under the Local Government Act, so there's nothing new there either. I can't really say much more about that at this time.

B. Bennett: The point for me is that if you allow a municipal council to basically tell a developer: "Oh, I'm sorry. You purchased this piece of land for X number of dollars, and when you determined what it was worth, you looked at the existing zoning bylaw. The existing zoning bylaw allows you to use it for several different purposes." After you bought the land — you paid your money for it, and you own the land — the council came along and said: "You can't cut the trees on that piece of ground, but we'll issue you a permit, and we'll allow you to do one of the things that you're allowed to do under that zoning bylaw." That seems to me to be a unilateral change of a zoning bylaw after the purchaser has paid a fair price for the property.

I take it the minister's answer is that it already exists in the Local Government Act. Then I guess what I would suggest is that it is a flaw, if in fact it does exist in the Local Government Act, and I'm wondering why we're allowing that to continue in the new statute.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: For the member's information, this provision has been in the Local Government Act or the Municipal Act since 1995. Just in asking my co-workers here if this is a problem — that it does often get used to prohibit or frustrate a developer — their information is that this particular section has been used very little to deal with development.

One of the things I'd also like the member to keep in mind is that the Community Charter grows from a spirit of local governments being merely creatures of the provincial government and, therefore, not really authorized to make decisions for themselves. By introducing a charter, we are empowering local governments. To see a clawback to an existing section in the Local Government Act, which regulates today, is not really something that we decided to do. We have met with various construction companies who have expressed that. Although this is not a land use issue per se, I understand it because it is a tree issue. When we get into the second phase of the Community Charter, which will deal with land use provisions and policies, I think that's where we will have an opportunity right at the beginning to have discussions with the construction industry and to revisit this issue as well.

B. Bennett: Still on section 8(3)(c). Still dealing with trees, I wonder if the minister could confirm whether or not section 8(3)(c) under "Fundamental Powers…." I'll just read it: "A council may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to the following" and then, under (c), "trees."

My question is: is that not a wider discretion, a wider power for municipal governments to deal with basically anything in relation to trees, than what exists under the current legislation?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The aspect that is wider is the right to require for local governments to property owners. The other areas of the prohibition and the regulation remain exactly the same.

B. Bennett: It just seems to me that the powers to make decisions and to force property owners — particularly commercial property owners, developers — to do things around trees is greater than it was under the former legislation.

I want to — still with trees — switch to section 51 and just get some confirmation on not so much the purpose of section 51 but the application and how broad it is. Section 51 deals with, I think, compensation. I'll let the minister correct me if I'm off base here, but I think section 51 deals with a situation where a property owner is told by a municipal government: "You've got to do something with trees. You've either got to plant a

bunch of trees" — which may prevent the developer from building something — "or you have to cut a bunch of trees down" — which might also impact the builder's plans. Or it might deal with a situation where a builder is issued a permit that he or she doesn't really want.

In any case, my question is with respect to section 51, "Compensation not payable": would compensation be payable in a situation where a municipal government orders a developer to leave trees on a piece of property, thereby not allowing that developer to use all of the purposes normally allowable under the zoning bylaw? Would that loss of value in land be compensable under section 51?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, here is a piece of regulation that exists in the Local Government Act. It is today's section 7(14). For financial compensation you have to look at section 50. That describes the terms under which compensation would be payable.

B. Bennett: Section 51 follows up section 50. Section 50 covers the restrictions in relation to authority, and the title of the division is "Authority in Relation to Trees." So section 50 deals with trees.

Section 51 supports and enhances section 50. Section 51, it seems to me, deals in fact with a situation…. In fact, it refers specifically to section 8(3)(c), which deals with trees, and states that "no compensation is payable to any person for a reduction in the value of any interest in land that results from a bylaw under section 8(3)(c)…or the issuance or refusal of a permit required under such a bylaw."

The concern I've got is that I believe, at least from my reading of the legislation, that it's possible for a developer to lose some value in a piece of land that the developer has purchased in good faith and, in fact, not be entitled to compensation for the reduction in value of the land based on section 8(3)(c), section 50 and section 51.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said, the compensation issue and when compensation would be in order is in section 50(3)(a) and (b). As far as the overall concern that the member has expressed about properties being downzoned, giving lesser value by actions of a local government would be a downzoning change of use…. As I said, this regulation has been in place for a number of years and has been used very few times, to our knowledge.

What I have seen from experience — and I believe that is what local governments do overall — is that when there is an opportunity to develop a site, and there is a tree issue on that site, that local government actually upzones on a smaller footprint of the land, thereby still getting the value that land would reflect if the developer could just go in and cut the trees. In this case, as I just described, they would leave a certain amount of trees to keep the greenness of the area, but at the same time they would be allowed to upzone on a smaller footprint to still achieve these financial values that they expect.

I haven't seen this to be a big one. It is something that, if it is of major concern, will certainly come back when we deal with the second phase of the Community Charter. At that time we can have a good discussion based on all the facts we know, because I also am guessing a little bit as to how much the impact of that particular section has been on the developers.

B. Bennett: I support the intention or what I think is the intention of these sections around trees. I do support the concept that municipal governments must have some measure of control over the trees that are cut, the trees that are left and the trees that are planted in a municipality. I don't take any issue at all, I think, with the purpose or the general intention here. I do maintain that there is a potential situation where a developer could find himself or herself in a situation where they're just not able to use the land the way they intended when they bought it, and I don't think there's compensation payable.

I'd like to leave that. Mr. Chair, if I could…. Something the minister said a second ago has caused me to just question whether I have the right document here — one of the section numbers that the minister used. I'm using the government bill, Bill 14, that….

Hon. Ted Nebbeling: I believe it's section 51: "Except as provided in section 50 (3), no compensation is payable…." Then you go to section 50(3), and you see that there are…. Sorry. Then you look at section 50(3): "A bylaw referred to in subsection (2) applies without limit to a parcel if the council, by resolution, commits the municipality to (a) pay compensation to the owner of the parcel for any reduction in the market value caused by the prohibition, or (b) provide, by development permit, development variance permit or otherwise, alternative means for the parcel to be used for a permitted use or developed to the permitted density."

There are ways for local governments to, instead of just saying, "This is it; you're not going to cut the trees," so you lose value…. They can use other tools. I gave you one description of how many communities deal with the desire to keep trees or land and at the same time see developers achieve the financial gains that they are supposed to have, or are entitled to, because of the development. That's why we referred you to that section.

B. Bennett: I think I misunderstood one of the section numbers previously, and that's what caused me to wonder whether I had the right document here. I believe that I do.

We can carry on with section 8(3)(e), which was just amended. All I want to do here is just recognize the minister and thank the minister for amending that section. There are a number of people, particularly in the rural parts of the province, who were concerned when they saw this section. It seemed to widen municipal government's capacity to deal with firearms from the Local Government Act. I know that in amending this section, there will be a lot of people in rural B.C. who will feel a little better about the statute and, I'm sure, will appreciate the minister's actions here.

Mr. Chair, if I could ask a few questions around section 8(3)(h), which is one of the fundamental powers dealing with "the protection and enhancement of the well-being of its community in relation to the matters referred to in section 64…." Section 64 lists off a whole bunch of things that are referred to as "nuisances, disturbances and other objectionable situations." Essentially, as I understand it, the municipal councils would have the right to create a bylaw to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to any of these things that might be an objectionable situation.

I would like to ask whether the minister has anything in this act that would assist municipal governments to determine a reasonable determination of what these other objectionable situations might be. Do they just accept what the general public claims is objectionable, or is there some assistance somewhere in the act that helps the municipal government determine what is actually objectionable and what isn't?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The other objectionable situations are included in the list (a) to (l) of areas where nuisances and disturbances would have certain control mechanisms available for local governments.

B. Bennett: Just for clarification: if the action or activity is not listed from (a) through (l) in section 64, then it's not an objectionable situation?

B. Bennett: I'm going to try a hypothetical situation on all of us here in regard to section 64 and section 8(3)(h). It is hypothetical. I just made it up this afternoon when I was thinking about this.

Just to see if we can determine how section 64 would apply in the real world, let's say that there's a small dairy supply business set up in a small municipality somewhere in British Columbia. Let's say that recently some condominiums were constructed, or perhaps a housing subdivision was constructed, close to this dairy supply business. Let's say that delivery trucks are coming into this dairy business early in the morning, as they probably do, and let's say that the new residents of these new residential developments are upset about what they consider to be objectionable vibration that they can perhaps detect in their condominiums from these early-morning deliveries. So they go to council and complain, and council passes a bylaw that prevents these delivery trucks from coming into that business early in the morning. Let's say, further in this hypothetical, that deliveries can only be made early in the morning, partly because that's when the fresh product has to be there so that the business can do business and have it available for distribution, but also partly because that's when the traffic is the lightest, and it's the only time that the delivery trucks can actually stop outside the business.

