2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th 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)

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 28, Number 11

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2015

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, continued committee stage debate on Bill 29.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 29 — PROPERTY TAXATION
(EXEMPTIONS) STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 29; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

On section 1 (continued).

The Chair: I recognize the hon. Minister of Finance.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, again, congratulations, and as you take your seat for the first time, I know that the committee and ultimately the House are in good hands.

A. Weaver: I have but one last question on section 1. It’s another example that I’m trying to seek some clarification on.

Let’s suppose — hypothetically, again — that there is an independent school that owns vast quantities of wooded land immediately adjacent to that school that is on the property, yet this independent school runs a vigorous and highly regarded outdoor education program on this wooded property.

My question to the minister is: would this wooded area, which is being used for an outdoor recreation — it could be, say, 50 acres and being used for an outdoor recreation program — be exempt from the municipal or rural taxes under the understanding of this bill before us?

[1335]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, not wanting to presuppose what the adjudicative body might rule, I think the short answer is possibly. Reasonably necessary for the delivery of the education program would, I think, be the determinative test. I can think of circumstances that might fall into that category with an amount of land in excess of what we might traditionally regard as a playing field.

The Chair: Member for Delta South.

V. Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, congratulations on your new appointment.

The minister just used the words “reasonably necessary.” While most of my questions have been asked and a couple satisfied by our own research, I would like to just explore some of the language here.

Reasonably necessary. Why, in the face of this permissive tax exemption, is the word “reasonably” used when, in fact, the land is to be necessary for the purposes of the institution? Why are we putting in the word “reasonably” here?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the best way I can answer the question is to acknowledge that, as tempting as it is to try and contemplate every possible circumstance and provide for it in the legislation, there will probably be times when, either with land or a building, it’s not necessarily black or white.

This morning we talked with our colleague from Swan Lake about a building situation where there was a mixed use — a dormitory for students that also had a faculty component or supervisory component. We’ve just heard another example where there might be a more expansive parcel of land for a particular unique program that a school offers.

We can’t contemplate or anticipate every circumstance. The word is included to provide the adjudicative body — initially the assessment authority and, I suppose, ultimately on judicial review, a court — with some discretionary authority to apply that time-honoured test of reasonableness.

I will acknowledge the member’s observation that we have not prescribed with absolute precision. Nor have we sought to do so in light of the fact that there may well be circumstances that we can’t anticipate today.

V. Huntington: I realize the question seems unreasonable, given the time-honoured question of reasonability in the law, but what it does for me is open up an entire area of definition that may not have been contemplated by the law.

In fact, in relation to the question about dormitories for faculty, you suggested that that probably wouldn’t be a function that would receive the exemption. It was the opposite, then?

Hon. M. de Jong: It would not be.

V. Huntington: It would not be. Exactly. It would not receive the exemption, yet here you’re suggesting that because of the term “reasonable” it might, indeed, receive an exemption.

However, if we take the same 50 acres surrounding the institution, and there was a strategic plan in place for the
[ Page 9234 ]
future development of the institution, would that strategic plan then qualify those lands for exemption?

[1340]

Hon. M. de Jong: No, I don’t think it would qualify. It’s not intended to be based on anticipatory use. It is actual use.

The member’s example is not fanciful. I think there are examples of institutions, of independent schools, that have acquired land in close proximity to their facilities and that do so with a view, perhaps, to take an elementary school and expand it to a secondary basis. There are any number of examples.

But the exemption today, as it operates today and certainly within the meaning of the legislation that we have before us, is intended to bestow the exemption on the buildings and land reasonably necessary to deliver the education program that is being offered at that point in time, not what might occur at some point in the future.

Were there to be a buildout and expansion of the facility, it would be legitimate for the owner, the independent school, to say: “Ah, now our exemption should be extended to apply to that.” But the test is a very specific one, and it relates to the program that is being delivered at a point in time by an independent school.

V. Huntington: Just one other question. As I say, so many of mine have already been asked. Is it anticipated that the assessment authority would then refer to the certificate of classification for any particular independent school that is in the process of having lands surrounding assessed?

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to make sure I understand. By “certificate of classification,” is the member referring to the class of independent school — 1, 2, 3 or 4? The member is indicating that is so.

In the legislative construct we have here and that is proposed in the amendments, the entitlement to an exemption is not based on the classification. If it is an independent school within the meaning of the legislation and delivering education programs and otherwise qualifies, the classification of the school isn’t determinative of whether or not the exemption would apply.

V. Huntington: Just to clarify my own remarks, I was struggling with what the definitions of independent school are, the definitions of purpose and public school, etc. As I say, our research satisfied my interest in those definitions. But in my question, I believe that an independent school requires a certificate of classification in order to be independent. I was just wondering if that certificate would inform the assessment authorities if we were looking at land outside the basic building structures in schools.

Hon. M. de Jong: I better understand the member’s question. Yes, to the extent that the exemption only applies to an independent school and having the proper certificate to operate is a prerequisite to that, it is relevant to that extent.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Victoria–Swan Lake.

R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would offer my congratulations — I don’t think I’ve had the opportunity to — for your appointment to this post.

I would ask the Minister of Finance this question, just about the new statutory exemptions. At the outset of this stage of debate, I’d asked him about the total value provincewide of the exemptions, and he answered that question and broke it down into categories that are currently exempt and the value of those that will be exempt after Bill 29 becomes law. He cited 2013 B.C. Assessment figures as the latest that he had obtained.

[1345]

I wanted to ask, just following from that, about reporting requirements. There is nothing in this bill that obligates government to report annually or otherwise what the total value of these now statutory exemptions will be. It seems to me that it’s important, because we are changing the law. We have figures for that benchmark — the value of these exemptions pre–Bill 29. There may be some movements, as land is acquired or independent schooling is expanded, that are perhaps related to the enhanced benefits in this legislation that would see a rise in the value overall. I think, just in general, no matter what you’re particularly looking for, there is a public interest in seeing the value of a statutory exemption.

I wanted to ask him if there is any obligation or plan to report separately, specifically around this now fairly large and expanded class of exemptions within this sector.

Hon. M. de Jong: I was consulting with the staff about what the possible mechanism for providing that information might be. I was reminded that in the budget documents, there is provision for reporting out on — in a section on taxation — forgone revenues. We’d really be restricted to forgone provincial revenues. I’m not sure we’d be in a position to quantify what forgone municipal revenues are. That’s one mechanism by which it could be done.

I don’t quarrel with the member’s assertion that there might be interest or there would be interest or is interest in an aggregate amount. I guess the observation I would make is 2 percent of the relevant properties are practically affected by this. Having provided the figure around the value of the land and the amounts involved, I’ve sort of indicated the magnitude of what shifts from being a permissive exemption to being a mandatory one. That’s really the change that is occurring here.
[ Page 9235 ]

Let me think, if the member and the committee will, about the possibility of including a report on a forgone revenue with respect to Bill 29. I think it would be a very small amount, because practically, the shift is…. I think the member might be interested in the larger global amount, as it relates to the value of the property and the fact that an exemption exists.

Sorry, that’s kind of a rambling…. I’m thinking about this as we go — about the mechanism by which you could report out on that.

R. Fleming: I thank the minister for thinking out loud on what reporting requirements might look like. I haven’t arrived at what they might look like myself.

[1350]

I do think that when you’re talking about what is essentially a large — fairly large and potentially growing — amount of land value that is exempt by provincial law, it might be in the broad public interest to have that reported in a way that can be meaningfully interpreted. So that’s a discussion maybe for later.

I wanted to ask another question, though. I’ll just ask the minister to follow what I’m saying here. That is that school district 61 here in greater Victoria, which I’m most familiar with, like a lot of older communities — the communities that were incorporated before Canada…. New Westminster and Vancouver come to mind. There may be others.

At one point in time, until the middle part of the last century I believe, local government was the school district and owned all of those properties. When school districts were created…. Many of them have a not entirely consistent way of recording ownership of those properties, but typically, and in many parts of Victoria — I’m thinking of the school yards that I’m familiar with — the land continues to remain city-owned. The building and the land beneath the building were transferred to the school district entity. This wouldn’t be the case in suburban districts, I wouldn’t think.

The city government that continues to own the land surrounding the building at a public school is not able to use that for any other purpose so long as the school is functioning for what are deemed educational purposes.

We’ve had rounds of school closures in public schools around B.C. — over 200 of them. In my community, there have been several. The school district, which doesn’t own the land around the building, continues to enjoy tax exemptions for these closed buildings. Now, they are sometimes rented to community organizations or leased. They may have a karate school. They may store desks and materials for the district. There are no school-age children learning a B.C. education curriculum in those buildings, but they’re deemed to be used for educational purposes. A fairly low test, is what I’m trying to say now.

In expanding property tax exemptions to cover the same things that public school exemptions cover now, is there a scenario where an independent school could essentially close its line of business, which is teaching the B.C. curriculum to students, but maintain a property tax exemption because it is being used for an educational purpose?

