2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 24, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 26, Number 4

[ Page 8283 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2011

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

Small Business in B.C.

K. Krueger: I'm speaking today on Small Business Month. Small business is a portfolio I take a particular interest in. At one time I held a portfolio of Small Business, Revenues and Regulatory Reform and tremendously enjoyed it. I found it one of the most worthwhile things that I've had the opportunity to do in government. So in the new configuration of cabinet I was delighted when the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation asked me to resume co-chairing the Small Business Roundtable with him.

[D. Black in the chair.]

The Small Business Roundtable is a permanent institution created by this government. It has about two dozen members, who are chosen because of their demonstrated positions of leadership within the small business community around British Columbia — people who represent major sectors of the small business community, people who represent large organizations of small business people and people who are just wonderful to work with.

There is rotation in and out. They aren't permanent appointments. A number of the members of the round table were there the last time I served in this capacity, and they still are. A real privilege and a pleasure to work with them.

We meet quarterly on a formally arranged basis. We have a small secretariat in the Ministry of JTI that supports us. We talk about what we've all learned in the three months intervening, because we're constantly gathering input from the small business community around the province.

That input is very helpful, very constructive, and government tries to respond to it in a very fulsome and quick way — which is the way small business operates. Because of their tremendous vitality, their agility, how innovative and quick they are, they rise to opportunity, they rise to challenges, and they continue to create jobs in spite of those challenges. And the world has experienced some severe challenges in the last several years, as we all know.

[1005]

They created over 17,500 net new jobs in 2010 in spite of the tough times. They pay 57 percent of the private sector paycheques in this province. They employ more than a million British Columbians and write their paycheques every two weeks.

I remember the day when British Columbia went over two million paycheques in total for the first time — that was years ago, and it was since this government has been elected — but they're over one million, and whenever the economy is rising, the fastest-rising sector of the economy is small business. So a lot of people depend on small businesses to make their livings.

There are two major things that the senior governments have to continually focus on in order not to see small business hobbled and hampered by things that governments can do — unintended consequences, no doubt, but very severe consequences for small business and their great ability to create jobs.

One is too much taxation. Just like with individuals, if governments tax away small businesses' revenues before they get to decide what to do with them, then government spends that money on things that we in this chamber might think are good ideas but sometimes turn out not to be. Just as with individuals, if governments leave small businesses' earnings in their pockets and bank accounts, they do the things that make sense. Because what do they really want to do? Grow their small businesses, look after their employees, and hire more employees.

So if we leave it with them, they create more jobs, and they prove that. As I said, time and again, if the economy is rising, the largest generator of jobs in the economy will be small business. They are entrepreneurial jobs and leading edge jobs, because small business people are always watching what the consumer wants, what services and goods the consumer is after.

Of course, that's the direction that they move. Whether it's serving the mining sector…. For example, Highland Valley Copper, a wonderful mine not far from where I live near Logan Lake, still has over a thousand people working for it although it's been in production for decades, way longer than was expected. But it isn't just those thousand people and the thousands of people who enjoy spinoff jobs because of their jobs. It's also small businesses. There are hundreds of contractors that work for a mine, especially a big mine like Highland Valley copper, and they all create employment.

Forest industry, same thing. A big sawmill needs lots of small business people to support it in all sorts of contractual capacities, and they create employment as well, right across the board.

This past weekend I was asked to represent the Minister of Agriculture up at Sun Peaks, which I used to represent for 14 years, until the Electoral Boundaries Commission changed it. I was presenting a grant to the association from the government, from the Ministry of Agriculture, to facilitate what they do.
[ Page 8284 ]

What they do is coordinate 48 community fall fairs all around the province. These are wonderful places where people learn the value of farming — children especially, at 4-H Clubs and so on — and the value of ranching, come to appreciate how good it is to have home-grown food and even learn how to cook it — have competitions in how to bake and how to cook and so on.

Those are mainly small business people — farming families, ranching families. Generally, they have less than the 50 employees which is the threshold to be called a small business in British Columbia. They create jobs, and they create healthy food all around the province.

I'm really proud to represent them in this chamber today, really pleased to be the person who gets to coordinate these efforts, to learn about their issues, their ideas, their suggestions, the things they want us to do. It always comes back to: "Province, the best thing you can do for us — and you've been doing it already — is eliminate unnecessary regulation and tax us as little as you can, because we put the money back into our businesses; we put the money back into job creation."

That's what we've been delivering for them, I'm proud to be able to say. We are well over 50 percent of cuts in red tape from the count that we took when we first became government. But we never give up. We're always looking for anything else unnecessary that is there that is hobbling the consumer, hobbling citizens, hobbling small business.

Taxation is, of course, the other issue. We continue to work to keep small business taxation low. We had, as everyone knows, a goal — actually, a deadline — to take small business income tax down to zero percent. We had to postpone that because of the reversal we experienced over the HST, but we're going to get there.

[1010]

J. Brar: In British Columbia 98 percent of businesses are small businesses. Therefore, it's very important for us to speak and talk about small businesses.

I appreciate the member making a statement. I think that the purpose of the private members' statements is to talk more about the policies and think as to what we can do to help the small business community. What I want to say to the member is that the best thing this government can do to help the small business community today is to get rid of the HST as soon as possible, I think. That's the thing that this government needs to do.

It is the thick cloud of economic uncertainty caused by the HST that is hurting the small business community of British Columbia. HST remains the biggest economic roadblock for many struggling small businesses and for new investment.

British Columbians and the small business community have done everything they were required to do under the law to stop the HST. They signed over 700,000 petitions. They have also won the historic referendum to stop the HST. Nevertheless, the B.C. Liberal government will not stop the HST for 18 long months because they want to continue favouring their corporate friends and ignore British Columbia's small business community and the people of British Columbia.

Madam Speaker, remember that the HST transfers $1.9 billion in taxes paid by big businesses onto the backs of small business and consumers. This government took just nine months to implement the corporate-friendly HST, but they need 18 months to bring back the PST. That is irrational, irresponsible and unfair for many small business people.

The economic uncertainty caused by the HST is hurting our small business community and the local economy. HST is hurting the restaurant industry. It is hurting new-home builders, the building industry and many other small businesses. Therefore, elimination of the HST is the first step this government can take to actually help the small business community.

The second thing this government can do is to encourage and subsidize business skill development and training programs for new entrepreneurs. It should ensure that such training is easily accessible. It should support ongoing business skill development, and this can be accomplished in the province of British Columbia through existing business schools, employment centres and self-employment centres we have throughout the province. That should be encouraged.

Thirdly, when I was the executive director of the Surrey Self-Employment and Entrepreneur Development Society, the biggest problem the new entrepreneur used to face and still faces is the access to loan programs. I think that is another area that this government should explore — to support the new entrepreneurs' access to seed loan programs, if they can, to start their new ventures. That is very, very important.

The last but not the least, this government continues talking about the red tape and the elimination of unnecessary regulations, but one of the recommendations made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to this government still remains: to simplify the regulations and administration of the PST, which is going to come back.

It is surprising that red tape and unnecessary provincial regulations still remain the top priority for 59 percent of the members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Therefore, it is about time that the B.C. Liberals make a real commitment, a real commitment to eliminate the unnecessary regulations and stop the lip service they have been providing for the last ten years.

Another point I want to make is that the Premier is going on a trade mission to India and China in the near future, and I would like to see a significant number of small business people be part of that trade mission, rather than the big corporations, because the big corporations
[ Page 8285 ]
have their own sources. They have the capacity to go and explore the business in the global community, but small businesses don't have those tools and the resources. So I would like to see a significant representation of the small business community in the trade mission the Premier is going to take in the near future.

With that, Madam Speaker, thank you very much and thanks to the member for making this statement.

[1015]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

A reminder to all members of the House that this morning is private members' business and is, in the spirit of private members' business, meant to be non-partisan.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the admonition, but don't be too strict with me now — although I have no intention of being partisan, because this is a subject that I think all of us hold close and dear. We want small business to thrive in B.C.

As I said, this is my second movie at co-chairing the Small Business Roundtable. I can tell this House — and obviously, I wouldn't tell this House anything that isn't truthful — that the principal thing I heard the first time around was: "We're pretty happy with the provincial government. We're happy with you having done over a hundred individual tax cuts. We're happy with your cuts in regulation. You listened to us. There's only one big thing that you can still do for small business in British Columbia, as far as we're concerned. We have some issues with the federal government" — and the federal government, frankly, has been working very hard on those. "We have some issues with local governments." And all these members know what they are, I think.

They said: "There's one big thing you can still do, and that is this." At the time, they had 1,050,000 employees and only 380,000 small businesses. Now we have over 400,000 and presumably more employees, but still, that was less than three employees per small business, on average. They said: "Generally, it's two of us that own the business — spouses, long-term partners. Maybe one of our kids is the third or an employee we met along the way who's been very loyal to us. But it's always one of the two principal partners who have their time consumed by pushing paper for government, including two different sales tax systems. We have to keep a set of books for the PST. We have to keep a set of books for the GST."