What I'm curious about is, in that situation — which I believe is entirely possible and even likely: what sort of remedy or recourse does that small business have in that situation? They were there first; they've been there for maybe 20 years. Is their only remedy to move locations, or what can they do?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There's a number of answers to the question. One of the issues, of course, is — especially when you talk about a small community, as the member did — that business that is there, that little dairy operation, may well be an important part of the structure of the community. It may have some jobs. There are going to be economic reasons to be considered by the council. There are going to be job opportunity reasons to be considered by the council. One of the things that we sometimes forget to focus on is the fact that councils are supposed to be operating under a principle of reasonableness. Those are the two observations I can make on the member's question.

The third one is that in section 8, there is now a requirement that council has to explain in writing to a person why a particular bylaw has been passed, and so the exact reasons for creating problems for the dairy operation would be stipulated. That's the best answer I can give.

I don't think I should go any further, because when I'm speaking on this one, I'm also trying to think if I can remember a situation, but it doesn't come to mind. I think there are other factors that council will consider in dealing with that potential nuisance issue as just a noise and nothing that will make a difference in their decisions.

B. Bennett: I'm probably not as confident as the minister is that municipal councils will, on balance, decide to provide adequate weight to the economics of the situation and to the jobs that might exist in this small business, as opposed to the number of people who may be at their door concerned about this vibration. In terms of sheer numbers of votes, the number probably will lie with the people who live in the condominium. But time will tell, and that situation will reveal itself over time, I guess.

In terms of the principle of reasonableness, I'd like to ask whether that principle of reasonableness is in fact spelled out somewhere in the act. Or would someone impacted by a municipal council decision have to go to a court of law to find out what that standard of reasonableness really is?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The conditions under which a local council would deem a particular operation to cre-

ate a nuisance like vibration have to be based on reality. It has to disturb the quiet peace; it has to disturb the rest and enjoyment, the comfort or convenience of individuals or the public at large. So there are certain conditions. You cannot just say: "Okay, this is a nuisance because I think so." If the dairy feels that these elements have not been considered, then of course the answer lies in the courts.

What I have seen and heard so far from court decisions in general is that judges look at issues very much with the doctrine of reasonableness in mind. So I think that's ultimately where the decision will be made, if it was a nuisance. If it was not, then the dairy would win and continue with business. Obviously, part of our objective is not to set the terms which would make it very easy for local governments to go after businesses — not that they want to, but if they do it. That's why we are very careful in how we word these sections so that we don't give an indication for a local government that they can use the charter as a tool to do unfair business.

B. Bennett: To use the minister's own words, he said this: "That councils are…." I don't want to misspeak here on what the minister said, but he said something to the effect that councils aren't likely to or won't just say there's a nuisance where there isn't one. They can't say: "There's a nuisance because I think there is a nuisance." I think that's the tenor of the minister's comments, and that's a reasonable expectation of municipal councils.

But I think that in terms of what the courts have said…. Recently there was a case right here in Victoria, in March of 2003, called PNI v. the City of Victoria. It's a B.C. Court of Appeal case, and basically they stated that the municipal bylaw provides a complete answer to any and all claims arising out of that bylaw. They essentially said: "Don't look to us to provide a solution for individual cases unless the specific limits and remedies are included in the legislation." I paraphrased that; I'm not quoting from the case. That's my interpretation of it.

So I think if a municipal council wanted to say that a nuisance existed and if the small business went to court, they would find out, based on this recent B.C. Court of Appeal case and other cases, that the judge would support the municipal government. I also think it's important to just get on the record that this hypothetical dairy business is probably a small business with ma and pa both working in it and not making a whole lot of money. Like most small businesses, they probably built themselves a job over the years and then will hopefully make some dough when they finally sell it. They really won't have the resources. They won't have the time and the money to go to court. You know, going to court, to me, is a last resort for anybody and particularly for a small business that doesn't have the resources. But it is, I guess, their one remedy, other than going to the ballot box.

Mr. Chair, I wanted to switch to section 8(5), which is still part of the fundamental powers. It states: "A council may, by bylaw, regulate in relation to business." I want to thank…. Well, I guess I should ask — because I can't recall in the amendment: did we, as part of the amendment we just passed…? Was section 59…? Just bear with me, Mr. Chair. I'll answer my own question here in a second. I'll just look it up.

Yeah. I want to thank the minister, because in the amendment that was passed this afternoon to section 59, notice is now required and an opportunity is given to those who consider that they may be affected by something the council has done. They're now given this opportunity to go make representation to council. So that's a very important amendment, and again, I think the minister should be congratulated for that.

Carrying on with section 8, fundamental powers. The theme of my questions here today — even though I've used some specific examples around trees, nuisances and so forth — is basically balance between giving municipal governments more power, discretion, latitude, flexibility and all the things we promised we would do in the New Era document — and they should be done — and the other side of that, which is promising that we're going to strengthen our economy, reduce regulation and make B.C. a more attractive place to invest in.

Difficult balance, as I said when I first started my questions. I'm wondering, with respect to that balance and sending what I think would be the right signals to the business community, the investment community around the world when they're looking at B.C.: did the minister consider a mechanism to give affected parties a place to go for redress?

I just said a minute ago that court is maybe the only place they have to go. Did we consider some sort of a mechanism that would ensure this balance in fairness in the decisions that are rendered at a local level? I refer specifically to the municipal boards in Ontario and Alberta. Also, in Alberta they have a Bill of Rights. They have a personal property bill of rights there as well. Did we consider those mechanisms? If we did, could the minister perhaps explain why we decided not to include those?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I thank the member for that question; it's an important one. I share — and I believe we all share with him — the desire and also the objective to get the business community very much involved and very active in the economic recovery we are going through in British Columbia. For that reason, I believe the Community Charter is actually a firsthand tool to make business part of that desire to build a stronger economy here in this province.

There are many things done with the Community Charter that will accommodate business. We also have removed an enormous amount of red tape that in the past had prohibited local governments from having effective and meaningful relationships with the business community. We started with 1,100 sections of prescriptive regulation. Today there are 300 sections left

and very little prescriptive sections or parts of these 300 sections that we're dealing with now.

We are encouraging and making it easier for local governments, when providing for infrastructure, to work with the private sector to bring the private sector, the business community, into partnerships. There's something else again: small business. Many business centres throughout the province and especially when we go to the heartland…. Towns and their business centres are looking for upgrades a little bit and the revival of the local downtown. We have created in the charter a tax exemption that a business or property owner can get to entice him to upgrade the business or the building that he runs his or her or its business out of.

These are just a couple of examples, member, where I say the charter is actually a great tool to get business and local governments working together. Coming from a town like Whistler, which is really based on a charter, I've seen at first hand how by making the tools workable and doable, you can really achieve great results.

There was one other part on the municipal…. Yeah, the appeal boards. Yes, during the discussions with the Community Charter Council, which represented the local government, the UBCM, we certainly looked at the appeal board in Ontario to see if that was maybe an answer. Quite frankly, the reports we were getting back on the appeal board were more than discouraging. It was a very expensive mechanism, it was a time-consuming process, and it only applied, really, to land development issues. It didn't seem to be something that helped the industries get answers to their problems and get their problem solved, because it took more time to get than was worth it.

The other thing, of course, is that with the Community Charter we really entrench a new principle in British Columbia, which is the principle that local governments are in charge of their local direction. To have an appeal board which is not based on a local level make decisions is, in a sense, against that whole principle.

Last but not least, the member talked about the Alberta Bill of Rights. That Bill of Rights only applies to citizens. It does not apply to business. Therefore, that was really not the tool.

What we have here in British Columbia now is a charter that I very much believe is a tool to get business and communities working together. I don't like this, because I don't like to finish up in court, but at the end of the day, when a local government does wrong, the person or entity that has been done wrong can find correction of that wrongdoing through the courts. My hope is that we're going to see fewer and fewer confrontational situations. I really feel comfortable, based on the reactions I've had from many, many local government members on the 12 or 14 trips that I've made into the province meeting with local elected officials, that they see the charter as a tool to work together and create new opportunities.

That is what is really there for me: to introduce this, believing that this is a good charter. The concerns expressed by the business community, I really believe, will over time dissipate when business recognizes that they are really partners in building British Columbia in cooperation with local elected councils.

B. Bennett: I'd like to thank the minister for that answer. I think sometimes the difference of opinion some of us have on this balance that I've talked about, between providing municipalities with more flexibility to operate and protecting business investment…. Sometimes I think it comes down to whether you were in municipal government before you came here or whether you were in small business before you came here. I was in small business, and perhaps so was the minister.

B. Bennett: Both. So was the minister. He was a mayor, and he was in small business.

Frankly, I am not completely convinced that we've struck the balance and that we've provided enough of an obligation for municipal councils to be reasonable in the exercise of this new power, but I certainly support the legislation and generally think it's going to do a good job for us. Perhaps, as time goes by, we'll decide to make some amendments to it.

I have one final question for the minister. I wonder if the minister is aware that since variable tax rates — property tax rates — were introduced in B.C., B.C. has ended up with the highest or at least one of the highest business property tax rates in Canada and, not coincidentally, one of the lowest or the lowest residential property tax rates in Canada. To me, that is an indication of where municipal governments, I think quite understandably, move in their policy making.

I guess my question to the minister would be: does he think that councils will exercise this broadened set of powers in the same way that they have increased this divergence between business and residential property taxes over the past number of years?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Yes, I'm aware of this discrepancy between residential tax and business tax. Then again, industrial tax in communities differs, and they do have considerably different mill rates that they apply. It is obviously not in the charter — how we deal with that. It is the B.C. Assessment, and the minister responsible for that is somebody else, but it is something we have to watch.