I’ve looked at the amended section 220 of the Community Charter and all the other sections, the other three sections of the bill before us, and I’m not able to answer that question for certain, so I would ask the minister if he could.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member’s question, and the answer is no, given the test which requires that the independent school and the building be wholly used to provide instruction to children in a manner equivalent to that of a public school. Whilst I think the member’s preamble to the question describes circumstances that occur from time to time in the public system, the test is much narrower with respect to the application of the exemption provided for in this legislation.

R. Fleming: I’ll just follow up on that question and ask, in the hypothetical example where there might be a temporary closure of an independent school, whether they would enjoy a property tax exemption that was for the 12 months of the year or whether it would be something that would be prorated. And who would make a determination like that?

[1355]

Hon. M. de Jong: I am reminded that the test seems to be…. I can’t point the member to the legislative authority for this. Certainly, the practice has evolved to where if the independent school is being operated and meets the test for any portion of the year, they have enjoyed the benefit and would enjoy the benefit of the exemption.

The example I thought of was a circumstance in which an independent school that met the criteria for the exemption shut down for a period of time to complete a significant renovation of the site, and there were no students on the site. My advice is that, were that to be contained within a calendar year, they would probably continue to enjoy the benefit of the exemption for that year. If it extended beyond a calendar year — say it took a year and a half to complete the work — it would require a determination and might ultimately require a determination from the assessment authority. I hope that example is relevant to the question the member asked.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

A. Weaver: I have a question. I have a proposed amendment here too.
[ Page 9236 ]

[To amend the Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 as follows:

In Section 2 (b) by deleting text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 224 is amended

(b) in subsection (2) by adding the following paragraph:

(h.1) in relation to land or improvements, or both, exempt under section 220 (1) (1) [private schools] [independent schools], any area of land surrounding the exempt land or improvements;, and]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: The descriptor in the explanatory notes both for section 1 and section 2 refers to “independent schools.” I went to the Independent School Act. There’s an extensive definition of what constitutes an independent school, and private schools are not defined. I think this is a leftover from a relic that exists in the Community Charter. I would propose, through amendment, that the words “private schools” be replaced by “independent schools” in (b) in subsection (2).

I’m passing four copies of the motion through to you, and I’ve previously provided such a copy to the minister as well as to the official opposition.

[1400]

Hon. M. de Jong: I was cross-checking something. I’m obliged to the member for having provided the suggested change earlier.

I have been provided with two reasons for why the proposed change is problematic. Let me preface my response, though, by saying that I, too, prefer the term “independent school” to “private school.” If I have a bias, it is in favour of what the member is suggesting.

The first reason I have been given is that because this is an explanatory term within parentheses, it is not subject to amendment in the House. I actually don’t agree with that. I think that if a document is before the House, members are entitled to present their ideas.

The second reason, though, is more compelling, and I’m afraid I am obliged to commend it to the committee. That is because, in this case, the piece of legislation being referred to in rather antiquated fashion — for reasons that the member, I suspect, is correct — refers to private schools instead of independent schools. Unless and until we make the change in a more fulsome way through that legislation, through that act, this will represent an anomaly.

I am reminded that nothing substantive turns on the term included within the square parentheses. I agree with the member that the term of use today is independent school, not private school. But for reasons relating to the construction of other statutes, I regret that I am obliged to signal an inability to support the suggested change.

A. Weaver: Well, with respect, I would like the minister to please provide a definition of private school, because I could not find one, and definitions have been struck, as far as I can tell. We now have an Independent School Act, which actually defines what, historically, were called private schools. With respect, I recognize that it’s an explanatory note. However, I would argue that it’s an explanatory note that is both misleading and has legal implications. Without a definition of private school, what does this actually give an explanatory note for?

There are two questions in there. One is: what is the definition of a private school? If it was meant to be private school, why, in the explanatory notes to the left on this bill, does it actually only refer to independent schools, as opposed to private schools?

The second question of that is…. If it was meant to be private school and you can provide me a definition — I can’t find one — then I would be so pleased as to have some reassurance that this has absolutely no legal implications in terms of an explanatory note. I mean, these explanatory notes are there to give guidance. When they’re, I would argue, factually incorrect in terms of what they’re describing….

There is nothing about private school in section 220, to which this refers, or in section 224. We are talking exclusively about independent schools. The legislation, as being brought to us, with that confusing and, I would argue, misleading explanatory note — in itself being inconsistent with the government’s own explanatory notes in the legislation I have in my hands…. Really, it makes no sense not to change it. The compelling reasons, be them what they may…. Frankly, it doesn’t make sense, because there is no definition, as far as I can see, for private school. I’d ask that that please be provided.

[1405]

Hon. M. de Jong: I am, at times, compelled to relay information that I receive from the folks we rely upon to draft these bills and will do so today. It highlights the following.

According to section 11 of the Interpretation Act…. The term used to describe the square parentheses term is “editorial note,” as opposed to “explanatory note.” The editorial note is not actually part of the statute and not, for that reason, I’m told, subject to amendment. The member has my views on that second part of the statement.

The second part of the member’s submission to the committee was seeking confirmation that the inclusion of the term is of no legal consequence. I think I’m in a position to provide that assurance. The second thing I’m able to do is alert the member to the fact that I am not hostile at all to his suggestion and, according to the advice that I have received, am capable, subsequent to this debate and discussion, to change the term. The logical term would be “independent school.” That is something I’m prepared to consider on the strength of the exchange that we’ve had here. But I’m also obliged to relay to the committee the advice that I’ve received about the ability of the committee to effect that change through amendment.
[ Page 9237 ]

I hope the member will accept that I’m not trying to be obstructionist. I appreciate the practicality of his suggestion. In fact, I’m attracted to the practicality of his suggestion. But I’m also conscious that I feel a certain obligation to accept the advice from the drafters along the way and can assure him and the committee that the term possesses no legal significance nor creates any legal complications by virtue of its presence in the provision of the bill.

A. Weaver: I love being trumped by process. I’m a very big fan of being trumped by process. I will, if I might, withdraw my proposed amendment, if that is possible — I haven’t searched that — in light of the fact that this editorial note will be explored at a subsequent time.

It did, unfortunately, not give me a chance to exercise some other procedural rule that I think is very important in this Legislature. Far too often in this Legislature, we are going directly from committee stage through an amended bill directly to third reading without having a day with which to reflect upon that.

Had this amendment passed, I would have not given leave for us to go to third reading immediately after the amended bill was put towards the Speaker. The reason why is that we have done this far too often. I’ve been caught off guard going on the same day directly from committee through to third reading on an amended bill, in particular where we were exploring some of the ramifications of transit and other votes in the last election.

In this example, I was hoping to highlight this lack of procedural regularity that’s been operating in this house since I’ve been here. With that, I’ll sit down.

Hon. M. de Jong: My only response, not to belabour the point, is: in circumstances where a bill leaves the committee unamended, leave is not required. It can proceed to third reading. Where a bill is amended in committee, leave is required. Occasionally, leave is denied.

In this particular case, given the exchange that we’ve just had, given what I’ve said about considering the member’s suggestion, I’m quite prepared to postpone third reading until I’ve had an opportunity to consider fully the member’s suggestion.

[1410]

Members do have the option where a bill is amended to withhold leave and acquire at least 24 hours’ notice to examine the implications.

The Chair: Does the member have leave to withdraw the amendment?

Leave granted.

Amendment withdrawn.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister a question related to a summary note I have about the Independent School Act that is from the ministry. It is not too old, ten or 11 months old.

In the discussion section, it says the following: “In recent years, the Ministry of Education has identified a number of gaps within the legislation which should be filled. These include limited powers of delegation, power to withhold funding, eligibility to serve as a director, fees and refund policies, group 4 schools, classification of distributed learning schools, authority to make inspectors orders, property tax exemptions” — we’re dealing with that gap today in Bill 29 — “and access to surplus board of education property.”

Having read through this bill, having gone through these stages of debate so far and having followed along some of the changes that have been made around the inspector of independent schools recently, I just wanted to ask the minister if there is anything that could be construed, in expanding these mandatory property tax exemptions, to also fulfil what is seen to be an agenda item for the government around expanding access to surplus board of education properties?

Hon. M. de Jong: The very short answer is no. There is no linkage, generally speaking.

The member will appreciate that when Crown land is placed on the market, the objective is to secure the best possible return for the taxpayer. I will say this. I am aware in some communities where a measure of cooperation has existed between the public board and an independent school. I am aware of circumstances where a public school site has been sold to an independent school by that public board. But the obligation to secure a fair market price in those circumstances remains. It’s a fair question, but a fairly emphatic no is my reply.

R. Fleming: I thank the minister for his answer. My recollection is, in fact, now the Minister of Education actually has to approve all disposal of board of education properties. This is my understanding. That is sticking in my mind as being the case.

I actually don’t have any further questions on this section or the next two. I would thank the minister for his answers. At this stage in the debate, I am unsure whether we will be voting on it today or tomorrow, depending on what the members agree to here.

I would just make these comments in thanking the minister. I and other members of the opposition side did have the chance to engage elected officials — both mayors and councillors. I think that, given that there is support or certainly an absence of opposition to the contents of this bill….