And whenever the member from Kootenay West smiles at me like that, I get thrown off, so look away.

They wanted harmonization. I don't say all of them, but the majority of them. They said: "That's the last big thing you can do for us. Please harmonize." And I would say: "Well, we talked about it. The federal government insists on 13 percent, and we've only got 12 percent when you add 5 and 7, and we won't do that because it would add taxes." Honestly, I had this conversation a whole bunch of times. When the proposal was made and I was at the table after the 2009 election to do HST and suddenly it could be 12 percent instead of 13 percent, I thought: "Incredible. That's the one thing they were looking for that we couldn't do."

You know, I recognize who won the fight over HST. We lost. The people who were opposed won. We honestly believed that it was the best thing for British Columbia's economy, but we didn't win. But we can collaborate on a way to deal with the problem, because the member's right. That's what I hear all the time now from small business: "You've got to find a way to get back the HST, or something like it, that was good for us."

What they mean by that is the joint tax collection system, because there still are 80 percent of the goods and services that have 5 percent GST, 7 percent PST. We don't have to combine them. If we can get the federal government to continue to collect them jointly, we can save them all of that administrative overburden, and they won't have to pay $1,200 apiece for new cash registers.

Seniors care

K. Conroy: Today I want to talk about seniors care in the province of B.C. There are so many different issues. However, I'm going to focus on just a few. But first of all, I want to speak about, for the most part, the excellent care provided to seniors by the women and men who work in this sector and most specifically the health care assistants who do their very best every day to provide the so important care that seniors living in residential care need, who struggle to provide the best care in spite of increasingly difficult circumstances.

"Health care assistant" is a new name used to describe several different positions, including community aides, home support workers, long-term care aides, home health aides, continuing care assistants and personal care aides. There are over 37,000 people who work in this sector where they deliver services and programs to seniors and people with disabilities.

I was happy and honoured to rise in the House on October 18 to recognize all these workers on Health Care Assistant Day. One health care assistant said to me that they were so pleased to finally get the recognition. As she said to me, their job is not the most glamorous, and I might agree with her in some ways, but I also feel it is one of the toughest.

[1020]

I watch the work they do as I tour through facilities, and also, as I said last week, I watch the work they do with my father-in-law — amazing men and women who ensure vulnerable seniors are so well taken care of.

Many of these workers face uncertainty because of the policies of the government. Since the passage of Bill 29 in 2002, many care facilities have contracted out care and support services to subcontractors in order to cut wage
[ Page 8286 ]
costs. Although the Supreme Court of Canada struck down key provisions of the contract-shredding law in 2007, it did not restore contracting-out protections to health care collective agreements, and this government has chosen not to bring in new legislation to stop this uncertainty in the sector.

Not only does it make it difficult for the workers but also for the seniors, who need and deserve stability. Over the years numerous health care assistants have faced layoffs and then recall at lower rates of pay and benefits. Some leave to find other jobs — which just brings about more uncertainty.

The people who deliver health care in our seniors care facilities deserve better than to be given layoff notices and then told, "We might hire you back," and then, as too often happens, be given layoff notices again, disrupting their lives, their ability to deliver the services to the seniors that they care about and that the government purports to care about and disrupting the lives of seniors, who deserve better in their later years.

This could be fixed. Legislation could be brought in, so let's hope that's done. Let's hope it's done in this session. It has been nine years since the bill was enacted and four years since the Supreme Court struck it down. I really do feel that for the sake of seniors and the people who work in the sector, it is time for a change there.

The issue of abuse in seniors care has also come to the forefront again, and as difficult as this is to fathom, there are many types of abuse of seniors — some reported, some not. I want to touch for a moment on the story of a senior who has been abandoned by policies that this Liberal government has not implemented.

Ricky Spooner is a 100-year-old Sidney resident who had planned to move into a facility in Victoria with his wife. After they put down an $8,000 deposit, his wife, sadly, passed away. The operator of the facility kept his $8,000. After repeated attempts to get it returned, it still hasn't been.

When Mr. Spooner and his wife decided this summer that they needed to move to a facility that could provide a higher level of care, they looked around the region to try to find the best fit for them. They had been married for 74 years. Mrs. Spooner was ill, but they were sure she was going to get better.

When Mr. Spooner signed the contract with Joan Crescent Manor, he put down a $1,600 deposit for his care and a $6,400 deposit for her care. He signed his contract, and she was going to sign hers when they moved in, but, unfortunately, she passed away in August. The family let the facility know the very next day that they would not be moving in, as Mr. Spooner didn't need the level of care being offered at that facility. He was only moving so that they could stay together — together after 74 years of marriage.

He asked for his deposit back. The owner refused. His daughter tried to get it returned, again without success. They even had a family advocate, a friend, who was trying to help them, and again without success.

Jim Beatty, a reporter with CTV, got involved and did a number of stories on the situation. He was amazed at the walls that were continually being put up in front of him. He even had an anonymous donation from a viewer of $6,000 for Mr. Spooner from a concerned citizen who was also incredibly appalled by this story. Mr. Spooner was very grateful but decided to donate the money and continue to fight to get his own money back.

Once the case was in the media, Vancouver Island Health Authority launched an investigation. The conclusion from the report is that the facility had done nothing wrong, which implies that perhaps government policies allow this type of abuse of seniors.

Now, the minister has agreed that the case is unfair and announced another investigation through the Ministry of Health, and the Solicitor General, through the consumer protection legislation that is in place, is working to ascertain whether there has been any breach from that front. So one has to ask: why isn't the legislation in place? Why haven't regulations or legislation been brought in to ensure that this doesn't happen to seniors?

[1025]

On May 18, 2006, the provincial Legislature approved the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2006. The amendment set out the rights and the responsibilities of landlords and tenants in assisted- and supported-living tenancies and established a process for dispute resolution.

However, these regulations have never been created. No regulations, policies, procedures — none have been brought in, which this legislation would have allowed. People living in assisted- and supported-living housing are not covered by the Residential Tenancy Act and cannot go to the residential tenancy branch to resolve disputes. Well, why not? Why not ensure that this legislation…?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

K. Conroy: Oh, sorry. Thank you. I'll continue after.

R. Howard: Thank you to the member for Kootenay West for bringing forward and highlighting an issue in seniors care and seniors abuse — elder abuse — that is very important to us all.

I think that first I would like to emphasize that caring for and protecting vulnerable patients in residential care is one of our top priorities, and we are committed to their health and safety and to the many thousands of seniors care and health care workers who work every day in this province to make sure that our seniors are well taken care of. We are very thankful for that.

Just in my personal context, I've longstanding interest in seniors issues. In my private life I've either owned or managed a couple of seniors homes. As a city councillor I was very involved in liaising with the seniors community,
[ Page 8287 ]
whether it be the Seniors Advisory Council or the Minoru Place board, and most recently participating in the Seniors Planning Table, which is an effort funded by the United Way and meant to outreach to seniors in the community. I participate with that, and when I can't because I'm here, my staff do that for me.

I think the member also talked about efficiency of services and somehow thinking that contracting out of services was an inappropriate tool to help manage costs. I would like to say again from personal experience that that provides a very real tool for us to manage costs and, in fact, leaves us with more money to have to put back into caring for seniors and maintaining facilities.

I know that British Columbians agree that even one incident is one too many, and I certainly share that view. However, I also know from personal experience that circumstances change, conditions change. What was a stable situation one day can quickly transition and become not stable the very next day. These are some of the most challenging circumstances, especially when it comes to dealing with dementia patients and aggressive patients or residents.

So what do we do? Well, what we do is ensure that well-trained and fully equipped medical health officers and licensing officials perform regular and unannounced inspections at all B.C.'s residential care facilities and daycares. They also follow up on issues raised at any facility.

I would like to point out that today a senior, or a family who has somebody in a facility or in care, has very many options that they can pursue if they have any concerns. These include the health authority licensing branches, who would receive every complaint. Of course, we just recently were gifted with the new Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors. We're very pleased with that.

[1030]

We have a patient care quality review office in each health authority and, of course, we have the office of the minister and his ministry itself. Through resident and family councils, which have been established in many facilities through the Public Guardian…. They also have avenues through the Ombudsperson. We take all the complaints and recommendations that come through these avenues very seriously, and we act on them to make our health care system better.

I would also like to point out that in fall of 2009 we passed the Residents' Bill of Rights, which sets out clear commitments to care and the rights of seniors living in residential care facilities. We also were the first province in Canada — British Columbia was the first province in Canada — to regulate assisted-living residences by creating the office of the assisted-living registrar.

We also make it a priority to ensure that people who have contact with seniors are required to have criminal record checks to help provide a higher degree of certainty that seniors are being treated appropriately.

Madam Speaker, as I've said, I believe there are few governments that have done as much for seniors as this government has done. I hesitate to go into a bunch of numbers. I see my time is up, so I won't.

K. Conroy: Thanks to the member for Richmond Centre for his comments, but I want to point out to him that in fact, I think contracting out in this province has not resulted in stability in facilities. It's actually resulted in instability in facilities. You just have to talk to seniors and the caregivers who work in the sector to recognize that.