I think that we not only have to look at how the business community becomes a participant in local government — how things materialize in a community — but we also have to look at some other tools that give the opportunity to local governments to have revenue that is not property tax–driven. That's most likely where the answer lies, because today they're really stuck, and I understand that. What tools there are to remedy that, I can't tell you today, but I hope in the near future something will come forward that will

take that pressure away from local governments to go after the business sector or the residential sector as well, for that matter.

The Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on section 8 as amended.

J. Kwan: Oh, I'm sorry. The amendment — it's in the order paper? It's already passed.

Section 8(1). Could the minister please advise: to what extent can the municipality enter into these agreements?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Local governments, under this section, would have broad powers to enter into agreements. In part 3 we are going to look more at some of the conditions under which that can happen.

The fundamental powers under section 8 are giving the capacity to local governments to enter into agreements. Part 3 will deal with some of the conditions under which these agreements are made by local governments under the new natural person power.

J. Kwan: Yes, and that's the question: to what extent can the municipalities enter into agreements? As an example, can they enter into any agreement? Do they have to have tendering processes? Can any private company bid on these contracts, including the provision of social services? These are just some of the questions I have.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Indeed, the natural person powers provided to local governments will give them the right to basically enter into any agreement — partnership agreements, service agreements, I believe. There are some restrictions, and that is stipulated in part 3.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can advise this House how this section differs from before, then — the powers that follow the authority to enter into agreements, etc., and how that differs from before.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Under Local Government, we specified each specific power, corporate power, that local governments had. Here it has all been lumped together in one, and that is — I'm just getting the paper on it — the essence of the powers that in the past were identified individually. It's now one general or one natural person power, so it is simpler to take the former corporate powers in this form to work with.

J. Kwan: Is this just a matter of consolidation of the different powers individually into one category? As well, what about the powers within it, the authority of the powers? Is it broader than what it was before?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Okay, the key corporate powers that are today in local government make up what today, in the new legislation, will be the natural person powers. The essence of the new power, the broader power, is the key corporate powers that were in the Local Government Act, separately identified.

J. Kwan: What the minister said, then, is the key corporate powers area has changed from what it was before. The minister also said municipalities could enter into any agreement. I know that under part 3, it deals with the partnering agreements, agreements granting exclusive and limited franchises, etc. We'll go into some of the details when we get there. But can the minister tell us: in terms of the process of entering into agreements and the intention of the act, is it the intent that municipalities would have to conduct a tendering process in order to enter into agreements? Let's just ask that question, and I'll take each one, one by one.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The decision to enter into a contract is a local decision. It doesn't have to be tendered, and it's a decision that council makes independently without that tendering requirement.

The member also asked something about…. No, I think I'll leave it for now. Sorry. I'll come back later.

J. Kwan: So there is no requirement in this legislation for municipalities to enter into a tendering process. It's just their own guidelines that would apply if they wished to do so. Wow.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That is the way it is today, and that's how it will be in the future. That doesn't say that a local government could not enter into a tendering process. That's their decision. It is truly a decision made on the local level.

J. Kwan: Can any private company bid on the contracts, including the provision of social services — or any area at all, then, that private companies can bid on?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In principle, for any type of service that local government has, they can form a partnership through an agreement with another party, but it obviously has to be services or contracts that are within the scope of what that local authority can do. I don't know if social services would be in the scope of that local government. I don't think so. So they could not then provide that service through a partnership with the private sector or another partner.

But in general, yes. Whatever local government can do in regard to providing services, they can have outside parties — at their choice, through a contract — take over that service.

J. Kwan: The change that has been brought, as the minister mentioned, is the corporate powers provision

that has changed the most significantly. Can the minister tell us, in his own opinion, what was wrong with the previous legislation?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Basically, what we have done is taken all the corporate powers individually, put them all together and given them a new title. That's the natural person powers.

What local governments can do individually with these powers is not unlike what could happen today under the Local Government Act, but then it was on one specific corporate power. Things haven't really changed. It's just that we have found a new title for the combination of all the different corporate powers that were out there in the past.

J. Kwan: What are the changes, then, that go with the provision of a corporate power that's different from before?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The system, by having incorporated all these different corporate powers into one entity, is giving them a lot more flexible type of dealing with these powers for local governments. It's basically streamlining what was there in different sections in the past into one body called natural person powers.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that effectively there are really no changes to the authority given to them? It's just a title change? It's just sort of been clustered into one title as opposed to having different titles before. Is that essentially the difference?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This is maybe the difference. Where in the past we had a specific list of corporate powers, as the member is well aware, you never knew if we missed one or not. By making it natural person powers, it is everything. Anything that the government does is not specifically in one little box, and the next thing is in a little box. It's just one.

The streamlining is a tool to not only be inclusive in areas where the powers can be used, but as important, it also gives municipalities more flexibility in how to use them, and that is one of the differences. At the end of the day, the essence of the power is the same as they had in the past.

J. Kwan: Could the minister give an example of what might have been missed in the listing before? Therefore, by changing the name and giving it…. Actually, I think the scope is much greater than what it was before, and so maybe the minister can give some examples of what previous scopes of the powers are not included in the previous legislation.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: A simple example — and it wasn't mine, but the staff brought it up: under the old rules, one of the areas that was forgotten as a tool for the local municipality was to set up an advisory committee to get a group together to advise on issues. Under the natural person powers, a council can do that without having to go through hoops in order to make it fit into that corporate power list that was already there. That's one example — advisory committees on issues.

The natural person powers context allows any idea that council has where they want to be authorized to bring a new element into the running of municipal affairs — and advisory committee is used here as an example — and will allow that to happen without having to go through all kinds of other legal works to get that advisory committee incorporated under a corporate power structure, as it was before.

J. Kwan: What about corporate powers in relation to public-private partnerships? Are there any changes?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The power of entering into the agreement hasn't changed. What has changed is the process. It's more simplified and more attractive, actually, to make a process or a project work for a community.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise what's changed within that process, then? He says it's simplified and more attractive. What does that mean in reality?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: These changes are in other sections. That process — it's in another section, so we're just looking it up.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: We were looking up the sections that apply to the changes, and I will get the answer for the member in a minute.

J. Kwan: While the minister has his staff looking for the information, and just noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of the Whole House. For the information of members, there will be continued debate on Bill 14.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; B. Belsey in the chair.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The member asked for sections that pertained to various agreements. They are sections 21, 24, 175, 225 and the schedule with the definition of the partnering agreement.

J. Kwan: Just following up on the questions around section 8 before the dinner break, could the minister please advise: do municipalities still have to balance their budget by law?

J. Kwan: Under section 8(2) a municipality can provide any service, so even services that fall within another jurisdiction — the federal-provincial jurisdiction, as an example…. Are there any limitations on this, and are there any public oversight mechanisms?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Yes, they can provide any service within the municipal powers. There may be some restrictions due to other acts, of course, but otherwise they can provide any service they desire within their jurisdiction.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There are a number of accountability provisions in the charter: open meetings; bylaws and its procedure through bylaws; in certain instances, an approval process or — what's it called? — an accounts petition or an alternative approval process. So that is in place.

J. Kwan: These oversight mechanisms — as the minister calls them, accountability measures — how do they differ from the previous legislation?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to name a few. There's the electoral approval process that today is 5 percent through the counterpetition, and the alternate approval process will be 10 percent of individuals expressing their opinion on the proposal. There is a change where the council in a riding has to provide the reason for passing a bylaw dealing with a service that they want to provide or do together with other partners. They're just two examples.

J. Kwan: I have more questions in the area of accountability when we get to part 4 of this legislation.

Under subsection (3)(i), public health, if a municipality can, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit and impose requirements on public health, to what extent does this go? How big is their authority is the question.

I'll give an example. We already have a municipality like Surrey restricting methadone availability and charging pharmacies exorbitant fees with that. Does this mean that a municipality could ban the dispensing of methadone outright, as an example? Is there any ability of the province to step in to protect publicly delivered health care or people's access to services?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Under the powers, there are a number of concurrent jurisdictions. Public health is one of them. If the member looks at section 9(1)(a), it shows that in a concurrent jurisdiction public health is included, which means any change that local government wants to entertain will have to be done with the approval of the minister responsible.

J. Kwan: Let's just use Surrey as an example, because I actually have great difficulty with some of the actions that they have already taken. To use the example of the methadone availability issue, they're charging pharmacies a huge fee in order to dispense methadone. Under this act then, can Surrey ban outright the dispensing of methadone, as an example? Does that require the minister's approval if they were to do that?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No. If Surrey would like to entertain something under public health in this particular case, they could not do it without the minister's approval.

J. Kwan: Is there a way that they can do it not under public health? I mean, I look at the section that talks about public health, and it appears to me that methadone dispensing is a health issue. Therefore it falls under that area. Could they claim that it's not a public health issue — that it's a criminal justice issue, as an example — and then bring in the banning outright of the dispensing of methadone, therefore disallowing the minister's intervention?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It clearly is a public health issue. However, if they tried another of those spheres to try to achieve that goal — for example, under business regulation — under the charter we will not allow the prohibition of business in general. So they couldn't use that either.