That was one of the things that we felt was our responsibility to check upon and to raise at this stage of debate. I have been unable to present any concerns that were either in written form or given to me verbally by different mayors and councils.
[ Page 9238 ]

I admit I didn’t contact all 230 councils in the province, but I think we did canvass the ones that may have thoughts on that. I will take my place on section 2.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:15 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 29 — PROPERTY TAXATION
(EXEMPTIONS) STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. M. de Jong: At the next sitting, hon. Speaker.

Bill 29, Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 33, Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — MOTION PICTURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 33 now be read a second time.

The Motion Picture Act regulates the public exhibition of motion pictures in theatres as well as adult motion pictures intended for sale or rental. The province does not regulate general release, non-adult motion pictures viewed at home through means such as home video, cable television or the Internet.

B.C.’s regulation of motion pictures is based on the principle that parents are responsible for deciding what is viewed in their homes while government, by way of an agreement with Consumer Protection B.C., provides film classification and advisories to inform parents of what is being shown in theatres. There will be no changes to the current classification system.

The proposed amendments will modernize the act in a number of ways. Firstly, they will align the enforcement approach used under the act with the other sectors regulated by Consumer Protection B.C.

Currently, there are very limited enforcement tools available under the act. Consumer Protection B.C. may seize unclassified films, take licensing action or seek a prosecution for a court-imposed penalty. Adding progressive enforcement tools — such as voluntary undertakings, compliance orders and administrative penalties — will improve compliance outcomes, enhance consumer protection and reduce the time and cost of resolution through the courts.

The authority to publish information regarding enforcement action taken under the Motion Picture Act will also be added, consistent with the authority to publish such information under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. This is an important transparency component of the enforcement regime and consumer protection.

Other amendments will capture changes in the way movies are now distributed to theatres — for example, by satellite and digital distribution. Outdated definitions have been removed, and other definitions have been clarified in order to eliminate confusion — for example, right now both the terms “film” and “motion picture” are used — and to more accurately reflect existing technology.

[1420]

Enhanced regulation-making power will prescribe violations subject to an administrative penalty, capture digital technology and respond to future technology changes in distribution and exhibition. These amendments will reduce the licensing requirements for theatre owners, who will no longer be required to hold a separate licence to screen movies that have a restricted classification. One licence will allow them to screen both general release and restricted movies, saving operators both time and money.

Other changes will ensure that the statute is aligned with the case law regarding obscenity and the Criminal Code. Currently, the act allows the director to order the removal of content from an adult motion picture. The proposed amendments will allow the director to simply approve or refuse to approve an adult motion picture based on an amended list of criteria that more closely aligns with the Criminal Code.

These amendments will give Consumer Protection B.C. the tools they need to effectively regulate the motion picture industry and to continue to provide classification and film advisory services to B.C. families.

G. Heyman: It pleases me to rise to speak to anything whatsoever to do with the film industry in B.C.

I’d like to begin my remarks by noting that since the bill was tabled for first reading yesterday, I’ve had a chance to review the previous iteration of this bill that was tabled in 2012 and debated through second reading.
[ Page 9239 ]

It was informative and kind of fun to read the comments of the then minister and members on our side of the House — notably the members for Vancouver–West End as well as Nanaimo — with respect to what is essentially a bill to modernize the enforcement to mechanisms of the film classification system as well as to update the terminology in many ways, as the Attorney General has pointed out, in an act that has now seen its last revision almost 30 years ago.

One of the things that was kind of fun in reading through the debate in Hansard and considering the bill is that had the Legislature been wont to spend more time sitting and dealing with what may be routine but important business of the House — if the Premier had, at that time, more interest in having MLAs elected from around the province meet to actually deal with the business of the province — this bill likely would have been passed in 2012 and wouldn’t even be before us. But seeing as that was not the case in 2012, this bill was not dealt with at third reading and passed. Therefore, it is before us again. We get to revisit debates of the past and do our work all over again.

Let me segue from that into talking about B.C.’s film industry in general, which I’m told by people I meet in the industry — whether it’s people on the production side, actors, people in the unions, whether they’re representing performers or people who are working on sets or in production lots — they are busy. They are happily busy. They believe that the industry is doing as well as it’s ever done and that even better days may well be ahead.

I think while much of that is to do with the lower Canadian dollar making B.C. a more desirable place to do business, it also has to do with the tax credit regime that was introduced by an NDP government and maintained by the government opposite.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

This is good news for British Columbians because it is an important economic sector. It’s a growing and thriving economic sector. In addition to the advantages that we have now received in the last couple of years from the change in the valuation of the dollar that has helped this industry as well as potentially our export industries, we also know that people around the world — and particularly people in California involved in film production — see B.C. as a desirable locale, a beautiful place, a place in a similar time zone, a place that is in close proximity to the centres of production in California. The future is good. Certainly we on this side of the House want to do everything we can to maintain that healthy future.

I’ve noticed recently that when I do find time to watch a movie or a TV series, I am very often recognizing scenes that were shot in Vancouver or scenes in other parts of British Columbia, and it goes click in my mind that this is the B.C. industry doing well.

[1425]

When we see the film industry in B.C. doing well, it only makes sense that we want to modernize and streamline and remove impediments that may exist for the people who actually show these films, whether it be in Vancouver, whether it be in Prince George, whether it be in Terrace. People who make a living from providing a venue to show entertaining films to the people of British Columbia that bring us so much pleasure and often education and increasing our cultural appreciation of the differences around the world as well as what we see in Canada and North America…. It’s important that we support the people who not only make the films but the people who show them and provide venues for them to be viewed.

Having said that, this is a bill that, while I am still in the process and people on this side of the House are still in the process of reviewing and looking at in preparation for clause-by-clause debate, appears to be one that we will support. We will have some questions. We are still poring through some of the clauses to see if some of the concerns that we know have been raised by the industry in the past are actually addressed in this bill.

But quite simply, it makes sense that Consumer Protection B.C., whom I note have supported this bill, have said that they are supportive of the updates, because if passed, they will provide Consumer Protection B.C. with the compliance mechanisms to more effectively regulate the industry for the benefit of families and all citizens in B.C.

It’s also important to note that they’ve said that changes to this act as contained in this bill will ensure a level playing field for motion picture licensees in B.C. Also, I would note that other provisions of this bill will bring the powers of Consumer Protection B.C., with respect to film licensing and showing, in line with those that apply to other areas of the B.C. economy to which CPBC applies regulations.

Certainly, the present system, which offers a very limited range of enforcement options — it’s essentially licence suspension or cancellation, seizure or resorting to the court system to simply levy a fine that could easily be replaced by an administrative penalty — will now be changed. It will be changed to better reflect what has become an accepted model of progressive compliance and enforcement.

It is important, I think, whether it is in employee-employer relations or government relations with industry or people in the retail sector, that the principle of progressive enforcement — progressive discipline, if you want — progressive explanation and imposition of rules take place. It makes sense to move up a ladder of progressive discipline that can culminate, if necessary — if there are repeated violations followed by discussion, by warning letters which are contemplated in this bill to administrative monetary penalties that don’t involve the courts.
[ Page 9240 ]

The licence suspension or termination remains an option if the violation is serious, but certainly, it removes the enforcement and compliance provisions of this bill from a kind of all-or-nothing approach and also removes it from an unnecessary and burdensome addition to the load of the court system, which doesn’t serve anybody particularly well.

It’s also worth noting that streamlining has taken place for theatre owners — in a sense, modernizing the licensing system to no longer require theatre owners to hold separate licences to screen movies with a restricted classification versus movies with other classifications that are suitable for families or for young people.

There still remains a separate classification for adult content, but it clearly, in this bill, demonstrates an understanding that restricted content is not the same as adult content and can be separated out in terms of licensing — not in terms of classification, but in terms of licensing.

[1430]

That appears to be a positive result of this bill. It will be when it’s passed, and it will make life simpler for many theatre owners and exhibitors — in particular, smaller ones and independent ones.

The ability of Consumer Protection B.C. to publish information on contraventions of the act will be very useful information for the public, for parents who want to know if there have been violations of the licensing provisions — what those have been and what the penalties have been. That is important information for consumers to know when they are considering who to patronize as they take themselves or their families out for entertainment.

The authority of Consumer Protection B.C. to set fees without ministerial approval allows Consumer Protection B.C. to align their fee-setting model for this sector with the other sectors that they regulate. The fee-setting process under the act includes industry consultation and a 90-day notice period. This of course just brings consistency within the regulatory and fee-setting regime.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I also note, as my predecessor in this particular spokesperson portfolio noted three years ago, that the right of the government to censor movies, as opposed to classifying them in a general sense, has been removed. I think one of my colleagues may ask some questions about this and make some points about this. We’re still examining the bill. There is some possibility that there are some regulations that will still allow this, but essentially it looks like a move toward modernization and a recognition that something is either illegal or not illegal and that if it’s not illegal, let’s classify it and let adults make informed choices.

There is one issue that I’ve tried to determine in my review of the bill this morning, with respect to whether it’s been addressed. It’s an issue that was raised in 2012 and before by some theatre owners. The then Attorney General noted in her remarks in 2012 that there may be some amendments moved with respect to this issue, that Consumer Protection B.C. was trying to work through it. It has to do with whether a film needs to be reclassified if….