When you look at what the Ombudsperson did when she decided to do a study into the whole senior sector and what was happening…. In 2008 she came out with her first report. She said that she felt that seniors care is quite balkanized, open to abuse and difficult to understand. "It's a patchwork of laws, regulations and differing costs and standards. Vulnerable seniors and confused families don't know what rights to care they have and are afraid complaints could lead to retribution."

She made a series of recommendations, and yes, the government has followed up on some of them. But there's a lack of teeth in some of those regulations that have been followed up on — for instance, the website. There is supposed to be a portal that seniors and their families can go into, and they can look on line and see what seniors facilities have to offer. Not only can they see what seniors facilities have to offer, they should point out seniors facilities that have had licensing inspections and what's happened with those licensing inspections, and that's not happening.

The province of Ontario has the fulsome website that anybody can go onto. They can look and see what's happening in their province. They can see what's happened in those facilities, and that's what B.C. should have.

I think B.C. also needs to have an independent advocate for seniors. We continually get calls to my office from people who are saying: "What can we do? Where can we go?" They're afraid of retribution for speaking out. They need an independent advocate that can come forward, similar to what we have with the independent advocate for children in this province.

It has been amazing what's happened with that position. That needs to happen for seniors too. Seniors and their families need a place where they can go, where they can feel comfortable, secure, safe in expressing their concerns and talking about the issues they're facing and knowing that someone is there for them. Someone is there in their corner who's going to stand up and advocate for the issues that seniors face in this province, because they do face issues. They do face issues of abuse.

We have to make sure that as a government we have to continually be stepping forward to make sure we're going to take care of seniors. Seniors, who are in the last years of their lives, deserve the dignity that they should be getting, and often they're not.
[ Page 8288 ]

I think the report that came out in the Province last week and in the Sun shows the amount of abuses that are in facilities, shows the number, and it had to be got through a freedom-of-information request. It wasn't available to anybody to find out. It had to be got through freedom of information. There was case after case of different types of abuse that seniors are facing.

That is just wrong. Seniors in our province should not be facing issues of sexual abuse, financial abuse, issues of violence, issues of physical abuse. It should not be happening in this province.

AGRICULTURE JOBS

R. Cantelon: Today I'd like to talk about agriculture, specifically agriculture on Vancouver Island. As the member opposite for Nanaimo has pointed out, we only have about three days of food supply on Vancouver Island to handle our own needs. So we need to do something about it. But there is hope, and people are doing something about it and taking initiatives that are transforming the way that agriculture is done on Vancouver Island.

[1035]

Now, in the great expanses of northern B.C. and other areas, farm sizes are huge and immense. On Vancouver Island it's a new approach. Think small. Think small; think organic. It's catching on, and it's making a difference.

Clarke and Nancy Gourlay spent several years in Switzerland, and they became fascinated with how the Swiss make such a fine quality of cheese. They decided to learn more about it, come to Vancouver Island and create a farm where cheese could be made naturally and of a very, very high quality. They've done just that on what they call Morningstar Farm, Little Qualicum Cheeseworks and MooBerry Winery. Get it? MooBerry Winery. Located in the shadow and the warm, moist climate of Vancouver Island, it's an ideal setting.

Now what we have is it offers an abundance of family fun with self-guided tours, festivals and events, lots of farm animals to see and pet, a fantastic picnic area, a trail to stroll around the 68 acres and, of course, wine and cheese tastings. So they've integrated it not only as the production of food but also a tourism event — very appropriate, again, to Vancouver Island.

The climate is favourable to both those concepts, both raising cows and making cheese. I said "growing cheese" once, and I was quite abruptly corrected on that. My lack of farming knowledge has been pointed out by some of my fellow members, despite my brief tenure as Agriculture Minister. But I digress.

Interjection.

R. Cantelon: I reminisce.

They make the finest quality cheese. They have a saying. Happy cows make happy — and lots of — milk. They're very proud of the fact that they've received certifications from the SPCA about how they care for their animals. Cows were born to graze, and fresh grass makes great milk and lots of it, again.

There are other implications. I think this is very true and appropriate for Vancouver Island: the implications of grazing versus barn feeding — reduced machine time. They still harvest one cut of grass for winter hay, but basically it's reduced machine time, less emissions, and the cows spread their own manure. They're in permanent pasture, so there's no machine time spent tearing up the ground and replanting again. So it's a very, very efficient way.

Here's a very idyllic way. Each morning the cows come in from the field to be milked. The fresh, warm milk is mixed with the cooled evening milk and either made directly into aged raw milk cheese or gently treated to pasteurization temperatures for our fresh soft cheeses. I mean, it makes your mouth water. Indeed, it is a mouth-watering experience to sample their cheese.

Interjections.

R. Cantelon: Thank you. I hear that this has caused some of our people to be moo-ved, and so it should.

But that's only one initiative. Another very ambitious group called the Vancouver Island Living Green Society is headed up by Rick Ethier. Rick had an extensive experience building houses and building social housing for people. He has a passion about caring for other people. So he has a vision — and he has extensively researched this — where you would have an integrated, basically closed-loop system of developing agriculture.

It starts with worms. It starts with worms to enrich the soil. You would mix composting materials with wood chips and create good soil. He makes the point — and I think it's a good one to take — that good food starts with good soil. The worms have a magical effect, almost, in purifying the soil and removing pathogens from it. That's what worms do. So then you mix this in with wood chips and create a great, great soil and create great food.

He sees it as an environment whereby there would be a training school, basically, to teach people how to grow their own food, grow their own good-quality organic food. The better the food, the healthier you become. I don't think anyone could deny that.

The opportunity on Vancouver Island is very, very great. We have a great climate, of course, as we know. We're favoured in that way. We have rainfall. However, a lot of the land, nearly 30,000 of land, in the ALR is class 4 to class 7. So here's an opportunity to enrich the soil and increase the productivity capability of the soil.

I think that our agriculture industry has been much maligned in terms of its capability to improve the productivity of soils throughout. From the fruit growers
[ Page 8289 ]
in the Okanagan to the vegetable growers in the Fraser Valley, they've greatly increased the productive capacity of the soil.

Rick would see a combination of greenhouses and even fish farms to recirculate in a closed loop the water throughout the system to be used in various ways. It's a good idea, and he's researched it well. I'm sure it will work, and I am sure he'll be successful.

[1040]

So these are some of the ways that we can expand, and it isn't big. Mr. Ethier would see farms as small as ten hectares or even smaller — even as small as two hectares. Certainly, the organic farmers on Vancouver Island have shown that you can get tremendous volume out of a small plot and, of course, great-quality produce.

This is the future. It's more green, more environmentally friendly and, with respect to our carbon footprint, a much smaller carbon footprint. I think the point has been made many times that we should aspire to getting our food within a hundred kilometres of where we live. That would suit most residents on Vancouver Island.

The reception of the citizens on Vancouver Island, I think, is evidenced by the Qualicum Beach Farmers Market, which goes on every Saturday. You've got to get there early, Madam Speaker, if you want to get some of the good stuff, and it is really good stuff that the farmers present at the farmers market. It goes quickly. Basically, they open up, and by ten o'clock, if you're not there, it's gone. If you snooze, you lose.

These are about two ways, I think. Clarke and Nancy Gourlay have shown that it can work on a smaller scale — integrated it with tourism. It's completely environmentally friendly, completely organic. Rick Ethier has a more ambitious plan with his Vancouver Island living green society, with which he hopes to train and teach young people not only to be more accountable about their carbon footprint but to be responsible about how they eat, how they live and how they raise food. The future is bright.

R. Chouhan: I really appreciate the comments made by the member, because we all support the agriculture sector. We want to make sure that small farmers, farm growers are all supported. If you look at the history of British Columbia, the agriculture industry has made a huge contribution to the well-being of our British Columbians for the last many, many decades. We can make industry even more good. We can improve it. We can help it.

If you look at certain issues and what we have seen in the last many years…. If we want to really see the agriculture industry, the farm growers, flourish on Vancouver Island or anywhere in B.C., we have to make sure that the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture is not reduced but, rather, is increased.

We need those resources to ensure that farmers, the farmworkers, have all the necessary resources to make sure that our agriculture industry flourishes. But in fact, what we have seen is the budget going down rather than going up.

The member has talked about organic farming on Vancouver Island. Unfortunately, the organic inspector, the inspection that we have seen in the past, is also gone. It's no longer there. So let's help these growers. If we want to talk about the kind of industry that we have, then we must make sure they have all the tools necessary in order to produce.

If organic farmers are going to flourish on Vancouver Island, then they need to see that the quality of their produce is not compromised. It can only happen if you have somebody there — a trained person, an experienced person, an inspector — who can go and make sure that the quality is there.

When we are talking about farming, let's not forget, also, the other component of farming — people who work at the farms, the farmworkers. In order to make sure that farming is successful, we must make sure that our employees, the farmworkers, are also taken care of.