I'm pretty sure all the tools are in place to make sure that this service is provided, as it is under the public health act. If, indeed, that section would be used, it cannot be used without the minister responsible agreeing to it. That is one of the five concurrent jurisdiction areas.

J. Kwan: When the minister says "the minister responsible," then I take it that this is the Minister of Health, as an example, in the area of methadone dis-

Let me ask the minister this question: what triggers the minister's intervention? How is that triggered?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In order to achieve the goal they pursue, they have to pass a bylaw. They cannot act on that bylaw without the minister's approval, so that is where the safeguard comes into play.

J. Kwan: How does one determine that it is a public health issue? What are the guidelines? Are there guidelines that would apply to determine that that issue is a particular public health issue? Under what circumstances would the minister then intervene?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, on that particular issue with the methadone dispensing, there is just no question about it. It's under public health. The local governments can act under the spheres of power. As I said, five of these spheres of power are not exclusively in the domain of the local government but are in concurrence with the minister responsible — in this particular case, the Minister of Health. So they would just not be able to pass a bylaw without approval from the minister.

J. Kwan: Maybe this will clarify for me in terms of when the minister can intervene and would intervene. Let me use the example of the methadone situation. Could the Minister of Health, as an example, now step into the situation and by regulation force the municipalities to allow pharmacies to dispense methadone without exorbitant licensing requirements from pharmacies? Could that happen now? And could it be deemed a health issue?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The member is obviously concerned and wants to make sure that there is a safety valve for a council doing something that would go against the norm. Today there is a regulation already in place that the council of Surrey cannot pass a bylaw without getting approval from the minister in this particular field. That's the safety valve if they try to regulate that aspect.

J. Kwan: Then Surrey's action to date is in violation of what rights are offered to them, from what the minister has just advised — unless the Minister of Health actually approves of Surrey's decision to apply exorbitant fees for the dispensing of methadone.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The first thing, of course, is that they cannot use the business regulations that they have control over to prohibit the dispensing of methadone. They do have jurisdiction over business licences.

As this is really an issue that the Ministry of Health is following, I will get the member some answers on the points she raised. I can't tell you what they are doing right now in Surrey with these dispensing fees. I don't know how they do it or how much they are. I will get the answer very quickly for the member.

J. Kwan: What I'm particularly interested in is what Surrey is doing right now whereby they are restricting locations for the dispensing of methadone by putting forward bylaws that require exorbitant fees for people to dispense methadone. That's already in place now. Am I understanding correctly that under this charter change, when it becomes law, Surrey would be in violation of the charter, and the Minister of Health would have the authority to intervene?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This is not the Health Act or the health regulations that deal with what Surrey is doing. They are taking steps under the business licence regulations. These regulations are identical to the ones that today are in place under the Local Government Act. The charter makes no change there. When they prohibit, then we obviously can use the Local Government Act, which doesn't allow the prohibition of business either. Under the charter we would not allow the prohibition of a business either. The business licensing section allows them to set rates, but that is something that is done in the Local Government Act and does not apply to the charter yet.

J. Kwan: Under this charter, this piece of legislation…. I understand that what the minister is saying is that from a business-licensing point of view, municipalities can set their own rules and guidelines to apply when a person is able to obtain a business licence to operate a particular service or business. I understand that part.

Given that the change here talks about public health issues and that the act also refers to the authority for any minister in their area to intervene when it becomes a public health matter, in this instance, could it be interpreted under this act that a public health matter has been violated by virtue of Surrey's action, even though it's a business licensing point of view? They have violated or caused concern in the health care delivery in terms of access to health care delivery and the Minister of Health, under this charter, can then have the authority to intervene. Can it be interpreted as such, or is the answer no?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The answer is no. The only area that we can deal with…. If they would prohibit the sale of methadone altogether, then we could step in, I suppose. But as long as it's a business licence issue, as it is now, we cannot interfere.

J. Kwan: Would the minister contemplate bringing forward amendments to the charter that would allow for ministers to intervene where access to health services…? Where there's a health concern, the minister would actually intervene and override the municipality's authority in those matters.

The reason I say this, Mr. Chair, is that it is a great concern. I think that as the minister can anticipate, there are loopholes — even with the old act — that municipalities can get around in making public health services inaccessible for members of their community and which can prompt, I think, a health care crisis in some ways. Now, some may argue that it is not a health care crisis when there's no methadone dispensing authority because people cannot meet the business licensing regulations set out by the municipality. People can find a way to get around that. Municipalities could find a way to get around it. It does not answer the question, though, and the concern I have, and that is to say that what is first and foremost is that we need to ensure that public health services are being delivered and are accessible in all of our respective communities. Would the minister contemplate amendments as such to allow for such intervention?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just a quick response to what the member says. I can't give you an answer on that one. I will talk to the minister who is responsible today, the Hon. George Abbott, to see if he is aware of this situation and see his response. The Local Government Act is George Abbott's jurisdiction.

J. Kwan: Then just so that I'm clear in terms of which minister would get involved, in the case where it is a health issue but because the authorities are under the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services…. Because that act falls in that minister's area…. It is not the Minister of Health who would raise the matter and then intervene, but rather it would be the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services who would intervene if that is the case?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to clarify, the issue the member raised is under the Local Government Act through the business licence issue. Under the charter, an issue related to public health would come under the minister responsible for health. That's the difference. Today we are still working with the Local Government Act, which is the minister responsible for CAWS.

J. Kwan: Yes, thank you for that clarification. If it's a banning of a service outright that could raise issues of health concerns, then it is the Minister of Health who would intervene, but because it's a business licensing issue that I've raised, therefore it is the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services who would intervene. The commitment from the minister, then, is that then you would discuss this matter with the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services to determine whether or not he would intervene or whether or not he would bring forward amendments to the legislation to allow for intervention.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: What I commit to do is to bring this whole issue to his attention tomorrow morning, and I don't know how he's going to react to that.

J. Kwan: I would urge the minister, and I hope the minister supports…. Maybe I can just ask the minister his own opinion, whether or not he supports that action needs to be done in this area — and not just in the area of methadone. This is one example that we can use concretely to point out where problems, I think, are being caused in our community as a result of council's action.

We are all familiar — perhaps too familiar — with the notion of a NIMBY syndrome — not in my back yard. Many communities actually create barriers to prevent service delivery in their communities — services that are needed in their own communities — and then when they do that, it actually causes problems in others.

In Vancouver, as an example, we're constantly being criticized in the downtown east side. There's an overburden, if you will, of services in the downtown east side community. Yet at the same time we see other communities, quite frankly, not taking up their responsibility in ensuring that services are being provided in their own neighbourhoods. It really just creates a very vicious circle in terms of trying to meet the needs of our own community members, because when people don't have the services in one community, they will tend to gravitate to another where the services are accessible. It does not mean that those communities where they are providing the services should simply shut them down, because then people would just be completely without access. That cannot be the way to go.

I have for many years, in my years as a city councillor formerly and as an MLA, been wanting to look for ways we can ensure that all communities throughout British Columbia take up their responsibility in providing access to services that are needed in their own neighbourhoods.

To that end, I would urge the minister to support such a notion and then also to send a strong message to municipalities, to say, "No, you cannot find loopholes," and ways to prevent services from being accessible by their own constituents in their own neighbourhood. I hope the minister will concur with this notion and the importance of it.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Well, I certainly commit to discussing this matter. I hope the member understands that by us introducing these concurrent spheres, in the future there will be tools that will indeed make it more doable to deal with certain situations that are a problem to deal with today.

I will bring this up with the minister responsible tomorrow and see what his reaction is. I may well come back to you in the near future and discuss that with you.

In the situation where, as an example, there's a banning of a service…. We've been using the methadone service as an example. It could be other services

as well, but just for the purposes of continuity let's stick with the methadone situation.

In the situation where a municipality does ban a service — let's say the methadone service — does it automatically trigger the Minister of Health's intervention? It does not require a complaint process or anything like that. The Minister of Health can just act on that basis.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said before, if a local government wants to approve a bylaw prohibiting the sale, dispensing or distribution of a product that is within the public health area, they cannot, under the act, pass that bylaw. If they went ahead, that would very quickly come to the attention of — and the appropriate action would be taken with — the jurisdiction that would go through an exercise like that.

J. Kwan: I want to be very clear. I know I'm going through this in perhaps more detail, but I just want to be very clear about it. Is it the public health act, then, that would be applied to determine whether or not a particular bylaw should be passed, where the public health issue is one that requires intervention by the minister? How would that be determined?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Once again, I will state that the impact of this particular section, section 9(1)(a), is that any action taken by a local government that has an impact on the public health — any bylaw that is introduced for that purpose — cannot be passed without the approval of the minister responsible. It would apply to many other things as well.