For instance, let me use for an example a very old film that has been classified quite some time ago and is about to be reshown. The distribution may have changed, the distributor may be new, or the previous distributor may no longer exist. The concern was that it was onerous to have to reclassify a film that essentially has not changed in any way whatsoever, and there is a cost attached to that. We will be wanting to determine that this issue has been addressed. Certainly in 2012, there was some indication from the minister at the time, the Attorney General at the time, that she was aware that this was an issue and that she would attempt to address it.

I’ve had some conversations this morning with a person who almost ran afoul of this particular aspect of the regulatory regime. It was fixed for a particular instance, but it needs to be fixed in terms of the amendments to this legislation.

Finally, it’s important to note, I think, that other amendments in this bill align a whole range of issues — from administrative penalties and orders under the act to fee setting to inspection and seizure to licensing powers — with referencing sections of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. This is likely to bring desirable consistency for Consumer Protection B.C. as well as consumers, operators and retailers in British Columbia.

On the whole, I think this is a worthwhile modernization of the act. The Attorney General noted that outmoded references to physical film stock have been amended to take note of what has long been the case — digital distribution and showing of films both in theatres as well as in the manners that are not covered by this bill but which all of us who subscribe to Netflix or other streaming services understand.

[1435]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, can we keep our voices down, please, when the speaker is speaking? Thank you very much.

G. Heyman: That kind of modernization is important. It is perhaps overdue. I know the wheels of government grind slowly, especially when the Legislature, as was the case in 2012, rarely sat at all, but we are here this fall. We have the ability to deal with any number of what may seem like routine pieces of legislation but are important to the people who are impacted by them, and perhaps, we are finally getting around to making some changes that could well have been made many years ago.
[ Page 9241 ]

With that, I will take my seat and defer to other members who wish to speak to this bill.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, am delighted to be able to stand up in the House and join the member for Vancouver-Fairview and speak all positively about film.

We really have come a long way in the last little bit with regards to the film industry. A few years ago, it was all doom and gloom and lots of clouds and rain in the air, but the film industry is doing great now. Obviously, it does have a lot to do with our great talent, our great infrastructure, the fact that we’ve got the perfect area for filming, geography, our time zone — everything like that — and, of course, the dollar.

I’d also like to give a little plug to a few individuals that helped to not only make the film industry prominent in our last election platform but also carried through with those items. Certainly, the current Minister of Energy and Mines as well as our Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and, of course, the Minister of Finance have really done a positive thing for the film industry. I know that the industry in general is very, very appreciative of all of the efforts of our government in meeting the needs of the film industry.

The main one that occurred a couple of budgets ago, in 2014, was the extension of the distance tax credit to the CRD region. The next one, which was, of course, this year in 2015, in February, was the extension of the DAVE tax credit to post-production. Then, most recently, July 27 has now been proclaimed Screen in B.C. Day. We had a big event in North Shore Studios at that time, in addition to announcing that we would be forming a film office in Los Angeles. Three significant election platform items have been honoured just in the last two years.

Getting back to this particular bill, our government is making changes to modernize the Motion Picture Act that will encourage compliance under the law and provide greater assurances for families. The rationale for this change is that we want to reflect new technologies and to bring into effect a more effective compliance and enforcement model, which aligns with other consumer sectors and will help Consumer Protection B.C. and the industry ensure that the law is being followed.

Our government is introducing a progressive compliance and enforcement model that is used in all other industries that Consumer Protection B.C. regulates and is also used by the liquor control and licensing branch, for example.

The Motion Picture Act protects children and families by ensuring that all motion pictures publicly exhibited in B.C. and all adult videos sold or rented in B.C. have been reviewed and given age-appropriate classifications and content advisories.

The purpose of the regulation is that there is continued public demand for classification of films shown in theatres and public spaces to inform parents and to put limits on what children can watch. Theatres are regulated to control who can view restricted or inappropriate films, therefore limiting harm to children. This ensures that British Columbians’ community standards and family values are reflected in the classification of movies shown in theatres.

[1440]

These changes do not represent an additional regulatory burden on the industry. In fact, some businesses will see a decrease in their licensing fees because theatres will no longer require a separate licence for showing films that are classified as restricted.

As many of you know, the 34th annual Vancouver International Film Festival is happening now until October 9. Since its inception, this festival has worked to encourage understanding of the world’s many cultures through cinema and to facilitate the meeting of film professionals from around the world right here in British Columbia. VIFF is among the five largest film festivals in North America, screening hundreds of films from more than 70 countries, including undiscovered gems from Canadian talent. It brings the world to Vancouver in an accessible, friendly and engaging way.

Many of the theatres that exhibit films during the festival are smaller venues, such as the Vancity Theatre, the Rio and the Pacific Cinémathèque. These theatres are dedicated to bringing their audiences essential cinema, new releases, classics and little-seen gems from around the world, many of which can carry an adult rating or 18A. These changes to the Motion Picture Act will have a positive benefit for these smaller theatres and will no longer require a separate licence for exhibiting these types of movies.

To give you an example, the Pacific Cinémathèque last year hosted a festival featuring films by Canada’s own king of body horror, David Cronenberg, and just finished retrospectives for Orson Welles and the film noir genre in a small, 194-seat cinema dedicated to film education and preservation. It relies on donations and financial support from sponsors for the majority of its annual operating budget.

This theatre is one of the most active film organizations in North America and for 40 years has provided local film lovers with more international films, directors’ retrospectives, contemporary and classic Canadian films, art house masterpieces and experimental cinema than any other theatre in British Columbia.

This reduction in costs for them will have a significant impact on reducing expenditures and allowing the organization to focus on doing what it does best, which is providing movie experiences that inspire, stir emotions and stay with you long after you have left your seat. I want to reiterate my support for Bill 33, and I’m looking forward to the other comments from the member opposite.

L. Krog: I, firstly, want to compliment the member for
[ Page 9242 ]
North Vancouver–Seymour in demonstrating that kind of modest approach to complimenting the government’s record that was so absent yesterday in the remarks from the member for Chilliwack.

He seemed to spill forth with great enthusiasm about how dismal everything was previously and how the province was in such terrible financial shape, notwithstanding it finished with two balanced budgets, and that constant repetition of this wonderful myth and story that has grown up and is certainly actually believed — I’d like to think anyway — by the B.C. Liberals, because they keep repeating it constantly. I know they wouldn’t repeat anything that was untrue, so I’m satisfied, of course, that that’s the case.

When I hear the member for North Vancouver–Seymour stand up and not engage in some unnecessary political attacks, just as some might accuse me of doing from time to time, it’s always a great pleasure to hear remarks along those lines. Far be it from me to remind everyone in this chamber, of course, that was it was the public policy of the NDP in the 1990s that led to such an increase in film production in British Columbia and gave the film industry such an enormous boost that it became a significant economic driver in our province. That is something that I’d like to hear repeated from time to time.

One gets somewhat tired of — I can’t call it cherry-picking — certainly, an emphasis on trying to pick out the tiny failures of government from the 1990s and repeating them over and over again and ignoring all of good-news stories. And the film industry was most certainly one of those good-news stories.

Now, I’m conscious of the fact that we’ve been down this road before. It’s not quite Groundhog Day, but three years ago we were wandering down this path. I’m conscious of the fact that a three-year period is, in fact, twice the gestation period of an elephant, so we could have done this twice, I suppose, along the way and got this bill passed a long time ago, but that’s not the case.

[1445]

I’m also rather amused by the fact that we are leaving the name Motion Picture Act in place. How fascinating. You know, we haven’t moved beyond the great memory of what an innovation it was for people to actually see moving pictures and how exciting it was — and the time that flows after that, when we moved from silent movies into talkies.

I’m reminded of a story my grandmother told me with great enthusiasm — how she went to see her first talkie, as she called it. It was a movie about the Klondike and the gold rush. She was telling a fellow called Walter Ford this wonderful story about the movie. Of course, Mr. Ford…. Those of you who are uninitiated in the history of Coombs and Parksville and Qualicum won’t probably know that Walter Ford, together with another contractor, logged 35,000 acres of land all around that area — one of the most significant contractors in central Vancouver Island — literally over a hundred years ago.

Now, after my grandmother had, with such enthusiasm, recounted the details of this movie — I’m sure to Mr. Ford’s chagrin, because he wouldn’t have to go see it — including the detail of the Chilkoot Pass and what a tremendous obstacle it was for people to overcome, Mr. Ford looked at my grandmother, smiled and said: “Yes, Mrs. Best, I know. I was there.”

Within a couple of lifetimes we’ve gone from no moving pictures to motion pictures to talkies to now the kind of technology that requires this legislation to sit and consider the motion picture industry and its regulation.

I am most intrigued by the changes in definition. I know that the Attorney General — to paraphrase Dorothy, somewhere over the rainbow — is listening, riveted to my remarks to this important debate as we engage in debate on this bill today in second reading.