We have seen in the last several years, especially since 2004, that we are now inviting temporary foreign workers to come to B.C. Since 2004 the number of temporary farmworkers has increased from 50,000 to over 100,000. I am sure that many of those workers work with these growers on Vancouver Island.

So are they taken care of? In order for them to be successful, those workers should have all the protections under the Employment Standards Act. We have seen that they are not there.

[1045]

The other disappointing factor that I have come to know is that on Vancouver Island, the meat production has gone down significantly. As a result, those growers who in the past were able to produce meat can't do it. So that's another factor we can't ignore.

The member talked about Buy B.C. program, but there again, unfortunately, what we have seen are cutbacks in that. What we have seen are more emphasis and more focus on the international market rather than talking about Buy B.C. programs.

We need to make sure that the prime agricultural land on Vancouver Island or anywhere in British Columbia has not been reduced. But it has been reduced in the last ten years. So we must help all the growers make sure they have the tools they need, the proper inspections they need, that the industry is helped and the workers who work with these growers are taken care of.

I support all the issues that the member has talked about, but I just want to make sure that we also provide a balanced approach to the agriculture industry on Vancouver Island and also in British Columbia.

R. Cantelon: I agree that we need a balanced approach. I know that the member opposite also endorses
[ Page 8290 ]
the approach towards more productivity and more jobs on Vancouver Island and throughout British Columbia.

I love to see the enthusiasm we have on Vancouver Island for these smaller farms. They're more labour-intensive, but they produce much, much better quality food.

I would counter the comment with regard to the meat production, because of people like Eric Boulton on Gabriola Island. Again, he has a farm that's integrated with the entire community. He raises cows and turkeys and now brings them…. Actually, it's on his own farm. It's a small-scale slaughterhouse that produces very, very good quality poultry and beef products for all of Vancouver Island.

The trend is clear, and the trend is very exciting. We see people moving back to the farm. It's encouraging to see people getting enthusiastic about growing their own food, which will make a healthier community and address many of the other concerns we have with respect to health concerns.

Growing healthy food and eating in a healthy lifestyle are certainly what we need to do, because in the end, as Val Roddick used to tell us, you have to eat to live.

Community Safety

K. Corrigan: The citizens of British Columbia are facing tremendous cost increases to and strains upon its justice system. We've already had several instances of trials being cancelled and the accused being acquitted, where the judges have blamed those acquittals on a clogged and overburdened court system.

Superimposed on this is a constellation of costs that are, and will increasingly have to be, borne by the provinces, unless there is an agreement for the federal government to shoulder that burden. These costs are a result of federal crime legislation that imposes more punitive penalties, new minimum sentences and criminal sanctions.

Unfortunately, it appears that before imposing these changes, the federal government did not analyze the cost impacts on either the federal or the provincial justice systems. Or if they did, it was not publicly shared either by the federal government or by the provinces. In addition, we haven't seen any evidence that the province has analyzed these costs either.

The one clear estimate of the cost of the legislation is last year's Truth in Sentencing Act, federal legislation limiting the amount of credit that prisoners can get for time served in custody before and during their trial. The federal government did not cost this legislation. However, the independent parliamentary budget office estimated that this one piece of legislation will cost the province of British Columbia's correctional services an extra $567 million to $725 million each and every year. Despite the magnitude of the estimated costs, I am not aware of parallel costing by the province of British Columbia.

[1050]

In addition to the Truth in Sentencing Act, we now have Bill C-10, a federal omnibus crime bill named the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which contains nine government bills from the previous parliament. These bills include a number of provisions that will increase the load on the provincial correctional system, including the elimination of conditional sentences in some circumstances and mandatory sentences for possession of and trafficking in certain drugs. Everyone seems to agree that the financial and operational impact on our criminal justice system will be significant. But the question is: how much is it going to cost? How significant is the impact going to be?

Has the B.C. government estimated the cost of these bills? And, if so, what are those costs? Preliminary estimates from Kevin Page, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer, project that the federal government's crime package will cost the provinces and territories $6 billion to $10 billion over the next five years.

While there is some provision in the ministry budget for capital expansion, our prisons are already crowded. According to the earlier referenced report by the federal parliamentary budget office: "B.C. experiences one of the worst double-bunking rates in the country — 1.76 on average. Five facilities have rates of 1.90 and above, another is at two, and another one is at 2.03, which practically means three beds in some cells." This is before the influx that will be associated with the federal crime bills.

Further, there is no increase in the provincial operational budget over the next several years. The budget documents simply do not reflect the future downloaded costs. The ministry service plan says: "The inmate population is projected to continue to increase over the next ten years." But there is no estimate as to how much, and the question is: how much will the inmate population increase?

One of the announced capital projects is a 360-cell correctional centre in the Okanagan. However, after being announced a year ago, the state of progress is unclear, and some local government officials are starting to question government's commitment to this project. And the situation in the Interior is serious. The Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre was built in 1989 for a count of 168 inmates and routinely houses in excess of 320 inmates — almost double capacity.

My concern is that if resources are not put in place as the surge of prisoners enters the system, we are increasing what is already a dangerous and volatile overcrowded system. In addition, the federal government must not download the hundreds of millions of dollars stemming from its crime legislation for policing, courts and the correctional system onto provincial and local taxpayers.
[ Page 8291 ]

Is our provincial government at the table with the federal government, ensuring that costs are offset by the federal government? We know there are opportunities for discussion. A full year ago a joint meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial leaders responsible for justice and public safety was held in Vancouver, co-chaired by federal representatives and the AG and Solicitor General of British Columbia. According to the official conference press release, ministers were provided an overview of federal crime bills, including the Truth in Sentencing Act. Presumably, those meetings and others should have included discussions about the impact on the provinces and the expectation that provinces would not simply have costs downloaded onto them.

In addition to the costs associated with the Truth in Sentencing Act and the omnibus crime bill, there continues to be rapidly escalating policing costs. The RCMP contract is being negotiated between the provinces and the federal government. The provincial side is being led by British Columbia, which has by far the most at stake, given that RCMP provide policing to more than three million British Columbians.

Those talks, according to the minister, have fallen apart, raising concerns about the working relationship between the B.C. government and the federal government at this critical moment in negotiations. Again, this relationship is critical not only to achieving success in cost containment and accountability in the RCMP contract, but also this relationship is critical in negotiations with regard to saving B.C. harmless from the cost associated with the federal crime legislation.

[1055]

M. Dalton: British Columbian families deserve to feel safe in their communities, and it's true that it costs to keep our communities and our province safe. But it costs a lot more if we don't — the impacts upon families, upon lives — and we believe it's worth the investment. This government has invested heavily in crime prevention. We've doubled the annual budget, and we've increased the number of officers on the streets by 2,100 since the government has been in power. That has had a big impact.

What type of impact? Well, we have the lowest crime rate right now that this province has seen in over three decades. Now, that's not just statistics. "Oh, so what?" We're talking about people coming home and not finding their place burglarized. It's about people not being victimized by crime — whether it be theft, stabbings or whatever it may be.

Last year alone British Columbia saw the highest percentage, the biggest drop in serious crime, down 7 percent, and 6 percent for overall crime, in Canada. That is very significant. We're doing something right, and that's something to be proud about as a province and as a government.

One example would be B.C.'s bait car program. This is the largest program of its kind in Canada. In 2010 there were 9,000 incidences of vehicle thefts, and this represents a 65 percent reduction — that's two-thirds — over 2003.

I don't know if members have had their vehicles stolen or know other people — we probably all have — but it has an impact. People don't feel as secure in their neighbourhood. Well, this is changing, and the actual climate in British Columbia is changing with regard to safety. That reduces the fear. It also helps to keep insurance payments lower.

Furthermore, the government has dedicated all money that is collected from fines back into municipal policing. It's almost half a billion dollars, and that's money in the communities to combat crime. British Columbia has more integrated units and joint operations per capita than anywhere in Canada.

We've added 168 additional police dedicated to combatting gang violence, and we're seeing it drop. The number of deaths even last year was almost 50 percent less than the previous year because we're tackling these issues.

We've also successfully lobbied the federal government to eliminate the two-for-one credits for time served. Now, I do understand that that costs, but criminals need to know that if you do a crime, you pay the time. We've also restricted the sale of body armour, outlawed modified armoured vehicles and increased powers to confiscate and destroy them.

We've introduced the Civil Forfeiture Act, and this has been a great success. It has been 100 percent successful with every case that the civil forfeiture office has been approached on. This civil forfeiture office and the Civil Forfeiture Act — the good thing about it is it doesn't cost taxpayers anything, because all the money that is received from civil forfeiture, which is in the tens of millions of dollars, goes directly into paying for itself. Then the residue funds are used to help police, whether it be with extra cars or extra youth diversion programs. It's making a difference in our community.

Furthermore, we've introduced Canada's toughest impaired driving laws, including new roadside prohibitions of three, seven and 30 days. What has that meant? Well, it has meant almost a 50 percent reduction in the number of youths and people being killed on our streets due to drunk driving. Those are some great measures, and we should all applaud that.