An anti-smoking bylaw, for example, would be in the same category. If a municipality wants to introduce an anti-smoking bylaw, then only with the concurrent approval of the minister can it go ahead with the acting out of the bylaw. If, by any chance, they would pass a bylaw — that would come to our attention, obviously — without that concurrent jurisdiction approval, then that bylaw would immediately be declared null and void.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry, but I'm still not clear. How will the health impact be determined and therefore trigger the Minister of Health's intervention? Who determines — at what level, when a particular bylaw is before the minister's consideration for approval — that the minister will then determine: "I'm not going to pass this bylaw, because it has health impact ramifications"? How does one decide that?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Today public health is under the jurisdiction of local governments, and the charter would allow a minister to deal with the problem that the member described: how do you know this bylaw is being passed, and how do you know what areas would apply to that concurrent jurisdiction?

One thing the minister can do after the charter is in place is pass a piece of regulation identifying the areas that the ministry would be interested in as areas where the concurrent jurisdiction would apply. There are obviously years of experience where local governments have been involved with public health, and there is a good inventory of issues or areas where they have jurisdiction today. That jurisdiction today would become, under the charter, concurrent jurisdiction. If the minister doesn't think that it covers enough areas, then he would have the option of passing a piece of regulation identifying exactly the areas that the minister would be interested in being pulled in at an early stage dealing with the concurrent jurisdiction aspect.

J. Kwan: Then the determination would be set out by regulation in terms of what areas the minister could intervene in. That's what I'm understanding the minister is stating. What it will include, then, in regulation is the banning of health services outright, such as in this instance dispensing of methadone, as an example. Would it be, I guess, a broad category of banning of health services? Would the minister anticipate that the regulation would actually list out what kinds of services?

Another area that would be interesting to know whether or not municipalities have the authority to ban outright would be, let's say, safe injection sites. That's a big issue right now in our own community. We know that there are users across the province, no doubt in Surrey as well — again, just using Surrey as an example. Could Surrey come right out and say: "We're going to ban safe injection sites"? Safe injection sites are being acknowledged as a health issue by the Minister of Health and others.

Where I'm going with it is…. I just want to know the scope of authority that would be allowed to the minister for intervention and how that would be triggered.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to give an answer to the member, there is right now a process underway where the Minister of Health is actually working together with other ministries that have an interest to see included in a future piece of regulation — or to at least identify today — the areas where other ministries would like to have that concurrent jurisdiction applied.

What's going to be included? Obviously, I cannot give you a list, because the process is underway, and it is interministerial. But the intent is that by the time the charter gets enacted or is in force, that there is indeed an inventory of areas where the public health concurrent jurisdiction would apply. That can be introduced through a piece of regulation once we have that all together.

J. Kwan: I do have some trouble with this section, because it does allow for very broad authorities. It's a big change for local government, especially where it falls under the public health realm. But we don't know yet what the regulations will look like in terms of intervention.

I think that access to health services is critical. Where municipalities may, in their sometimes narrow approach to dealing with issues, disallow access for services or make it incredibly difficult for people to access health services, therefore putting the community in jeopardy and also putting those kinds of pressures on to other communities as well…. I would be very interested to know what that regulation would look like before we pass the regulation, before we give the authority to these local governments to exercise in the area of public health. Anyway, I don't want to belabour this point, but I do want to raise my concerns around it because already, as it were — again, I use Surrey as an example — the local government is trying to prevent access to services, I think, by using the loophole in the case of methadone dispensing.

If the provision of a municipal bylaw has no effect, if it is inconsistent with a provincial enactment, who will decide if this is the case? Is it the courts, or who gets to decide that?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In the, hopefully, not-to-happen event that a council or municipal jurisdiction would go against the will of the minister responsible for that concurrent jurisdiction — in this particular case health — then yes, it would be a court challenge. That would be the last tool to get to dealing with the issue, but it is obviously fully expected that the role of the minister in the concurrent jurisdiction areas will be respected and accepted. It is a provincial interest that will drive, ultimately, the need for the concurrent jurisdiction in these areas. We can talk more about that, but public health is one of these areas.

J. Kwan: If it is the courts, then, will this not lead to extensive and expensive litigation? Is it up to the municipality to initiate the court challenge?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I don't think a municipality would challenge its own bylaw. It would be up to us.

J. Kwan: But I thought that the power rests with the provincial government. If the provincial government does not approve a particular bylaw, then the local government does not have the authority to enact it. Isn't that right? And if they don't have the authority to enact it and if they want to, wouldn't they then have to take the matter to court and challenge the provincial government's authority over the matter? Wouldn't that be how a court challenge would surface?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In the case that a municipality would pass a bylaw claiming it is not a health matter or it is a health matter, then it could be us or it could be a citizen that would challenge that.

For section 11(2), does this mean a municipality could get into a contract with anybody regarding anything it wishes to? Are there any limitations?

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair. Sorry. We've just been moving along without the votes being called.

On section 11, on 11(2), the question is the same: does this mean that a municipality could get into a contract with anybody regarding anything it wishes to? Are there any limitations?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Municipalities with the natural person powers can enter into contracts with any person or any….

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Yeah, but if they go into another jurisdiction, then it has to be with the approval of the local authority, be it the municipality…. Or, in an unincorporated area, it could happen with the regional district.

J. Kwan: So the only limitation is if it's a boundary question. If it falls outside their own municipality, then they have to have approval from the other municipality as well. That's the only limitation then?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That applies to every municipality once it provides a service outside its boundaries. Indeed. In part 3 there are some other limitations that we will get to.

J. Kwan: What if the works and facilities — those are the words that are being used in the legislation here — are outside the boundaries of a municipality but within another municipality? What would happen in that situation?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If a municipality has established a facility such as a recycling centre or a landfill outside its boundaries in another jurisdiction, they will still be able to use their local regulations applied to a landfill operation or to a recycle centre as if it is within their own jurisdiction. If, for example, they want to ban cardboard from being put in the landfill…. If they have the jurisdiction to run that facility outside the boundaries, then they can apply that kind of regulation on that facility.

J. Kwan: Just a quick question on 12. For 12(1)(b), what would be the purpose of establishing different classes of persons in this section?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That applies when a municipal facility provides a service for residents and non-residents. A good example would be an ice arena. Under this clause, locals would be able to get a better rental or access rate than, for example, somebody who comes into town to use the facility as well. This is the tool to have different rates applied to a facility for different classes of people.

J. Kwan: So in that instance, is it to say that municipalities could…? Could they have the authority to refuse a particular service for someone who is from outside their community? What is the purpose of being able to establish the different classes of persons? How would you use that by identifying where people come from, and so on and so forth? What's the purpose of it? Can it be used to restrict access to services?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This is purely for the purpose of allowing municipalities to charge different rates to different classes of people. I gave the example of people who are classed as residents and people who are classed as non-residents — to charge them a different rate. That's the purpose of this particular section.

J. Kwan: So the only application in defining a different class of person would be, like, seniors, students? Well, no, actually. No, the minister said resident and non-resident from a particular….

J. Kwan: Anyway, what I heard the minister say was that it would only apply when the class of person is determined to be from the community — resident or non-resident. Therefore, different rights would apply. He said that's the only situation where that would apply.

Are there different occasions where that would apply? It sounds like there might be.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Actually, the member opposite gave me an idea why it would apply to other areas as well. If a seniors centre has an activity for seniors, the organizers may well, within that seniors centre, ban non-seniors from being in that facility for the purpose that the seniors activity is created for. So it would be broader, but it would be used, I think, in very rare occasions. A good example would be seniors versus non-seniors.

J. Kwan: That's how I would have thought about it. I would have not thought about it from the point of view of resident versus non-resident. When the minister uses that as an example, does that mean if someone is, say, a resident of Victoria, then they would have a certain rate that would apply to them to access a particular municipal service? But if a person is a non-resident of Victoria — let's say from Smithers — who happens to be in Victoria and trying to access that same service, that person would then have a differential rate that would apply?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Yes. That would indeed be possible, and it's not unusual, by the way. I know of recreational facilities where there are local rates and regular rates, so that is not unusual.

J. Kwan: Then I just want to raise some concerns about that, because if it's a non-resident versus resident application, it really has limitations and impacts on people's mobility. If a person is from a different community and they have a different rate to apply, then that may actually trigger a constitutional challenge around the issue of mobility. Anyway, I just want to raise that as a concern for the minister's attention.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Normally, I don't like to use personal experiences, but we have in my town an aquatic centre and an ice arena, and we have different rates. The reason is that the people living in the town pay, through their taxes, for the facility. They have paid most likely for the capital expenditure and the maintenance, because these facilities, in general, do not collect enough money to maintain and have a proper operation. So through that indirect way, they already contribute more to the facility than a visitor who comes into town, and that's one of the reasons that having the visitor pay $2 or $3 more is considered to be fair.

J. Kwan: Just for further clarification, is the minister talking about an annual pass that residents could buy, and so they therefore have, perhaps, a cheaper rate? Or is he just talking about if a person is simply from outside of the area, a non-resident, you actually have a higher rate applied to you?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That's totally a local choice how they create a system whereby the locals do have a lower price because of the reasons that I already told you, and visitors to an area pay a dollar or two more. We do not dictate how they work in their fee system — the program how to collect that money, either through a pass or just through a walk-in fee. That's up to the local governments.

J. Kwan: Section 16(2). Can the authority to enter onto property be delegated to anyone?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If the member looks at subsection (2), the authority may be exercised by officers or employees of the municipality or by any other person authorized by the council.