I will be very intrigued to understand the exact purpose of what seems to be a tremendous simplification of the definitions. Right now the Motion Picture Act provides, in the definition section, that:

“‘adult motion picture’ means any of the following: (a) a motion picture that was submitted for review under the former Act or under section 2 (1) of this Act for the purpose of exhibition in a theatre and that, following the review, (i) was not approved…. (b) a motion picture that has not been reviewed under section 5 that depicts (i) explicit sexual scenes, (ii) the coercing, through the use or threat of physical force or by other means, of a person to engage in a sexual act, if that sexual act is depicted in explicit sexual scenes or sexually suggestive scenes, (iii) incest or necrophilia, (iv) bondage in a sexual context, (v) persons who are or who appear to be under the age of 14 involved in sexually suggestive scenes, whether or not they appear nude or partially nude, (vi) persons who are or who appear to be under the age of 18 involved in explicit sexual scenes, (vii) explicit sexual scenes involving violence, (viii) scenes of brutality or torture to persons or animals, depicted in a realistic and explicit manner, or (ix) sexual conduct between a human being and an animal.”

Now, that’s a pretty extensive list, and now we are reducing that rather explicit section to simply the following: “‘adult motion picture’ means a motion picture that has, as its main object, the depiction of (a) sexually explicit scenes, (b) scenes, depicted in a realistic and explicit manner, of brutality or torture to persons or animals, or (c) scenes prescribed by regulation.”

Now, the prescription by regulation exists in the previous act under section (c).It says: “a motion picture that contains scenes that depict conduct or an activity that is prescribed in a regulation made under section 14 (2) (d).”

What I’m driving at is: I’m not sure what the purpose is for reducing the clarity — if you will, arguably — or the specificity of the definition. I’ll be interested to hear what the Attorney General has to say. Given her extremely brief remarks today, this is certainly a bill that cries out for reasonable questions to be asked during the course of committee stage.

I would hope and assume that it means we are coming to respect a little more the maturity of the viewing public to make decisions about what kind of movies they see
[ Page 9243 ]
and not to be offended by the depiction of some activities, as they’re contained. Indeed, the act itself….

[1450]

The amendment proposed by the repealing of subsection (5) in section 5 is rather interesting as well. What that section says is that if the director reviews an adult motion picture, he must “consider the adult motion picture in its entirety and take into account the general character of the adult motion picture, including whether the theme, subject matter or plot of the adult motion picture is artistic, historical, political, educational or scientific, and (b) approve or refuse…the adult motion picture in accordance with subsections (5.1) and (5.2).”

Then it goes on to say, in (5.1): “If an adult motion picture does not contain a depiction of any of the following scenes, the director must approve the adult motion picture.” That includes, as I repeated in the definition section, “sexually explicit scenes involving violence; (b) sexually explicit scenes that are degrading or dehumanizing; (c) a person who is under 18 years of age or who is intended to represent someone under that age, and who appears (i) nude or partially nude in a sexually suggestive scene or (ii) in a sexually explicit scene; (d) scenes prescribed by regulation.”

Then, interesting that (5.2) says: “If an adult motion picture contains a depiction of any of the scenes referred to in subsection (5.1),” which I’ve just read, “the director may approve or refuse to approve the adult motion picture.”

We are giving significant discretion now to the director. Essentially, what we’re saying is that we are liberalizing the laws around what most people would refer to as pornography in British Columbia. I am very interested to hear what the members opposite have to say, particularly those who might have strong views about that, because that is the essence of this legislation. It is to make available and less restrictive the censoring, if you will — certainly by the removal of that section — and classification of movies that are shown in this province. Now, I call them movies — but motion pictures, etc.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Talkies. Yes. The member for Coquitlam couldn’t resist sliding in the reference to talkies. That’s pretty much what we do in this House, hon. Member, on a fairly constant basis.

I’ll be very interested to hear what those Liberal members have to say about that and whether they’ll be supporting the government in this legislation. For those of us who believe that less censorship is probably a good thing, that the opportunity for people to view what they want to view is a good thing…. I’d be interested in hearing what those members have to say about what is a significant liberalization of the regime that governs how motion pictures are classified in this province.

I would argue that it’s a step forward, that it recognizes changing views. We are a more mature society. But not everyone is going to agree with the opposition on this, and not everyone will share the same views.

When the time comes in committee stage, I hope, if I’m available, to have the opportunity to ask the Attorney General what the thrust of this change in regime is and whether or not, in fact, the B.C. Liberals are solidly behind this move forward.

With those remarks, I’ll take my place and look forward to hearing the other members of the chamber, particularly the Liberal backbenchers, engage in commentary on this particular issue.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I am pleased to speak today to the Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015.

As we are all aware, the film industry in our province is booming. Known for our diverse and scenic filming locations, B.C. has become a leading creative hub. We have many talented people working in film in B.C. The industry provides approximately 20,000 direct and indirect jobs.

In my own riding, the city of Abbotsford is marketing the city as a destination for film crews. The economic impacts of filming in the city benefit our community. As for cinemas in my community, a new Cineplex cinema and VIP opened in Abbotsford in 2013. I know that because I was there for the opening.

[1455]

This is a world-class movie theatre. The complex features 11 screens, three of which are VIP cinemas that boast reclining seats in the front row and bar service. The VIP area admits only adults, since it’s a licensed auditorium. Beyond the front row, the VIP cinema offers large, padded chairs that rock and lean back. The cinema employs 150 full- and part-time workers. It’s a great place.

However, the amendments in this bill are about giving Consumer Protection B.C. the tools it needs to better protect the interest of individuals and families. This bill ensures that all motion pictures shown in theatres in British Columbia have been reviewed and classified. This helps parents and moviegoers make informed choices about what they are watching.

The act is creating a progressive compliance and enforcement model. The new model will help Consumer Protection B.C. and the industry ensure that the law is being followed. This is a similar approach that has been successful in other sectors that Consumer Protection B.C. regulates.

There will be a range of enforcement actions that can be taken against a licensee for noncompliance with the act. Sanctions will now range from a warning letter to monetary penalties that don’t involve the courts, such as licence suspension or termination, depending on the seriousness of the violation. Previously, the only penal-
[ Page 9244 ]
ties available were licence suspension or termination, a fine that involved the court system.

Consumer Protection B.C. is a not-for-profit corporation that acts at arm’s length from government. They issue licences for the motion picture and video industry based on the requirements of the Motion Picture Act.

There continues to be public demand for classification of films shown in theatres and public spaces. These classifications inform parents and put limits on what children can watch. Theatres are regulated to control who can view restricted or inappropriate films, thereby limiting harm to children. The scheme we have ensures that British Columbians’ community standards and family values are reflected in the classification of movies shown in theatres.

This approach is taken not to censor but to clarify the classification of motion pictures seen in theatres. We believe we have struck the right balance in regulating content of movies. In British Columbia, we regulate less than other provinces. We do not regulate classification of home videos and video games.

It is important to note that these changes do not represent an additional regulatory burden on the industry. In fact, the changes in this bill mean that the theatres will no longer be forced to hold separate licences to screen movies with a restricted rating. This was an unnecessary cost and burden on business owners. Because of this change, some businesses will see a decrease in their licensing fees.

Also, this film makes some minor amendments surrounding modernization of the language in the bill. Definitions for terms such as “film” and “motion picture” have been modernized in the act.

The last time any significant changes to the Motion Picture Act were made was in 1986, almost 30 years ago. Bringing in a more effective compliance and enforcement model will ensure the law is being followed and provide greater assurances for families. These amendments will modernize the Motion Picture Act.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes the debate. We’ll wait for the minister. The House will take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 2:59 p.m. to 3:03 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Madam Attorney to close the debate.

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the speakers for their comments, and I move second reading of Bill 33.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 33, Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 36, intituled the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015.

[1505]

BILL 36 — AUDITOR GENERAL FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move that Bill 36, the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015, be read for a second time now.

The Auditor General for Local Government office was created to help local governments deliver the best possible services in the most efficient, cost-effective way to the one taxpayer that all of us in this House and throughout the province serve. The mandate of the office is of value not only to local governments but to the province as a whole.

When the B.C. Auditor General for Local Government was initially launched in January of 2013, it was the first of its kind. Like any new, leading-edge office, there have been lessons learned and steps taken to strengthen the office and the position for success moving forward. Since some of the challenges became obvious, a lot of positive momentum has been generated through the last few months, including five well-received audit reports for the local governments of Comox Valley regional district, Vernon, North Vancouver, Sechelt, Dawson Creek and, most recently, Surrey.

The acting AGLG and the audit council have been implementing the recommendations resulting from an independent report of the governance and operations of the AGLG. As well, the contextual thinking and views expressed by the UBCM in the report they provided to the minister and to the local governments, and the survey of audited local governments, helped to inform the future direction for the office of the AGLG and will contribute to the improved operation of the office.

At the UBCM, I had the opportunity to meet with a number of local governments who support the office of the AGLG — and were frustrated, as we were, by the issues that came to light and the problems that we had — but do believe that since the changes have been implemented by the acting AGLG, they see the value, and they see the value of the reports. I’m confident that the new auditor general, Mr. Gordon Ruth, who I announced at the UBCM, will himself, and the office, become high-functioning and results-based and be willing to work with local governments to find solutions and opportunities that will fully benefit the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.
[ Page 9245 ]

On that note, I would like to recognize the tremendous work accomplished by Arn van Iersel, who provided superior leadership in a difficult time of transition. He also provided the stability during that time for the office and the staff.