We're seeing changes on our streets, and we're seeing changes in this community. This province is a safer place, and I'm proud of the government's position and the support in the area of community policing.

[1100]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 8292 ]

K. Corrigan: The member opposite talked about the investment in policing. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that we've had a change that in most municipalities in this province, the vast majority in terms of population, the costs of policing are paid 90 percent. If it's an RCMP contract in a large city like Richmond, Surrey or Burnaby, 90 percent of the cost is paid for by the municipalities, and it's the municipalities that are going to be paying the lion's share for the increased cost of policing with these bills — 80 percent in smaller municipalities. While I appreciate that the member opposite talks about policing, remember that it is municipalities that will bear the vast majority of the brunt of those costs.

The member opposite also mentioned that there was support for the two-for-one Truth in Sentencing Act, the two-for-one provisions. But again, those are costs that are going to cost the taxpayers of this province $550 million to $725 million. So if the province was supporting that legislation, I do not understand why it is that there is nothing in our corrections budget to cover that increasing cost.

We are facing unprecedented and yet apparently unquantified costs resulting from federal crime legislation, and I do hope the provincial government is estimating those costs as we speak. It's essential that they be quantified. It's essential that the province get to the table with the federal government to ensure that these costs not be downloaded onto provincial governments.

We must be successful in order that we preserve the ability to properly address other serious justice issues in our province — issues like the death and disappearances of so many of B.C.'s aboriginal women, which the government acknowledged in establishing the missing women inquiry, although it is unfortunate that many groups that have been granted standing are not participating due to inability to finance that participation; issues like domestic and international human trafficking; issues like domestic abuse.

This statement is about community safety. While I have little sympathy for the many criminals who repeatedly and unabashedly end up in our prisons and have no sympathy for those who choose to endanger the safety or economic well-being of our community, I do think, however, it is important to remember that apart from the criminal justice system and the correctional facilities, the real answer to making communities healthy and safe is to ensure that the individual citizens, from the time they are born, have the supports they need.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call private member's Motion 14.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 14 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 14 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
FOR TAXPAYERS

J. Les: I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion this morning and just to put on the record the motion that we will be discussing over the next hour. It is this.

[Be it resolved that this House support an increase in transparency and accountability to ensure local taxpayers are getting value for money.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Taxpayers everywhere are always very concerned about the amount of taxes that they pay, and that's no surprise. We all would like to maximize our earnings and minimize our taxes, but in a civil society taxes are necessary for governments to provide services to people. But after the concern about how much taxes people pay, they also are then concerned about the efficiency of government operations to ensure that they get maximum value for their tax dollars. I think that concern is very appropriate and well placed as well.

For many years we have had Auditors General at the federal level of government, at all of the provincial levels of government, and in some places in Canada we have seen the concept of an auditor general come to the local level of government as well. As a matter of fact, the NDP government in Nova Scotia is currently implementing a municipal auditor general in that province. We have auditors general at the municipal level in Quebec and in some cases in Ontario as well.

[1105]

Now, let me say first off that at the federal and provincial levels, I am sure that political representatives don't always enjoy Auditor General reports when they come out. They tend to be critical, inasmuch as at the same time they're trying to be helpful in ensuring that there's good value for money for tax expenditures. But often the commentary of Auditors General is critical, and rightly so.

Governments, at the end of the day, are run by people, and people are prone from time to time to make mistakes. The Auditor General is one of those institutions that can help keep governments focused on getting maximum value for taxpayers' dollars.

Now, at the local level this is no less important than it is at the federal and provincial levels. Myself, I was involved for 16 years at the local government level, and I know that there are always opportunities to be more efficient and to be more respectful of the taxpayer's dollar.

I know that there's going to be a lot of discussion in the next 50 minutes or so, and I hope to hear from
[ Page 8293 ]
opposition members and their take on this issue, so I will just touch on, perhaps, capital procurement as one example where municipal governments and all governments can do a much better job.

It has been, I guess, the traditional approach that if a capital asset is required, somebody gets called in to design or to engineer the project, and then that particular design is put out for tender, and the low bidder is generally the successful party that can then go ahead and produce that asset.

I learned and discovered many years ago that that is not necessarily the best approach. If the proposed design is inappropriate or is the wrong design or is the wrong idea or is the wrong response to the perceived need, then if you get the lowest price on the wrong idea, you're still wasting taxpayers' money.

Far better to use a design-build approach, for example, where you state clearly what the need is that needs to be addressed, and you then ask for proposals, which has the effect of getting architects and engineers and contractors together in one room, competing against other teams like that, who then come up not only with what might be the best price but are first of all focused on what is the best response to the need that has been identified by the government, whether it's local or otherwise. That is how you start to engender a lot more innovation and competition in terms of different ideas to address the perceived need.

I have seen and experienced many, many times how competitive teams in that scenario come up with ideas and suggestions and approaches that hadn't even been particularly thought about, and in those scenarios the taxpayer is always the winner. You have the ability then to take into account not only the upfront costs but also the life-cycle costs, and you also stop this practice called change orders.

In my earlier days in political life I saw far too many change orders where partway through a project a flaw would be encountered in the design, and then invariably a change order was produced, and it was always the taxpayer that was on the hook. With a design-build approach, there is a lot less exposure by the taxpayer and the various proponents, whether they be architects, engineers, contractors or what have you. They are kept fully accountable for what they have proposed.

[1110]

So that is one way in which taxpayers can be protected. It is one area of commentary that Auditors General may well want to have a look at as they determine whether the capital procurement process, at all levels of government but in this case particularly at the local government level, is being properly iterated so that the public is well served in making sure that they get the infrastructure they need but at the same time that their wallets are protected against the kind of lack of accountability that we see far too often.

I will leave my comments there. I suspect there will be a fair bit of interesting commentary this morning. I think it's always worthwhile to examine these issues, and I'll be interested to hear what members on both sides of the House have to offer this morning.

H. Lali: I take my place in the debate on a motion on the municipal auditor general put forward by the hon. member, and I want to thank him for his comments.

When this idea was originally floated, it was floated by the now Premier, who was running during a leadership contest earlier on in the year. There weren't a lot of details that were put forward. Actually, for months and months there wasn't much detail put forward. During the spring session, when we had the estimates, obviously I was up, and I know the minister across the way…. We had a to-and-from for a few minutes in the estimates on the auditor general, trying to get some information. I didn't get much information, actually, out of the minister herself, either, because she didn't know what they were really going to do.

On the surface and in principle it sounded like a great idea, and obviously we tried to find out what measures of accountability the government had in mind. I don't know any individual in this House who doesn't want more accountability — or people who are elected at the municipal and regional district level. I don't know anybody who doesn't want to be accountable to the people. Obviously, in that atmosphere, I've asked a number of questions and have, in principle, support for the idea of more openness and accountability, and not just for municipal governments but for all levels of government.

I wasn't able to really get much coming forth from the minister because the minister herself did not know what the Premier really had in mind. What we've seen over the last number of months is the Premier basically treating the municipalities and regional districts with disrespect. I mean, if you're going to bring in something major, such as a municipal auditor general, you would think that the Premier would either get a committee together or the minister might assign somebody to go around the province and talk to municipalities and regional districts and do some consultation with them and put forward an idea with some details as to what the Premier has in her mind.

But as usual, as we find out with a lot of these pronouncements that the Premier makes, the ready-fire-aim kind of approach is empty. It's empty rhetoric. We don't know what's going on in her head. The caucus and the cabinet on the Liberal side has to then regroup to try to cover for her because she hasn't put out any kind of an idea.

As I mentioned earlier, it was a promise that she made during her leadership because some business interests were twisting her arm. Perhaps they were going to support her for leader at the time, and she made this kind
[ Page 8294 ]
of promise off the cuff or the back-of-an-envelope kind of approach.

But little did the Premier — who is now the Premier, who was running for leader at the time — as she'd go out and tell municipalities…. The reason they've got such a funding crisis and the reason perhaps some of the taxpayers at the local level were saying their taxes keep going up is the amount of provincial off-loading that this government has done over the last ten years. They hampered their ability to raise finances in terms of municipal grants that go forward.

This government has hamstrung the municipalities and made it difficult for them to actually be able to deliver the services, whether it's water, sewer, garbage, municipal roads and sidewalks, and some of the other programs that they do.

But then, you know, it's been the usual Liberal practice anyways. When they make policy, they look at their list to see: "Gee, I wonder who's donated to us financially over the last few years and who we should look after. We're going to put forward a certain initiative or a promise."

One of the other things is you've got this government that's trying to say to local government that they need to be accountable, that they need to be held accountable. They need to have more openness. They ought to be audited a lot more, not telling folks that they have their own external auditors in place and are bound by law to have those audits done on a year-to-year basis. They won't tell you that.

[1115]

It's more about creating a diversion because their own record on accountability is not anything that they should be bragging about — not at all. This is the most closed government in the history of this province. You've got jurisdictions all across the world, all across North America, Canada. They're opening up their books for people to see what's going on. But this government itself said that we have the best Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of any jurisdiction in North America, by 2001.