J. Kwan: That is my question: can the authority to enter onto the property be delegated to anyone — so to

Hon. T. Nebbeling: One of the reasons it is put in the section the way it is — that the authority may be exercised by officers or employees of the municipality or by other persons authorized by council — is that, for example, a garbage collection service may be contracted out to a company. The people who work in that field have to go onto the property to pick up the garbage bin, and without that authorization they wouldn't be able to do that. It could be considered trespass. So that covers that kind of a situation.

J. Kwan: Under section 16(4), if the municipality has the authority to enter into or onto property without the consent of the owner or the occupier, are there limits to that authority?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As the member says, the right of a person to enter another person's property, except in the case of an emergency, may only be exercised at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner. If the member would go to subsection (5)(b): "The authority may only be used to enter into a place that is occupied as a private dwelling if the municipality has given the occupier at least 24 hours' written notice of the entry and the reasons for it."

J. Kwan: Where there is no consent, authority is only given under emergency circumstances. Is that right?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No, you may enter the property, but subsection (4)(b) qualifies how to enter that property. We must take reasonable steps to advise the owner or occupier before entering the property, and it may only then be exercised during reasonable times and in a reasonable manner. The rules obviously change when we talk about entering property or inside a property — a dwelling, for example. Then subsection (5)(b) would apply.

J. Kwan: Yes, subsection (4) only deals with the procedures, if you will, in terms of the authority to enter, but it does not prescribe under what circumstances. For what reason would a person seek to enter?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The member is right. These sections…. The various conditions are how to and when to enter the property. The authority for the need to enter the property is only allowed if under another act, the municipality has incorporated bylaws that will allow the entering of a property.

Subsection (1) is critical in this one: "This section applies in relation to an authority under this or another Act for a municipality to enter on property." Then the rest of it is really how to enter this and what conditions there are set to notify.

J. Kwan: I'm not going to belabour the point, but it is still unclear to me, I have to say, under what circumstances the municipality could have the authority to enter. I know the procedures that have been set out in the section, but it doesn't lay out clearly under what circumstances a person could enter. Anyway, I'm not going to belabour that, because I do want to move on with other questions. There are so many questions. It's such a big bill.

J. Kwan: I think it's a simple question. How much notice would a municipality need before cutting off services due to unpaid fees or taxes? Sorry, that is the need to give notice.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Basically, what must include provision for reasonable notice will be determined by a number of factors that come into play. It has to do with what the service is all about. If it is just patrolling the street, that's one thing. If a community provides other services that are more safety-related or comfort-related — like heating or whatever — then there will be different rules applied that will be covered by the reasonable notice.

J. Kwan: Then the notice that would be required would be set by regulation by the minister. Or is it set by the municipalities under whatever circumstances that they deem the appropriate notice is?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No. This is a jurisdiction that's controlled by the local governments that provide the service.

J. Kwan: On section 21(a). What kind of assistance can a municipality provide? Are there any limitations on this?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to give some examples. If the member will look at section 24, some that come to the front are lending money, guaranteed repayment of borrowing or providing security for borrowing and assistance under a partnering agreement.

J. Kwan: Section 21 talks about tax exemptions. How large of a tax exemption would be allowed, or is that up to the municipality to decide as well?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If the member goes to section 225 and there (2)(a): "(i) is owned by a person or public authority providing a municipal service under a partnering agreement, and (ii) the council considers will be

used in relation to the service being provided under the partnering agreement." It is 225(2)(a)(i) and (ii).

J. Kwan: Yes, the section that the minister talks about, section 225, where tax exemptions could apply…. It does not stipulate the size of the exemption. My question was about how large the tax exemption could be. I suppose, then, there's no limitation. It's up to the council to decide. It could be a million bucks, five million bucks — whatever they want. Is that the case?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It's up to the local communities. It is only property taxes we're talking about. The disclosure to the community will be done through the annual report that will be made to the community on an annual basis as part of the accountability process that we will talk about later.

J. Kwan: Yes, 21 and 24 kind of relate to each other. To what extent do the regulations in section 24(1) have limits? Can it dispose of land for free, as an example? It talks about lending money in sub (b). Is that lending money to anyone that the council wants to? Could the minister please clarify?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Okay, we're going to go from section to section, Mr. Chair.

Yes, under 24 they can lend money to anyone. Section 25, however, puts in place some restrictions, including lending money to business. That is not allowed, except if a business is involved in a partnering agreement with the local government. That would be section 21.

J. Kwan: So council can, under this charter, lend money to anyone? I could go to council and apply for a loan, as one example. Anyone can go and ask for money, so council — municipalities now, I guess — have become banks — right? I mean, gosh, the process to streamline and to determine who's eligible, who is not, under what circumstances that would apply, etc…. The ramifications are huge. Anyway, I just want to raise that.

Then on the second piece, as it relates to 25. I just want to make reference to 25 for a minute here, where 25 says: "(1) Unless expressly authorized by or under this or another Act, a council must not provide a grant, benefit, advantage or other form of assistance to a business, including (a) any form of assistance referred to in section 24 (1)…or (b) an exemption from a tax or fee."

As well, it says, "(2) A council may provide assistance to a business for one or more of the following purposes…." And it lists a whole bunch of purposes. I just want to ask the question. In essence, though, within the provisions of section 25, businesses can actually borrow money from city council or from municipalities as long as they meet the provisions of 25(2), if they meet these provisions.

Is there any intention behind the notion of allowing municipalities to lend money to enhance the possibilities of public-private partnerships, or is that not the intention at all? Is it simply intended for municipalities to lend money to anybody, as the minister had identified, who may want to borrow money from municipalities?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Some clarification. It is not that local governments can just lend money without it being public. First of all, the money has to be in the budget plan. There are rules that apply to the lending of money. There has to be a bylaw created for a loan, and of course, there is disclosure through the annual report. In section 25 it prohibits the lending of money to business. The only exception here is, indeed, heritage buildings and heritage projects. That's where 25(2) applies — to all heritage and then, of course, to the partners in a partnering agreement with the local governments. That is the total of it.

J. Kwan: In the case where there is business partnering with local governments, what the minister is saying is that under this act, the council could actually lend money to the private partner. If that's the case, how is it a public-private partnership? Where is the role of the private partner if they are not coming in with their own investments to make an initiative work? If they are just borrowing money from councils, why don't councils just do it on their own? Who's taking the risk? It sounds to me like it's council who is taking all the risks.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It's not as simple, Mr. Chair, as she stated it. In the partnership there is risk-sharing, and that could mean that the municipality would take on a certain liability. As you know, that will also be considered, if it is long enough, for five years. It's not direct money, but there is a municipality liability there as well. It is something that has been used in the past and will continue to be used.

J. Kwan: Well, yes, they could, but they could also lend money under the provision of this act. You know, there are a variety of formats in which they can engage by providing investment on behalf of the private partner. Then it behooves us, the opposition…. How is that a public-private partnership when the risks are being undertaken by the municipality?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That is really not something that is created because of the charter. That is a possibility today. That is not something new that the charter reflects.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Let me quickly confirm that indeed under the Local Government Act, a municipality can borrow or lend money to a private partner.

J. Kwan: In my view now, in looking at it, I actually see problems with it. If it was in the old act, then I would suggest that it should have been looked at more carefully, because I think that is problematic. It continues today with that.

Let me ask the minister this question in section 24(2). Even if notice is published, is there time for the public appeals to happen? Is there an opportunity for the public to appeal?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The purpose of the notice is to make sure that citizens are aware of this transaction between the council and the private partner. That is the tool to let council know, in whatever way they choose to express their feelings, about that particular transaction. That is the way the local government is being made aware of the transaction, and if somebody has a problem with it, they can, through the regular ways, express that concern to council.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'll take this definition from the Local Government Act. What is in effect…. It means "property that in the opinion of a body or person authorized to exercise a power under this Act in relation to the property, has sufficient heritage value or heritage character to justify its conservation, or is protected heritage property." Heritage value.

J. Kwan: In 26(1), is there an appeal process if citizens don't agree with a proposed disposition?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That is the same process as is used here. Some people will, through notice, be aware of the disposition, and through the regular channels they can express their feelings on that action.

J. Kwan: For the purposes of expropriation, how much notice has to be given? Is it compensation at market rates?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: For the member's information, this section does not apply or does not incorporate action for expropriation. That is section 31 that deals with that — and the Expropriation Act, of course.

J. Kwan: It is acquisition only by agreement, then. Consent — disposition or acquisition by consent.

J. Kwan: Just reading 26(2), then, together: "In the case of property that is available to the public for acquisition, notice under this section must include the following: (a) a description of the land or improvements; (b) the nature and, if applicable, the term of the proposed disposition; (c) the process by which the land or improvements may be acquired."

If I'm reading this correctly, then its application is to city land or land that's owned by the city but not by the private owner. The minister is nodding. I misread it. I interpreted it to be private owner land.