I also want to compliment the remainder of the staff in the office for the work that they did to make sure that the office moved ahead and implemented some of the recommendations that had been brought forward.

It is absolutely critical that the Auditor General for Local Government Act maintain the AGLG’s current mandate, organizational structure and independence with regard to the performance audit program. They strengthened the legislative authorities of the minister with the changes in the act, the audit council and the AGLG and support them in the fulfilment of their duties and responsibilities.

The amendments we’re proposing enhance, strengthen and clarify the role of the minister and the minister’s relationship with the AGLG. It will also enhance, strengthen and clarify the authority of the audit council to fulfil its duties and responsibilities. It will also clarify the terms of appointment, removal and suspension of the AGLG, should that be necessary.

[1510]

The changes to the Auditor General for Local Government Act reflected in this legislation align with the recommendations from the audit council’s independent review of the AGLG office. And the resulting amendments strengthen the legislative authorities of the minister, the audit council and the AGLG as well as support them in the fulfilment of their duties and responsibilities.

The Auditor General for Local Government was established to work with local governments to collaboratively build partnerships as we identify the opportunities for future growth. One of the key aspects in this work, which we heard from UBCM in the meetings I had with the executive and from member local governments, was to be sensitive to local governments as we move forward with this office, and that is clearly our intention. With new, stable leadership and these amendments to the Auditor General for Local Government Act, the office is now well positioned for the long term to help local governments improve their operations and deliver services more effectively and economically.

I ask that all the members lend their support to this legislation, because I believe it will fulfil the original intent in the formation of the office. As I said at UBCM, it was clear to me that the member local governments realized that there are opportunities to learn from each other, and that is exactly what the office will do.

S. Robinson: I rise to speak to this Bill 20 — well, the original Bill 20, now Bill 36 — because I have some serious concerns about this proposed piece of legislation. I want to speak to the actual amendments that are being proposed, and I want to speak to the process that was undertaken and respond to some of the remarks made by the minister.

First of all to some of the changes that I noticed in this bill. We’ve had a chance to take a look at it. Part of what I’m concerned about is what we would call, I guess, ministerial creep — that there’s a real change in the tenor of this office that was intended to be an independent office. We see that independence completely eroded with these amendments.

I think it’s important to just go back and take a look at the original legislation, because the intent of that legislation spoke at length about the importance of independence. I think it’s important for all members of the House to go back three years, when this was being debated in this House. I just have some quotes from Hansard. I love the fact that we have things on record, because it just reminds us of what people were thinking at the time.

Going back to when this was first debated in the House under Bill 20, the Auditor General for Local Government Act, the minister at the time was Ida Chong. She brought that legislation through, and she was commenting on the existing local government legislation that spoke mostly about financial accountability rules. She noted that there was a gap: “…there is a gap. There is no requirement for independent value-for-money performance audits, and this legislation is about filling that gap….” So when it was first proposed, there was recognition that independence was important.

She went on to say, “Independence in conducting performance audits is vital to the credibility of any auditor general,” and she went on to talk about why she would appoint the auditor general, the way it would happen, why the AGLG would have the sole discretion to select local governments to audit, and she went on to describe, again, the importance of independence with this office.

Then, of course, as I’m reading Hansard, because it’s a fascinating document with lots of words spoken by many people who are still in this House, there was the MLA who said…. At the time, he was speaking as the representative of Kootenay East, and I believe that’s the Minister of Mines today. He had lots to say about this. He talked about the value of the Auditor General for Local Government being able to conduct performance audits. Value-for-money audits are what he talked about.

[1515]

Then he goes on to say: “Secondly, this will be a separate, independent office that doesn’t report to the Legislature.” Clearly, this member, now the Minister of Mines, thought it was very important — in fact, I would even argue, critically important — that this office had independence, that this office did not answer to anybody in this House. That was the message back then.

And then he goes on to say, a little bit later on: “I think it’s important to talk just for another minute about what
[ Page 9246 ]
this bill is not. It’s not about encroaching on local government jurisdiction. That’s not what this is about. It’s about setting up a process whereby local government can get some independent advice about how they do business.” There’s that word again: independent, “independent advice.” That’s what this was set up to do.

Then he went on to say…. I thought this was really interesting, because, of course, we’ve seen this. We’ve got more information. He said: “There will be no added cost…. The province will cover the cost of this.” And then he said: “So not added cost; it’s actually all about decreased cost to the taxpayer.” I thought that was interesting, given that this office has cost, I’m guessing, well over $7 million to produce a handful of reports, most of which have provided absolutely no value. I’m getting ahead of myself. I’ll speak to that in a moment.

The member for Kootenay East, at the time, then went on and said: “It’s a fairly modest piece of legislation” and “It’s not going to cost local government money.” We have found out that that’s actually not the case. But again, I get ahead of myself.

Then we have from committee…. This is March 2012. The minister at the time was Ida Chong. In the committee stage of bringing in Bill 20, three years ago, again there was emphasis on the independence of this office. This is a quote from the hon. Ida Chong: “We also indicated that this reporting structure — that is, the audit council…for any auditor general aims to satisfy both the independence and the accountability, and that’s what this audit council is designed to do.” Then she carries on about accountability, and she finishes up saying: “For that reason, we have set up a structure that I believe meets the test of independence.”

Well, it doesn’t end there, just as they’re bringing in the legislation. There were certainly other ministers who have spoken to the importance of the independence of this office. We certainly saw what happened last year as I asked a couple of questions, I think. For weeks and weeks and weeks, it felt like that was all I got to do here in this House — ask questions about the auditor general. I think some of my colleagues will remember those days.

Interjection.

S. Robinson: The member for Surrey-Whalley remembers. That’s really good. I’m glad that he has such a good memory.

We heard in this House over and over and over again about the independence of this office. On March 3, the minister at the time — who is now, I believe, the minister for small business; I think she’s changed portfolios — said: “The AGLG, as I said in the previous, is a functionally independent office with a high degree of autonomy. Government has no ability to direct the AGLG regarding reporting timelines on audit topics.”

And then she went on again: “The AGLG, again, is a functionally independent office with a high degree of autonomy.” I think these were just her speaking notes. “We’re just wanting to reiterate for everybody, over and over again, that this is autonomous and separate from government and separate from the Legislature, and that’s what makes it valuable. That’s what makes it a valuable tool to local governments, and it’s critical that it have this independence.”

On March 9, again, I’m guessing I probably got to ask a few more questions about what was going on with this office. She said: “It’s a good opportunity to remind the member opposite again” — I guess that’s me — “that, as we know, for any auditor to be effective, it needs to be independent from politicians. In this case, it is here as well.”

Clearly, she was committed to the independence of this office. As politicians, we just get in the way. We make a mess of things. If it is to have any value, if it is to have any credibility, it absolutely must be independent.

[1520]

Later on, on the tenth, she reminds us again: “I would have hoped that the member opposite….” Then, I guess, it fizzled out. I don’t have the notes here. It said “independent office.”

So clearly I got the message. I got the message. It was repeated to me over and over again. Every time I raised the issue about the AGLG, asking about what was going on, I was assured that its independence was critical to its function, was critical to its credibility and was critical to its success.

Okay, got that. So this story, of course, carries on. We know that there were certainly very problematic issues with this file. But I think we need to remember that when the Premier promised this as part of her leadership bid, she, too, called for it to be an independent office. The Premier recognized the value of that — that in order for it to have credibility, it needed to be independent.

So what do we have? Well, we have some changing things. We have a proposal here before us that suggests that maybe independence isn’t a good thing. We have some amendments here that are saying that actually the office ought not to be independent, that the minister actually gets to have a whole lot of say about what goes on, that everything will happen with OIC, that with the swipe of a pen, things can change. Auditors can change.

The minister has way more control now, way more say. Where is the independence now? What happened to the independence of an auditor general, that that provides the credibility? So when things were deteriorating back in March, when we first raised here in the House that the Auditor General for Local Government was not performing — the auditor general in the first year had promised to do 18 audits of local governments and after two years had produced a single audit and had spent $5.2 million to get that done — we found that there were actually some major challenges, real major challenges with this office.
[ Page 9247 ]

We learned that all was not well in the Auditor General for Local Government’s office. There were lots of contractors being used. The office didn’t understand what local governments did. There were certainly some significant challenges. Even though we got assurances that all was good, that really wasn’t what was going on. Eventually, we know, the Auditor General for Local Government was fired. We also know that she’s suing the government.

We know that, by my calculations, over $7 million has been spent just for the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government and that we still have mounting legal costs. We know that local governments on average — the ones that have been audited; there’s about 16 or 17 — have spent about $12,000 of local taxpayer dollars. We know that there’s only one taxpayer, as the minister just said. So all told, we’re in for, I don’t know, well over $7 million for sure to produce 17 reports, of which what we know is that only two local governments said had any value.