This government, when they came in, changed the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They made 72 changes to tighten up the people's information so they won't have access to it. That's what this government did, this Liberal government, and they've got the gall to actually stand up in this House and outside to try to tell municipalities they're not accountable.

That's where this government is coming from. It's pretty hypocritical, when you think about it, because this government hasn't taken the advice of its own Auditor General. Year after year the Auditor General in British Columbia puts forward their reports with recommendations, and they've treated, on occasion, the provincial Auditor General with utter contempt.

I'm going to give you an example. It was in July 2008, in response to Auditor General John Doyle's determination that: "The removal of private land from TFLs 6,19 and 25 was approved without sufficient regard for the public interest." This is from the Auditor General's report, page 1. But the new minister at the time, who is now the Minister of Lands, actually attacked John Doyle's integrity rather than accepting responsibility for the failed policy of this government, which has resulted in the closure of over 80 sawmills and pulp mills in this province and 42,500 permanent, family-supporting jobs that have been permanently lost in this province.

What does this government do? They send out the new Minister of Forests, go out there and publicly attack an independent officer of the Crown who is answerable to the Legislature. That's what they did, and they've got the gall to stand up in this House to tell municipalities that they ought to be more accountable. Well, they don't even listen to their own Auditor General.

Then the member across the way talks about capital procurement and fair bidding as if they've lived up to their own laws that were in place in terms of fair bidding. They turn around and give contracts to their friends and insiders time and time again, throughout all ministries, because they've got this little list they look at to see who has given the B.C. Liberal Party the largest donations in the last year or the last decade. That's what they've done.

Their policy really is….

Interjection.

H. Lali: I have said it outside, hon. Member. Go out there and check the record. I've said it time and time again. You just don't have the fortitude to go out there and defend yourself in public. You want to sit there and heckle me.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Through the Chair.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The policy of the Liberals is: "Do as I say, not as I do." That's what they do. They want the municipalities to come in line, but they won't themselves.

I want to talk about municipalities for a brief minute here. At the UBCM convention the Leader of the Opposition put it really succinctly. I am going to quote the Leader of the Opposition at the recent UBCM convention.

"Local governments are the most scrutinized level of government when it comes to spending: more frequent elections; council and committee meetings open to the public; public consultation required for annual financial plans; statutory limitations imposed by the province, such as: cannot budget a deficit; requirement for referenda for major capital purchases; requirement to issue annual reports, including reports and performance against defined goals. Councils have power to require performance audits. Inspector of municipalities already in place with considerable powers.

"It is unlikely that a local government in B.C. would have wasted $90 million on a software program such as BCeSIS, or
[ Page 8295 ]
asked taxpayers in Dawson Creek, Terrace, Kamloops and Vancouver to spend $600 million on a football stadium roof without any consultation — or actual money, as it turns out. In fact, it would have been impossible."

That's the reality. That's the reality here in British Columbia. The Liberals telling the municipalities: "Do as I say, and not as I do." That came of off-the-cuff remarks by the hon. Premier.

[1120]

J. Rustad: I just want to start, because of the previous rant that just went on…. Let's bring it back to what we're actually talking about here, which is: "Be it resolved that this House support an increase in transparency and accountability to ensure local taxpayers are getting value for money".

I can say to you very plainly: "I support it." Clearly, you've just heard the rant on the other side and, quite frankly, you don't know where their position is.

However, I will read into the record one thing which does recognize their position, and this came from the member for Juan de Fuca who made this position very clear when asked about whether he supported a municipal auditor general or not. He quoted…. This is from CKNW, August 10 of this year: "Plain and simple: I don't."

They can rant and rail all they want about the various things and all kinds of issues. The bottom line is they don't support it. And I think the member for Fraser-Nicola hit the nail on the head when he said: "Tell me something: who benefits from this?" You know, it's out there. It's not the donors; it's the people. It's the people of the province, and it's the respect for the taxpayers. That's why we're doing this. That's why we stand up and do this, and that's why you're opposing it.

Madam Speaker, a municipal auditor general is about value for money. It's about trying to get to the bottom and saying to taxpayers: "This is the right way to do things. This is the best way to be able to achieve results for the money that's going." It's respect for people's money and how the dollars are going to be spent.

Now, I know lots of people are uncomfortable with auditors general. We've seen lots of reports as government. Every government across Canada has seen lots of reports as government that come from municipal auditors general, and sometimes it makes them uncomfortable because it makes you ask questions. It makes you look at the way you're doing things, and it also makes you take a look to say: is this the best way to actually be able to do things? And I think that's a benefit.

The municipal auditor general will be doing things like reviewing the economy of a particular activity, examining the efficiencies of a service, measuring the effectiveness, reviewing the stewardship of assets, assisting local governments in finding greater value and identifying best practices. What is wrong with doing that?

You know, I also look across the country and I say: "Are we standing alone in doing this? Are we the only people that are standing up saying we should be thinking about having a municipal auditor general?" And it's interesting to note that several other municipalities in Ontario…. Quebec has got one in place for communities of a larger size.

The other interesting one I found is that Nova Scotia is implementing a municipal auditor general, and how interesting is that considering that's an NDP government. Yet these people won't stand up and support something, support taxpayers in support of fairness in terms of a system.

Putting a municipal auditor general in place is something that I have been thinking about and talking about ever since I have first elected. I think it is the right thing to do. I think it adds value to communities. It allows you to be able to find out: why does one community have a different level of service than another community? What is it that they're doing different? How do we make sure that the best value is there for taxpayers, and ultimately, how can we make sure that we get the most done within communities for the taxpayer dollars?

This is the right thing to do, and I would challenge any of the people in the opposition, as they stand up, to clarify their position. Do you support it or do you not? Or are you just going to try to be on the edge because you know the people of the province support it, but your supporters don't?

D. Thorne: Well, you know, my colleague has really spoken quite eloquently for all of us. I know it was called a rant, but that's usually what it gets called when the other side doesn't like what one side is saying, right? The truth hurts, right? The truth hurts. So that's it. Anyway I am going to try and take a quieter approach, but I don't intend to be any….

Interjection.

D. Thorne: Well, there is no question. There is no question.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members. The debate will happen through the Chair.

[1125]

D. Thorne: Generally, on this issue as an ex–city councillor I stand behind the position of the UBCM, which represents the municipalities and, therefore, "the people" that we've been talking about that are going to be duly affected by an MAG office.

You know, it's not that there aren't some good things in here. There are some measures, probably, where gains
[ Page 8296 ]
could be made by some kind of buying services or something like that.

But when I saw the motion that was coming forward this morning on transparency and accountability from this government across the way, I thought I'd fallen down the rabbit hole. I thought: "This can't be true."

I was almost speechless that this government — the least accountable, least transparent government that I can remember ever — should come forward and say that the municipalities, which already have so many strictures on them, are not accountable. I assume that is the meaning of the private member's statement — that they're not accountable. Well, I disagree. Obviously, I disagree.

I think this is something that the new Premier hopped on as a great little addition to her leadership campaign and now has to follow through because lots of people out there, like taxpayers groups, all want somebody to come in and clamp down on the municipalities.

Well, if you just do your homework and compare the two systems — the auditing systems, the finance systems, the budgeting systems — between the province and the municipalities…. A lot of you over there have been mayors and councillors. You know what I'm talking about. The comparison between the two systems is…. Well, there is no comparison. They're almost identical. In fact, you might say that there are more accountability strictures against municipalities than there are against the government.

The government, as my colleague pointed out, doesn't pay any attention to the Auditor General anyway, as a rule, unless it suits them. If it suits the government, if they're going to get some big praise, they will do what the Auditor General says. If not, nothing happens. They say: "Oh, who is that Auditor General? What does he know?" That's what happens.

That can't happen at local government. That can't happen. They are so much more accountable. I am not going to read through this whole list, but I can e-mail it to all of the members afterwards. That's what I can do. I can do that, right?

I don't have time — I have five minutes to talk — but I can e-mail you the comparison of all of the financial, transparency and accountability issues between the provincial government, which controls the municipalities and downloads everything they don't want to do onto them. Then, when they're embarrassed about something or they're taking heat for something: "Oh, let's talk about the municipalities. Let's make them look over there instead of looking at us."

I'm getting my one-minute notice, and I haven't even started here. I'll be e-mailing a lot of stuff to the members on the other side. I have a list here of all of the Auditor General recommendations to the government that they have not followed. Look how big it is — look — and they have not followed it. Okay. All right.

I have just a couple minutes. My friend said that the government made 72 changes to FOI and transparency and accountability issues. It's almost impossible, or was until recently, to even get any information that came back that wasn't all blacked out. This is not the time to be stepping in and making things tougher for the municipalities. You've already done that.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member and recognize the member for Vernon-Monashee.

E. Foster: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So much for a quieter approach to the motion. I would like to get back to that motion, as a matter of fact, if you don't mind.