Sorry. Just one more question. I didn't get the answer from the minister. The acquisition from the public of this land, for the city to dispose of this land — is it at market rate, in terms of the valuation of the land that the city would be disposing the land for? Or would there be special provisions whereby the city could dispose of a piece of land — let's say as an example — to a non-profit society that wants to use that land for the purposes of developing some community service or community housing. Is that possible?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In general, if the land were made available to the public or the business community and if it were offered for less than market value, then it would be considered financial assistance, and of course there's a prohibition against that.

When it comes to land for special organizations, non-profit organizations, local governments could indeed work with a price that is different than the market price. The local level can make the decision to reduce the price for the property if it is for a non-profit.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This is an existing authority. It has been around for a long, long time. As an authority it precedes even the Local Government Act that was part of the Municipal Act. This has been a standard authority.

J. Kwan: Section 35(1). Does this section imply that the cost of maintenance for highways within its boundaries will also be borne by the municipalities?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: To clarify, this section applies to municipal highways and municipal roads. Today local governments already maintain the roads. They often build the roads. So they have possession of the roads, but they haven't got title. What we are doing with this is actually giving title to municipalities for municipal roads.

J. Kwan: So its application is only to municipal roads and not to provincial roads or anything like that.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In principle, what the member said is right. These are municipal roads. There's always confusion on this one, even with local government, because when you say municipal highways, it is often thought that we are talking about provincial highways. We're not.

The transfer of title from municipal roads to municipalities does not apply to the roads mentioned in subsection (2)(a), which are the provincial highway, arterial highways, highways through parks, highways referred to in the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act and so on.

J. Kwan: Still on section 34, does this section allow a municipality to expropriate any land which contains a stream or water body through the boundaries of a municipality? Does this allow for water streams outside of the boundaries of a municipality to be expropriated?

J. Kwan: Yes, I'm sorry. You're right. We did move on to section 35, but I did have a question on 34 with respect to the water body.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No, this only applies to a channel or a bed or a stream that runs through a municipality. So it is within municipal boundaries.

J. Kwan: Can a municipality close down a highway for any reason? Are there parameters around this, where municipalities are closing roads for any reason? What are the parameters they would have to use to apply for the closure?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, we're talking about a municipal highway. It's not a provincial highway; it is a municipal highway. As we have said already, if in the past they had the use of it and if the road was up for a road closure because it didn't go anywhere, that would go through a fairly lengthy process with the Minister of Transportation. That will no longer be necessary, because the title will now be in the hands of municipalities.

J. Kwan: Actually, 53 to 56 deal with the same area, which is around the building regulations. Can the minister please advise: does he feel that these provisions are enough to ensure that there won't be a repeat of the leaky-condo problem?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: These sections, together with section 8, are actually the building authority for local governments that are very much like they are today. If it is an issue relating to building standards, that's one of the other spheres of concurrent jurisdiction. So if a local government wants to change any of the building standards regulations, they have to do it working together with the minister responsible for that. This is just ongoing from what was there before.

The issue around leaky condos is this, though. It's not just the standards issue. I know there are different arguments out there, and one argument is that the provincial standards are not strong enough or tight enough, if you will, and therefore the leaky-condo problem exists.

The other argument, of course, is that the municipalities — and perhaps the court cases have demonstrated this too — have some responsibility in ensuring that their building regulations are strong enough and that the enforcement of those building regulations is taking place, so one could therefore detect problems in advance.

My question relating to sections 53 to 56 is: is it the minister's opinion that these provisions are strong enough to ensure that there won't be a repeat of the leaky-condo crisis as it relates to the municipalities' responsibility?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Local governments today have the authority, the full authority, to inspect buildings.

They have the full authority to enforce the requirements set by local governments. That's where the authority is, and that's where it will continue to be under these sections. There is no change there.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move the amendment to section 59 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

J. Kwan: On section 60(1)(a), under what circumstances would the refusal of a business licence be considered reasonable?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: An application for a business licence may be refused in any specific case, but the application must not be unreasonably refused.

If a person has his business licence refused because of maybe coming from an ethnic group that whoever issues the licences is not well versed in, or if a person doesn't look the way a person should look like in a particular business because of the licence person thinking…. With all these human rights issues, that would be unacceptable, of course.

That's what this section does. Fairness and the right reasons are created if a business licence would be refused. It cannot be unreasonably refused for arguments that have very little to do with the business itself.

J. Kwan: So a business licence could be refused if…. Sorry. Applications must not be unreasonably refused, and what would be deemed to be unreasonable would be violations of human rights, as an example.

Is the refusal of a business licence for an operator, a businessperson who has a track record of bad practices…. Would that be considered a reasonable reason to refuse a licence for that operator? I use this as an example.

In my own community, in Vancouver — and I know it's the Vancouver Charter — council actually has the authority to refuse a business licence to someone who has a track record of engaging in bad business practices. Grocery stores, as an example, which sell rice wine to people who are known to be alcoholics — therefore creating more problems for our community…. Council has the authority to not only refuse the licence but also revoke the licence. Is that deemed to be reasonable in those circumstances under this section of the act?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Two aspects to this. To refuse a licence based on previous practices by an individual…. I think the case could be made if there is really evidence that the allegations made against the person hold water, so to speak. It would not be unreasonable, then, to deny a person a licence to do exactly the same again.

To revoke a licence is a little bit different, of course. That is based on the operator and how he or she or it conducts itself in the business — a grocery store, as you say. Is it sanitary? Is the pricing right? If he sells a pound of butter, does he sell us a pound of butter or 400 grams? If there is a record of all these kinds of violations of the ethics of the business that that individual is in, then the council may have a case to revoke the licence.

J. Kwan: On 81(1). Why are the new regulations deviating from the present situation of fixed election dates?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This is according to the local election act, the Local Government Act, and there are no changes whatsoever to the local election act.

J. Kwan: It used to be November 16, if my memory serves me correctly — the third Saturday, or something, in November every three years. It seems to me that it's changed, because it just says "every 3 years after that," so there's no provision within the parameters of the date — right? It used to be specified.

Section 81(3) applies. That is the section that sets the election date, and it is still the same date as it was before — November 16.

Yeah. Section 81(3) is related to the general local elections and by-elections that are in the local government Election Act, and that stipulates the time for the election.

J. Kwan: Yes, 90(1)(e). Is it correct to assume that a municipality could expropriate land and not make it public, according to this provision?

On 90(1)(e). Is it correct to assume that a municipality could expropriate land and not make it public, according to this provision?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This applies not to exposing the expropriation itself. It is more a discussion period in the acquisition of a piece of land before the action takes place. That is obviously done to ensure that discussions that are ongoing about the potential expropriation are done within the confidentiality rules, so you don't start talking about expropriating a piece of land if you haven't made up your mind yet to expropriate, as a local government. These discussions that will lead up to a potential expropriation — that's the time frame this section applies to. Once expropriation has taken place, obviously, it will be public — right?

J. Kwan: So if I caught the last bit of the minister's comments, it's that once expropriation takes place, then the municipality is required to make it public. Did I hear him correctly?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It is the harms test, the potential harm from exposure, that led to this particular section. Once the expropriation has taken place, the harms test is no longer there, and it would be made public. It would be required.

J. Kwan: Yes, section 100(2). This deals with conflict of interest. Who will judge whether or not there's a conflict?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The conditions that would be considered to be a conflict of interest are really well established in common law, and that dictates, really, how it is established. So common law is being used here.

J. Kwan: Who will make that decision? In the provincial realm, we have a conflict-of-interest commissioner who will deal with allegations of conflict. At the municipal level, who will make that decision whether or not a conflict exists?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As it is now and it has been, it will continue. The member who is in a conflict must declare that he is in a conflict.

J. Kwan: If there's a shortcoming of the act previously, it's that it doesn't actually assist in providing who will make that decision. I don't think it's good enough for a council member to report out that they may have a conflict. Someone, an independent person, needs to make an assessment whether or not a conflict exists, like we have in the situation here at the provincial level. We have a conflict-of-interest commissioner. Where there's a complaint of conflict or an allegation of conflict, that matter is referred to the conflict-of-interest commissioner, who will then make an assessment.

In the instance of the municipal council, after all of this discussion and major changes to this Community Charter, surely there must be advancement in that area in terms of suggesting and delegating the authority to somebody to review allegations of conflict. Is there not?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It's very complicated, when you have 115 small communities, to have a conflict-of-interest commissioner specifically. It would be time-consuming.

The bottom line is that a member has to declare a conflict of interest. If a member doesn't declare a conflict of interest, there are serious consequences to the continuing of that member as a council member. I very rarely hear of members that have violated the rules. In a few cases that it has happened, these members have either been disqualified from running again for council….

J. Kwan: My apologies. Who would police that violation? Is it just for the council member, him or herself, to police themselves?

What I'm looking for is an improvement to the act. That is to say that there will be an independent authority somewhere who would police allegations of conflict and then decide and make decisions — independent of the council members themselves — whether or not a conflict exists, and then the consequences should follow. They don't get to decide that: "I'm not in a conflict, and therefore no consequence should follow." Someone else should do that job. I'm looking for an improvement here. Is there nowhere in the Community Charter that actually provides the authority for an independent member to make that decision and to review those matters?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There are, in the charter itself, some reasons why a member should disqualify him or

herself from participating in a council meeting — direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter — and that has been discussed this evening — or another interest in the matter that constitutes a conflict of interest. The member, himself or herself, must make that decision if they are in that conflict. If they are found out after participation in the debate on an issue that clearly is a conflict, then the council can take the necessary action to deal with that conflict issue.