I’m getting a little bit of ahead of myself, because it’s such an exciting, riveting story about how things have unfolded with this office. Mr. Trumpy was brought in last spring to do a quick review of what was going on, and he made some recommendations. The minister spoke to those recommendations.

When it was announced that Mr. Trumpy was going to take a look at what was going on in this office, the Premier promised — she promised — that the UBCM would be consulted. The UBCM is the body that represents local governments. It’s one phone call, just one phone call. They represent the hundreds of local governments around this province, and one phone call would have been sufficient. The minister at the time, the minister who is now Minister of Small Business, said: “Well, Mr. Trumpy may call the UBCM. It’s up to him.” What we learn is that they were never called. They were never consulted.

This is really disappointing, because you would think that that would be a valuable opportunity to sort of say: “Hey, guys, how’s it going? Did things work out okay for those who have been audited? Did you have any feedback for us? We’re taking a look at this, and now would be the time.” That didn’t happen, unfortunately.

[1525]

That would have been the right thing to do, but that doesn’t mean that that’s what this government is going to do. So the UBCM, being very resourceful and very creative, decided to do their own report. Their report — I want to read the title in for the record — is Auditor General for Local Government: Perspectives on Operations, March 2013-March 2015. They took it upon themselves to do a review and to do a survey. They went out, and they checked in with all the local governments who had been working really hard to address the ongoing demands of the Auditor General for Local Government.

These were demands…. I don’t think people in the House will have an appreciation of the demands I would call a little bit crazy-making, because they changed all the time; it was different auditors coming in and going out. In one local community that I spoke to, they had an auditor come in who was brought in from New Brunswick who was French-speaking and didn’t speak any English, and the expectation was that they were going to be able to somehow do a performance audit for this local government. And that’s how much this office had deteriorated, in terms of its ability to perform.

But again, I digress.

Interjection.

S. Robinson: And it wasn’t Maillardville, as the member for Surrey-Whalley suggested.

This report, Auditor General for Local Government: Perspectives on Operations, was quite comprehensive. So 17 local governments were consulted, and there are various charts. There are two things that I thought were really important to flag for the House.

Of the 17, only two communities agreed with this statement: “The findings of the audits published to date contained valuable information that has been used by our local government to improve our processes and procedures relative to the audit topic.” Two found it useful.

The others, when you talk to them about what they learned, said: “Well, we were already making those changes. We were already adapting. We had actually already seen that” or “We have it in our plan to address it. We knew it was coming, and we just haven’t had the resources to pull somebody in to take a look at how to do that better.” Only two communities have identified what was helpful — $7 million and climbing for two communities to find some value.

This report had some interesting recommendations for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, and I think it’s important to read those into the record. The first one: “Prior to undertaking legislative or administrative amendments to the AGLG, consider and act on the findings within this report in an effort to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Office of the Auditor General.”

One of the questions I have for the minister is that I’d like to know what exactly was in this report…. I’d like to ask the minister: what was in this report that they found useful to make these amendments? And I guess I get to do that at committee stage, and I look forward to that.

The second one — and this one I thought was really interesting: “consult with local governments with regard to alternative governance and administrative models for the AGLG.”

Well, I called the UBCM yesterday when this came to the Legislature, and it was the first they’d heard that this legislation was tabled. I was a little stunned. I mean, I
[ Page 9248 ]
called them thinking: “Okay. They’re the spokespeople. They’re the stakeholder in this. It’s their members who are most impacted by what goes on with the Auditor General for Local Government.” And this minister and this government didn’t have the decency to pick up the phone and say: “We’re going to be making some legislative changes. We want to meet with you about what to do.” Or at least give them the heads-up that it’s coming. It’s coming the first week we’re back.

No, I’d phoned and said: “So, what do you guys think? Do you know anything about this?” And they’re like: “This is the first I’ve heard of it.”

Finally, the third recommendation specifically for this ministry is to “commit to undertaking an independent review.” And again, now I’m really leery about what independent means, but I think I know what UBCM means by independent. I’m not so sure what this government means by independent, but that’s a conversation for another day.

[1530]

To “commit to undertaking an independent review of the office of the AGLG within two years of the next appointment of the AGLG, and make this review available to the public.” This suggests to me that the credibility of this office has been seriously damaged. I think we can all agree — everyone in this House can agree — it’s been seriously damaged. Now they’re proposing legislation that strips the independence of this office — independence that previous ministers said was absolutely critical to this office functioning.

I just worry for how much more money is going to get wasted on this independent Office of the Auditor General for Local Government that really isn’t independent. It also begs the question about what it is that the ministry is really trying to address.

The issue that certainly came before us when I was asking questions in this House about the performance of the previous Auditor General for Local Government…. At the time, it seemed like the problems for the office rested with the original choice of the Auditor General for Local Government. There had been a bad choice made.

I was looking up the Auditor General for Local Government. There is lots, actually, written on it. Trying to wade through it over the day was a little bit overwhelming. But what stuck in my mind was that this government spent, I think it was, $57,000 to find her in the first place. That was what it cost taxpayers — $57,000 to find her.

It was problematic. I get it. Sometimes you make a bad hire. It happens. It has happened to me. I get it. They made a bad hire, and it created some problems — some real problems for this minister and some real problems for this government.

At the time, the message that we heard and that British Columbians heard was: “We have a problem with this person we hired. We made a mistake with who we hired. We need to deal with that.” Okay. I didn’t hear anything about the nature of the legislation. That wasn’t what they were talking about. “We made a bad hire.”

What’s fascinating about this legislation that we’re seeing before us is that it creates an unprecedented level of government control over an independent auditor general. It’s a complete departure from the principle that an auditor general is to be independent from government. What does that mean? Well, it means it’s a huge risk for government interference. That gives the minister significant power over local government.

At the end of the day, when you trace it all back, who’s in charge of our local governments? I think mayors, councillors and regional directors ought to be shaking their heads. They’re going to be, at the end of the day, answerable to the minister. We have lost all autonomy for what I would argue…. And I would argue anybody on either side of the House about the importance of local government and the autonomy that it requires. This piece of legislation is eroding that, and I think we all ought to be on alert.

I know that there are lots of people on both sides of this House who come from local government, and I know that they value local government. I hope that they will speak up for local government, because I think this is the thin edge of that wedge in terms of autonomy of local government.

That’s what I’m going to speak to right now, just about the legislation itself. But I want to speak for a little bit about the process. I have a few things to say about how this unfolded and connected to the timing.

We all just came off…. I believe most members were at the UBCM last week. We all got to meet with tons of people from local government. Certainly, the minister spoke to a number of people from local government. I certainly had a very busy calendar having meetings with many people from local government.

We also know that the UBCM resolution to get rid of the Auditor General for Local Government barely passed, but it did pass. Almost 55 percent endorsed getting rid of the Auditor General for Local Government or asking government to remove this office.

[1535]

So when the minister speaks to lots of people, there’s lots of support and he’s a great cheerleader for it, I think we need to temper that a little bit because there really isn’t significant huge support. Fifty-five percent of that body said: “Get rid of it. It’s of no value, and it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

What this government has proposed would save taxpayer dollars is actually doing the opposite. So when you have 55 percent endorse the elimination of the office, you don’t have resounding support.

The other thing about timing that I find quite fascinating is that if the UBCM were to have an opportunity to speak or reflect or come up with some sort of comment
[ Page 9249 ]
on this piece of legislation, this would probably be one of the most difficult times for them to do that.

A new executive just got elected on, well, I guess, Friday. Friday the winners were announced. So on Monday, you’ve introduced a piece of legislation that a new body — they haven’t even met yet — can’t even reflect on. Their ability to participate in any way, shape or form has been nullified, eliminated. They can’t provide a voice that says “Yea” or “Nay,” or “Tweak it here, or tweak it there.” They have no voice.

The last thing I want to say about process on this is how the minister spoke about partnership at the UBCM. He waxed eloquent about the importance of working together, of rolling up our sleeves, of finding ways to come to agreement on a range of matters — that there’s one taxpayer and all levels of government ought to be working together. He smiled his smile and just carried on about how fabulous it would be for us all. I’m sure people wanted to get up and give him a hug and sing Kumbayah about how great it would all be to work in partnership.

This is partnership? This is a slap in the face. This is, I think, actually, a little bit disgusting. This is a new minister. He had an opportunity to start partnership, to do partnership, to lead by example of what partnership means. And his first act when we’re back in the House is to put out a piece of legislation, really, the first working day after the UBCM.

The UBCM staff are exhausted. They are still doing cleanup. The executive is just getting their act together and trying to find each other’s phone numbers and getting their relationship started as a functioning body. And what this minister does is lay out a piece of legislation that affects them. It’s a big piece of legislation, and they won’t be able to provide comment, which is rather disappointing.

I have one last comment I just want to make before I take my seat. This was the Minister of Mines, who at the time…. I don’t even know if he was a minister, but he said…. He was here as the MLA representing Kootenay East, so I’m assuming…. He was certainly here in this House.

Interjection.

S. Robinson: He was an independent at the time? Oh, okay. He was an independent at the time.

Interjection.