It seems obvious to me that the opposition has an issue with the motion because they won't speak to it. This is about developing a program for the municipal auditor general in the province. It's not about all the ranting and raving and the quiet approach that we've heard from the last two members of the opposition.

[1130]

At any rate, this is an opportunity for the people in the province to feel a little more comfortable about their local government. I spent many years in local government. It's not about restricting local government.

Somebody talked about audits already being imposed upon municipalities every year. Well, those are financial audits. All they speak to is whether the municipality is following the proper accounting practices — that the left side equals the right side.

A municipal auditor general would look at the best practices of the communities. The mover of the motion spoke to capital projects and so on, and those are good things.

One of the things that I think we need to look at with this, certainly through discussion and discussion with municipalities and possibly in this House, is that municipalities will follow the intent and the spirit of legislation. We don't have that in our system right now, so municipalities don't have a go-to person, if you will. I think an auditor general for municipalities, a municipal auditor general, will speak to that and is an opportunity, then, for municipalities to feel comfortable with the way they do business.

There are all kinds of examples that we can use, things like the awarding of a garbage contract in the best interest of the community and the best value to the community — not just whether the left side equals the right side on a financial audit.

Again, I would challenge the opposition, because they know that the people in the province are very supportive of a municipal auditor general. They don't want to come out and say they're opposed to it, so they go off on a tangent about all kinds of other things.

I would ask the next member from the opposition who stands up to please speak to the motion — whether you're in favour of a municipal auditor general, or if you're opposed to a municipal auditor. If you're opposed,
[ Page 8297 ]
that's fine. Just stand up and say so, and tell the people of the province why you don't want a municipal auditor general to protect their tax dollars. Because there's only one taxpayer in this province, and everybody is concerned that they're getting best value.

Again, I would ask the members opposite: when they get up, could they please say whether they support a municipal auditor general or not? That's the motion that's here before us today. Please stand up and say whether you support it or not. If you don't — again, that's your prerogative — tell the people of the province why you don't support it.

S. Fraser: I look forward to taking my place in this great debate. Just so that the government members are clear about what the debate is, it's: "Be it resolved that this House support an increase in transparency and accountability to ensure local taxpayers are getting value for money."

I would say that everybody in this House should be in favour of transparency and accountability. That's why this debate becomes somewhat humorous, because the motion coming from the government side is, to put it lightly, the height of hypocrisy.

Local governments right now in British Columbia…. Many members have been members of local governments. I was the mayor of the district of Tofino from 1996 to 1999. As has been pointed out, all local governments are required to have audits. Yes, it's a balance statement process. It's probably the most tedious of any municipal council.

By law, local governments cannot run a deficit. Now, let's contrast that with this government. They came in, and they made a law saying it was illegal for a provincial government to run a deficit. Then they ran three back-to-back deficits. Then just prior to the 2009 election, this government promised a $495 million deficit — not a penny more. So they rewrote their own law — otherwise, they'd be breaking their own law — and they ran a deficit.

But it wasn't $495 million. That was only the number they came up with prior to and during the 2009 election. The truth was it was a $3 billion deficit. So they rewrote their own law again following the election, after winning based on a premise which was simply not true.

So when we are talking about more transparency and accountability for local governments, I would suggest you clean up your own house first.

[1135]

I am a great fan of Mr. Doyle and the Auditor General's office here provincially, so we use that as a model on this side to just show how this government has failed. There are so many reports from the Auditor General on this government. Report 6, of 2011-12, sort of a compendium of audits of 150 separate government organizations, paints a disturbing picture of ongoing financial and accountability deficiencies, to say the least.

What's this government's response? It has been to ignore the Auditor General, to do nothing. The list is huge. I'm well aware of what happened with the betrayal of this government, giving away land out of tree farm licences on the Island. It happened in Port Alberni in 2003. It was cited in Mr. Doyle's report when he did the more recent removals — giving away land out of public control. The Auditor General stated that they failed to take into account the public interest.

The government of British Columbia failed to take into account the public interest, according to the Auditor General of British Columbia. Well, any government that fails to take into account the public interest does not deserve to be government. That's the job of government, Madam Speaker.

The member for Chilliwack, when he opened this debate, closed it with a very disturbing statement. He said that there's a lack of accountability. It's "far too often" with local government." That's an insult to the people working in the municipal system in this province, probably the purest form of government. Local government, municipal government, open council meetings, audits every year, forced to run a deficit with this government making an art form over off-loading and downloading costs on to municipalities, and they still run a balanced budget. They don't do the smoke and mirrors that this government does.

An auditor general for municipalities. Well, maybe that's a good thing. But having it come from a government that roundly dismisses the Auditor General's comments and reports and recommendations on their own actions, again, is the height of hypocrisy.

R. Howard: Well, let me see if I've got this straight. So the opposition members are demanding transparency and accountability, but they're not prepared to support the motion which talks about transparency and accountability.

The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim talks about the Public Accounts Committee. I've had the great pleasure to sit on the Public Accounts Committee for the last couple of years, and I can tell you there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of recommendations that the Auditor General has made over the years that this government has followed, this government has adopted. This government has taken that office seriously, and we consistently look to and adopt recommendations that he makes in the efforts of improving performance all across the spectrum of government.

So for me, this has a lot to do with sustainability. I recognize a lot of issues from the time I spent on city council. I had the opportunity to chair a finance committee and an opportunity to also chair our public works, which was looking at the infrastructure. I can
[ Page 8298 ]
tell you that if we consider city reserves — just as an example of something that could use some more attention on a consistent basis across local government — city reserves are the savings accounts that help pay for assets as they expire.

We all have aging infrastructures, you know, from water and sewer to roads and diking systems. We have fire and police buildings and libraries. We have pools and rinks and fields. And it's well documented now that there is a capital account deficit. I think that it's important for us to understand how we got there with that deficit. These are assets that at one point or other were planted in the ground by a combination of governments, and it's important that we measure and understand and have some transparency and accountability on that issue.

[1140]

When we look at property taxes…. I think that we can all recount examples, those of us that served on local government, where property taxes were raised in one name — say in the name of community safety — and actually got applied on a different line item. That may or may not be a good thing, but what we need is some transparency along that.

When we look at permitting and application processes, I know we tried many times to compare our city to other cities across the province. It was always very difficult. It was always kind of described as an apples-and-oranges comparison because there were so many differences. I think we all used to look forward to a report that NAIOP used to put out. Excuse me if I've got the acronym a little off. It's the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks.

They used to produce, at least on the Lower Mainland, a cross–local government description of what it costs or how long it took to process various permits. That was one of the few cross-government reports that came out. It was widely regarded and looked forward to by many local government representatives, including myself.

I think if we increase transparency, accountability will move with it. I think that's a really good thing. I think we all recognize that taxpayer dollars, especially in these times when there are some international economic headwinds blowing at us that are really going to make things challenging…. As all the markets around us tighten up and shrink, it's going to be a real challenge for us to take the existing tax dollars and make them stretch, especially when we consider population growth and our aging demographics.

I think the office of a municipal auditor general…. The role is to support local governments in maximizing value for money for taxpayers' dollars. That is a laudable objective, and it's one that I support wholeheartedly.

J. Kwan: I rise to enter into this debate, and let's just be clear about what we're debating. The motion actually says: "Be it resolved that this House support an increase in transparency and accountability to ensure local taxpayers are getting value for money."

I want to say very clearly that there is only one taxpayer. Whether it's local, provincial or federal, there is only one taxpayer, and they all come from the same source. So on the question around accountability, I want to say that for this House and for the audience in the public as well. If you listen to the government side, you would think that there's no accountability at all at the local government level. You would think that there is a decrepit situation at the local level.

I want to put on the record some of the mechanisms that are already in place for local government. Of course, they have a five-year planning process, a financial planning process that includes both operating and capital expenditures. There is a situation, as all members of the House know, that local governments cannot run a deficit. They cannot run a deficit, and everyone knows that.

There are external audits in place already for local governments — external audits responsible for financial audits and other reports required by the council or the board or the inspector on the auditor's initiative. So there are already external audits of local governments and their work. There is, of course, a whole range of other mechanisms, as well, including public meetings, third-party oversight, transparency and openness. So there are a range of measures in place for dealing with local governments in that regard.

That said, I also want to say this. For the government members to say that they should be looking at the local governments for more accountability and openness…. Before they turn to someone else and point their fingers and try to cast aspersions on someone else, let's look at ourselves to see how well we're doing on the question around accountability and openness.

As we often do with children, we tell children that we lead by example. We do as we say we should do, and not just tell them what they should do, so that they can learn those lessons. Let's just reflect for one moment here about how the provincial government is doing on the question around accountability and openness. Let's just pick up a couple of the lead issues that the public, the taxpayers, have issues with and have been concerned about.

[1145]

Let's look at high-profile issues before our community today around the work of the child and youth representative. Let us not forget that it was this government who had to be dragged, screaming and kicking, to reinstate the child and youth advocate.