That is in sections 110 and 111. It can be a group of citizens that can identify. So it is council that polices itself and that will take the necessary action to follow up if, indeed, a conflict of interest has been established.

J. Kwan: I'm dismayed, actually, to learn that in this act — with all of the changes — there is no provision here that would allow for an independent authority to review allegations of conflict and conflict of interest to determine whether or not a conflict actually exists for a particular council member. I think that is essential.

The shortcoming of the previous act and some of the changes in the previous act hadn't achieved all of the goals that needed to be achieved, one of which is the conflict question. Yet in this new and improved act, there is no provision for that. I'm very dismayed, actually, to learn that, because I don't think it's good enough for council to police themselves. It's sort of like putting the fox in the chicken pen, as they say. It doesn't make sense to me.

I would have thought that there would have been better accountability measures for broader authorities given to local governments. It appears that the accountability measures are falling short on that note.

J. Kwan: Section 133. Under what conditions can people be expelled from meetings? Is it purely at the discretion of the chair?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Yes. This section is focused on the general public. If a person in the general public is, in the opinion of the chair, disruptive to the point that it undermines the council meeting, then this section can be used to deal with that.

However, it says every person or any person in a meeting, and to me that would include the council members as well. If a council member is very disruptive, then the chair could actually deal with that person with the same rules applied.

J. Kwan: What would be deemed to be disruptive behaviour, then, for the council member? I presume that for the public it would mean, you know, if they're shouting and going on, and that disrupts the meeting in that way. For a council member, I fail to see…. Perhaps the minister can explain what would be deemed to be disruptive behaviour.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Verbal disruptiveness is always a factor that could lead to this action being enacted. A council member may get so irate with another council member that he becomes physical and wants to have a fistfight or whatever. This is an extreme case that I describe to you, and I don't know if it has ever happened, but I would venture to guess that it has.

It has to be something that really stops the meeting from going on. It's not just an outburst of anger by a council member, because then no council would ever proceed to full lengths. It really has to be something that is of a serious nature and requires that council member to be removed. That's done at the discretion of the chair.

J. Kwan: Section 154(2). Can elected people delegate the making of a bylaw to municipal staff?

J. Kwan: Section 158. If a council can confer freedom of the municipality on this distinguished person, is there an annual limit on the number of people who would receive this honour? Could 1,000 people be given the honours and have the right to vote in an election even though they don't live within the boundaries of a riding?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This provision has been in place for a long, long time. I've never heard of it being abused. It is an opportunity for local governments to stop for a moment and recognize a citizen who has made a very special contribution to the community. Many years of service is often a reason for it. First of all, like I say, it has been in place for a long, long time as a provision, and second, it is a great tool for local governments from time to time to recognize a citizen for a very special contribution he or she has made to the community.

J. Kwan: I'm not making allegations that it has been abused. I'm simply asking the question, though. This is supposed to be the new and improved act, and so to that end…. It's a great power where you give someone an honour not only to recognize the person's contribu-

tions, but it gives the person great power to live outside of the boundaries of the municipality where they have authority to vote. That is significant. To that end, are there provisions that would guide those powers that would be given to various people who would be deemed to be distinguished individuals?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The concern that the member just addressed about the person outside the municipality being able to vote in a municipal election is, in my opinion, a great safeguard against this particular honour to be bestowed by local governments from being abused. Honestly, I don't know any situations where it has been abused. Councils really keep in consideration what the honour entails and what privilege that person is given, including the participation in municipal elections.

J. Kwan: Section 165(3). Can the planning period for the financial plan be shorter than five years? Can this be changed by bylaw?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No, there are no provisions to change this. It has to be five years.

J. Kwan: Did I hear the minister correctly? It has to be five years, and it cannot be changed by bylaw?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The advice I've been given is that you cannot change the five-year period, but during the years you can obviously change your financial plan. It is not cast in stone. That's it. You can make amendments.

J. Kwan: Subsection (7). Are there any other revenue opportunities besides the ones listed in this section?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This is really the list of sources. However, there are incidentals. A municipality may be requested to gift. That's not here, of course. But these are the areas that are traditional.

J. Kwan: Under subsection (d), other sources, that would be what the minister refers to as "incidentals"?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It's up to local governments to develop their own plans and how they incorporate that public consultation regarding the financial plans.

J. Kwan: What is the process that municipalities will have to follow to appoint an auditor?

J. Kwan: So it has to go before council. The mayor can't just make a decision, as an example.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No. That goes through council and by the passing of resolution gets the appointment done.

J. Kwan: If the liability is for more than a period of five years, is a referendum required? Can the voters be asked their opinions in an alternative way?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It will require assent or an alternative approval, like the counterpetition system but with a higher threshold.

J. Kwan: If the liability, then, is for more than five years, is a referendum required?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The council has the opportunity to have an alternative for this approval process in place. If the alternative approval process…. It is like the counterpetition with a higher threshold. If more than 10 percent of the voting population asks for another way of voting, then they go to a referendum.

J. Kwan: We sort of canvassed this a little bit earlier about individual lendings, and so this section actually applies. I just want to confirm that there are no limitations to lending to an individual under this act. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: When we discussed this earlier, we did identify areas or operations they could not lend to, but where they are justified or qualified to borrow money, it is still within the borrowing authority that stipulates what kind of money they can actually authorize to borrow.

J. Kwan: Section 226(1). How is a revitalization area identified and approved? Can it simply be done

through a bylaw? Will the province look at giving the same powers of this section to the Vancouver Charter in terms of how it relates to the downtown east side?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Subsection (2) stipulates the route the council has to take to identify the potential area that would be considered for revitalization. It can be done by including it either in the annual financial plan under section 165 or in an official community plan, or what would be….

Hon. T. Nebbeling: And if it was an amendment to the official community plan, then it would include a bylaw.

J. Kwan: Is it the case, then, that they can only be identified through an official community plan? That's how you go through the process of identifying a revitalization area? I'm not clear on how a revitalization area is identified and then approved. The official community plan is one avenue. Are there other avenues for that to happen?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Council will decide an area, and then they can use either the financial plan or an official community plan approach.

J. Kwan: So council identifies it; council sets the criteria to determine what is a revitalization area and how that would be identified. I presume, then, they have to approve it through a bylaw. I see the minister nodding, so I assume that the answer is yes to all those questions.

Will the province be looking at giving the same powers of this section to Vancouver, particularly in terms of the downtown east side — my own community — where I would argue that revitalization plans would be very useful and advantageous for the community?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, at the time of the designation, council must include statements of the reasons for the designation and the objective of the designation. As far as the Vancouver Charter is concerned, the city of Vancouver is still going through the charter, looking at the tools they have through the Vancouver city charter, and to include sections like this will be a decision made by the city of Vancouver. I personally am open to that type of suggestion, because I really think it is a great tool to assist communities to get areas back on their feet.

J. Kwan: Section 264. Will there be a limit placed on how much a citizen can be charged for a bylaw offence?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In subsection 265(1)(a), a fine cannot be greater than the amount prescribed by regulation. So that is the control mechanism.

J. Kwan: We canvassed this earlier, although there were lots of questions that I asked the minister under the principles of the act for which the minister referred me to part 9. I'm not going to recanvass these questions. We have time limitations as well. I do have one additional question relating to this area, and that is: who will pay for the services of a dispute resolution process?

J. Kwan: Yes, the parties that would be involved. If it's a voluntary dispute resolution process that requires an arbitrator or mediator, then both parties would pay and, I assume, pay evenly — split down the middle. If it's an involuntary process, then who would have to pay? The party who doesn't agree to go to arbitration or mediation — would they still have to pay 50 percent of the cost?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The first part of the answer is that the arbitration process will only start if both parties agree to it. That deals with the cost.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Yeah. I'm still trying to find out an answer on the involuntary partner in a dispute resolution, if there is an involuntary partner.

J. Kwan: That's in the case of a voluntary process. What about involuntary process?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If there is, indeed, a situation where there is a mandated arbitration process — in the case, for example, of intergovernmental roads, where disputes arise and then there may be a mandated situation where members have to participate — the fees will then be reasonable and necessary and will be split between the two parties as well.

J. Kwan: Just to make a final comment about this bill, there are sections of the bill which the opposition caucus has trouble with. In fact, the ramifications of this bill are very huge and enormous. Because there are so many sections that relate to one another, instead of taking the time to vote against each of the respective sections separately, the opposition is going to vote against this bill in its entirety, therefore reflecting our

concerns that we have raised both in second reading stage and at committee stage.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move the amendment to the schedule standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 14, Community Charter, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Kwan: Given that this is my first opportunity, I rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

Editor's Note

In the afternoon sitting of Monday, May 5, a typographical error in the title of Bill Pr404 was corrected for second reading, and the corrected title was approved. The bill title as stated in the printed version of Hansard on page 6471 contains the typographical error. The bill title in the electronic version of the transcript has been corrected.

Incorrect title: M&M Insulations Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003

Correct title: M&M Insulation Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003

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