Why was the child and youth advocate so important for the province of British Columbia? Because the Auditor General in this province did report after report after report about the dismal failure of the government in dealing with children who are in need.
[ Page 8299 ]

This is what the Auditor had to say, and I quote from the Auditor General's report: "The ministry has not identified needs and resources required for aboriginal child protection services." Another quote: "The ministry's change management practices are not in step with its current service delivery goals." Another one from the Auditor General: "The ministry does not report on how well aboriginal child protection services are being delivered."

This is just a snapshot of one report about how the government is doing in that regard. Instead of turning their attention to their own challenges, they're looking at someone else.

Earlier today my colleague the member for Kootenay West brought forward the issue around seniors abuse that is happening in the province of British Columbia. What did the member for Kootenay West call for last week? She called for the government to put forward an independent seniors representative so that seniors could get protection.

Instead of turning the government's attention to that and bringing forward legislation with a seniors representative, they say: "Hey, let's look at local governments, about how awful they're doing." Well, how about looking at yourselves, at how awful you might be doing and how you can address some of those issues?

The last issue that I want to raise by way of an example of what the government could be looking at and fixing immediately, now, is the current issue around Community Living B.C. We've heard story after story, all summer long, for months. Families with developmental disabilities came forward to complain about the cuts in programs, the closures of group homes and the lack of support from the government when their child turned 19 into adulthood when they were abandoned by the system.

The opposition, along with self-advocates, along with the family members, have been coming forward to call on the government to act. We have called on the government to put forward an independent review of Community Living B.C. What does the government do? They ignore that call, and they say: "But we can look at ourselves to see how well we're doing with an internal review." Internal review — from the same people that have been causing the problems right from the start.

So here we are dealing with this debate, and the government says: "But don't look at us; look at local government." Well, lead by example, I would say. Fix the problems in-house, deal with these issues, be open and be accountable to the taxpayers of British Columbia. And there's only one set of taxpayers.

B. Bennett: Sitting there, listening to the previous speaker, I remember my Shakespeare from high school. In The Merchant of Venice there's a great line that goes: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." I think, frankly, the opposition finds itself in an awkward position here. They don't seem to want to talk about the motion, which goes to accountability and transparency of local government.

I was a minister at one point of Community and Rural Development. It was a great job, and I enjoyed working with local government a lot. I enjoy working with local government a lot as an MLA. I have many, many friends at local government. Actually, from what I've seen of local government, the opposition needn't worry about hurting their feelings, because local government generally doesn't support the opposition anyhow.

In any case, I will agree with one thing that the previous speaker said. There are legislative rules in place that do help local governments in the way they do business and the way they administer public money. Unfortunately, there is currently no mechanism that requires a performance audit or a value-for-money audit, and I am stymied by the opposition's reluctance to join with us and approve this good idea of providing more transparency and accountability to local government processes.

[1150]

Interjection.

B. Bennett: Red herring. I do find it interesting that the opposition thinks that more transparency and more accountability for tax dollars is a red herring, although when you think about the 1990s, you can kind of understand that. When I was minister, I remember going back through some old materials, and what did I discover when I went through some materials relating to the 1990s? The opposition, when they were in government, actually downloaded — a word they love to use — $800 million to local government. That's their record.

You know, perhaps we should have a debate in this assembly as to whether we need a provincial Auditor General, because what we're proposing is that we have a municipal auditor general that would do much the same sort of work: performance audits, value-for-money audits.

When we get audited as government, it's not often a pleasant experience. It's a bit like castor oil. It's good for us. My friends in local government right now are a bit concerned about this because it's new, and nobody likes new ideas, but I predict that when our friends in local government have an opportunity to work with the municipal auditor general and start to evaluate their processes, I think they will find that they will learn some things.

Again, this is public money. Now, the opposition might think: "Public money. Who cares?" Well, this side of the House takes the expenditure of public money seriously. We're not like the other side of the House that thinks that the expenditure of public money is just a red herring. It's not a red herring.
[ Page 8300 ]

I think that our friends at local government…. I know that UBCM is really coming around right now. I know there have been several good meetings between officials at UBCM and officials here in the ministry to determine how we can set up this municipal auditor general's office in a way that's going to help local government.

This is not a threat to local government. This is going to help local government, just the way that it helps the provincial government when the provincial Auditor General does his or her work. So it's a great pleasure to stand up and support the motion.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the time to debate the motion this morning. I think what we've heard here in this chamber is what we've heard from municipal governments, and that is to ask the question: where is this coming from? Why would the B.C. Liberal government advance the idea of a municipal auditor general at this time? Is it because municipalities in British Columbia have had spending scandals like we have seen in cities like Montreal or the city of Toronto a couple of years ago, where they had an IT and computer-purchasing scandal that was discovered and confirmed but not prevented by Toronto's auditor general? No.

That is not the motivation for why we're debating this motion and why the government is considering legislation to establish a municipal auditor general. Let's be clear. This comes from the current Premier, who has described herself as having an illegitimate term of office — her words — who was elected by only the B.C. Liberal party, and promised it in her leadership campaign a few months ago. That's why we're doing it.

That's why the government isn't working with local government on other priorities, like addressing the infrastructure deficit that we see in towns and cities and communities across British Columbia. That's why we're not going to be talking about completing the so-called Community Charter legislation which was orphaned a few years ago and never reached the commitment to deal with regional districts and their governance challenges. That's why we're not going to be talking about any of the things that are on the plate and are the responsibility of mayors and councillors around the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The real issue, and we've heard members speak to it quite eloquently this morning, is: how credible is this government to set up a municipal auditor general? How can you trust them to meet some critical tests around how a municipal auditor general might function properly? Can you trust this B.C. Liberal government to ensure that a municipal auditor general is going to be independent? Not at all.

[1155]

This government would like to have an auditor general in name only that reports to cabinet and the Premier's office and is available to be used for political interference and hidden political agendas at any time and any opportunity that they like, and that can never be allowed to happen. When they table legislation, if it has the wrong reporting relationship and it's a political appointee from a B.C. Liberal minister, this side of the House will oppose it. We will.

This is the same government that politicized the appointment of our own provincial Auditor General in 2006. I see that the member for Richmond-Steveston is in the House this morning. I'm not supposed to make a note of that. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

That was an attempt to violate a rule of all parliaments in the Commonwealth, where all sides of the House unanimously recommend the appointment of an Auditor General. This government tried to do it with just the governing majority party and override the opposition in making that selection unanimous. That doesn't bode well for how a municipal auditor general will be selected and implemented. Who will it report to? That is critically important. Who will its recommendations fall to, to implement?

This is a government that has a horrible record, that ignores the Auditor General's findings and recommendations as a matter of routine in how it does business. We have the tree farm licence forest land removals, a $300 million giveaway that was described as not being in the public interest. It failed the most basic test. It was a $300 million giveaway. The government ignored that report. They attacked the Auditor General and said he should be sent back to Australia. That was how the government dealt with that.

We have had cost-budget overruns on so many occasions. Poor project management at the Vancouver Convention Centre — that was one of the key findings that was ignored by this government. There is an ongoing dispute that actually has the B.C. Liberals disagreeing with the Office of the Auditor General and the entire accounting profession in British Columbia on implementing international accounting standards in this jurisdiction. They ignore the Auditor General's recommendation to do that.

Why do they do that? It's a very important debate. If we adhered to international accounting standards — which we should do, and which the Auditor General has urged us to — it would change the balance sheet of this province. It would reveal that this government has increased the debt by an additional $80 billion in P3 contracts that that they have signed, which contain $80 billion worth of debt obligations for the taxpayers of British Columbia for future generations to pay down. It would be the subject of scandalous misreporting by this government, and that is why this government is ignoring that critical recommendation.
[ Page 8301 ]

That is why we remain tremendously skeptical, as do the mayors and the city councillors of British Columbia. We saw the UBCM pass a motion in this regard, of the government's intention and agenda with regard to a municipal auditor general.

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

R. Fleming: Noting the hour, I would ask to adjourn debate on the motion.

Interjections.

R. Fleming: I'm following the Speaker's orders here.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford-Mission, noting the hour.

R. Hawes: I am noting the hour. I only have a minute.

The ridiculous statements that are made from the other side of the House should not go unchallenged, and they won't go unchallenged, because they're absolutely wrong.

I was a mayor through the 1990s when we went after that NDP government for what they did to municipalities. The destruction that they wreaked upon the municipalities was profound. There was a meeting in Vancouver where all of the mayors of the province got together and demanded that they leave office.

A municipal auditor should not bring fear to any municipality that is doing the right thing. Unfortunately, there are many municipalities where the tax increases that we see are many, many times the rate of inflation. That should not be happening.

There are municipalities here that could stand some good lessons in value for money — not all. The ones that are doing the right job have absolutely nothing to fear. The only time that you people maybe have something to fear is if the Auditor looks at you, as he did through the 1990s, with report after report about the terrible behaviour that you people demonstrated on the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

R. Hawes: Mr. Speaker, I could go on for an hour about this, but I guess I won't. Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate.

R. Hawes moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank all the members for their very spirited debate and move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175