S. Robinson: Well, that’s a story for another day, I believe, says the member for…. Okay. Another day.

I want to finish off with his words, because I think they’re reflective of what has gone on here. This was Tuesday, February 14, 2012. He said in this House: “I think, frankly, the opposition is going to be surprised and disappointed by the extent to which local government embraces this idea of a local government auditor general. I think this is going to be a very successful venture.”

Well, I think this venture has proven to be very costly to the taxpayers of British Columbia. I think they’re continuing to flog at it, to push at it, to tweak it.

[1540]

Clearly, the minister was saying that any time you do something new, it’s a problem. Well, this has been a very expensive problem. Rather than consider having a conversation with the Auditor General that answers to the Legislature and seeing if there would be a place there for some of this work, they continue to push something that is just a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.

They’re trying to fix something that is really problematic. I think, unfortunately, they are losing their stakeholders in this venture as well, and that is perhaps the most disappointing thing of all.

J. Martin: I am so happy today to be able to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents from Chilliwack and speak in favour of the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act.

This government, as we all know, is committed to staying the course with the AGLG. Good fiscal management includes long-term planning for community projects and infrastructure without going into debt. It is vitally important that governments continue to find new ways to conduct business for less.

This goes for all levels of government, whether we are speaking about federal, provincial or local levels of government. Local government works at keeping their communities vibrant and healthy and improving the quality of life for all of their residents.

The Office of the AGLG was created to assist local governments in improving their operations. By undertaking a performance audit, the office may provide some guidance to local government that can help them provide better service to their communities and citizens. If our local governments can be more efficient in their spending, these communities are better off.

The AGLG was first launched in January 2013, and the core mandate is to conduct performance audits that focus on the economy, the efficiency and the effectiveness of the design and the delivery of programs, services and policies. The work of this office supports local governments, and in the end, this is of benefit to all British Columbians.

This bill that we’re speaking of today clarifies and enhances the governance and accountability provisions of the act. We believe the work of the Office of the AGLG will improve accountability of local governments throughout beautiful British Columbia. It will help improve local government operations as they learn from the work of the office. Because in the end, all levels of government serve one taxpayer, the same taxpayer. If the Auditor General for Local Government is able to save the
[ Page 9250 ]
taxpayer money through local governments, then that is a success.

The proposed amendments will make it clear that as a provincial appointee, the AGLG is accountable to government and accountable to the audit council. These changes will strengthen the relationship between the AGLG, the audit council, the minister, government and local governments.

Of course, the AGLG will continue to have the independence and continue to select and conduct a performance audit program. But there will be a clear responsibility to deliver results. And there will be consequences for non-delivery. The authority of the audit council and the minister to review the performance of the Office of the AGLG will be strengthened and enhanced within this bill.

These amendments mean that the audit council will have a clear opportunity to review and to monitor the AGLG’s performance and delivery. This includes reviewing how the AGLG fulfils its mandate. The audit council will now be able to provide a report to the minister at any point in time. And the council will be provided with broad authority to request information from the AGLG when necessary to carry out its responsibilities. As well, the council will not have authority over human resources within the matter.

Not only is the accountability of the audit council strengthened but also the role of the minister is strengthened. This legislation enables the minister to initiate a review of the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government at any particular point in time. This is in addition to the mandated review in 2017. This legislation also enables the minister to directly recommend suspension of removal of the AGLG without waiting for recommendation from the audit council.

Additionally, this legislation ensures that the minister has a role in the budget and estimates process for the AGLG. In the end, it is a good thing to clarify and to enhance the governance and accountability provisions of the act.

[1545]

These amendments clarify the relationship between the minister, the Auditor General, the audit council and the AGLG, all the while supporting them in the fulfilment of their duties and their responsibilities.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

N. Macdonald: It’s always a pleasure to speak in the House. Today we’re talking about Bill 36 and the Auditor General for Local Government.

When the original legislation was created, the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government…. It was introduced back in the spring of 2012. I voted against it at the time for reasons that have turned out to be completely accurate. In fact, all of my colleagues are here with the same experience. The warnings that we had at that time about the failure of this legislation have been borne out, and it’s clear for everyone to see that that’s the case.

It is interesting to go back and revisit some of that debate. It’s there on Hansard, and I invite people who are interested to go back and see what their colleagues on the B.C. Liberal side said — and in fact, some of you to go back and see what you, as B.C. Liberals, said about the original piece of legislation that you are now changing and flipping your arguments at the same time.

Now, the essence of the B.C. NDP opposition to the legislation was that the bill was poorly thought through and that it arose as an initiative from an off-the-cuff comment by the Premier during her leadership campaign.

I will make two rather obvious points for members of the House to consider. The first is this. The bungled Auditor General for Local Government office cost $5 million for one audit in a period where there was a clear commitment to have 18. They produced, for the sum of $5 million, one audit, at a time when they were supposed to produce 18. That one audit did not identify savings — not $5 million savings, not any. That is the record. I mean, that’s a demonstrable fact. The stated goal, then, of 18 was missed pretty significantly.

There are still, as members know, secret — to us — legal costs involved in the messy firing, which is interesting, of the so-called independent officer who was supposed to be in a set term. I mean, if you go back and look at the debate, ad nauseam you talked about, as B.C. Liberals, the inability of government to influence this independent individual — except you fired her, right? You did it, fired her, in a way that produced a legal case — so interesting work.

We were told again and again that local governments would not have costs imposed upon them. Of course, that’s not true. These audits that have been imposed on local governments have of course cost local governments money, and they haven’t saved them money. That is all there in the public realm. That is the basis of what we’re talking about today.

I think the second point that’s obvious is that this legislation, which was introduced two years ago, is here, back to be fixed. Just think of it: your new car back in the garage for repairs already. That’s pretty frustrating. It makes it feel like you bought a bit of a lemon. Of course, we didn’t.

The opposition knew it was a lemon and told this government so. But as is often the case, the government chose not to listen. It’s not their money they’re wasting, obviously. It grows somewhere else. So the $5 million that was wasted, to date, is not their problem, apparently. I mean, there’s a saying: if it’s not broken, then don’t fix it. But here we are fixing it, so obviously it’s pretty broken, and in a substantial way it is.

Now, getting bills here in the House to fix B.C. Liberal bungling is actually fairly regular. Often it is when the
[ Page 9251 ]
law that the B.C. Liberals forced through here is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I mean, that’s a fairly common occurrence, and it’s kind of interesting. You would think that the constitution of Canada would be considered by B.C. Liberal lawmakers when they’re putting together pieces of legislation.

[1550]

Then we see flops like this one and like the HST and other bills that are such problematic pieces of legislation. It’s brought back for the government to try to fix it in some way. I think, as I said, the AGLG, the former Bill 20, fits into the flop category.

When the original 2012 legislation to create the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government was put before us, I said that the office was redundant, that it was likely to be ineffective, that it was expensive and that it was open to abuse by the provincial government. It turns out all of those things are true.

The AGLG is still redundant. It is still ineffective. It is still expensive. And with these changes, it is even more open to abuse than it was before. If you mess up something and bring it back here to fix it, what do we get? We get it messed up even more, which seems to be very often what we see from the B.C. Liberals.

Section 4 of this legislation allows cabinet to fire the Auditor General for Local Government “with or without cause” — at their pleasure. Let’s understand this. It also allows the provincial government to target municipalities deemed as unfriendly. They’re able to do that. The minister handpicks five people through cabinet approval to sit on the audit council. Typically, these will all be B.C. Liberals, right? So when you’re choosing this council, there’ll be donors, there’ll be somebody….

In fact, the minister who put this bill forward and then disappeared is somebody who went from PavCo straight into being a B.C. Liberal candidate. We all know how these boards work. So you’ve got your five B.C. Liberal appointees, who have raised money for the party. They’re there as the audit council. But you don’t even need to trust them, because they didn’t listen quite well enough the last time, so you can just do it yourself. If you want to get rid of the auditor general, just fire them with or without cause.

Now, that’s interesting. The original legislation, of course, proposed the fiction that somehow the original Auditor General for Local Government was independent. Now this legislation, of course, puts power clearly in the cabinet’s control.

I just want to take you back to quite a romantic day we had here in the Legislature a couple of years ago. It was Valentine’s Day of 2012. People were in a good mood. We were just back and talking about this very piece of legislation.

A member that graced these halls for a long time…. I think all would agree Ida Chong was somebody that was a hard-working minister. In fact, just as a point for those of you that will be ministers in the future, Ida Chong would sit through these debates as the minister. They can be at times painful, to listen again and again to opposition members, but it shows respect for the House. Ida Chong would do that. I always respected that. She wasn’t the only one, but she was one.

This is a quote from the original legislation that she introduced. “Existing local government legislation features a large number of financial accountability rules. However, there is a gap. There is no requirement for independent value-for-money performance audits, and this legislation is about filling that gap and, in the process, enhancing the strength of our local government system.”

What you have there is the sole rationale for why you need this Auditor General for Local Government, the sole thing that you need. It is that value-for-money performance audit. Well, that wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now.

[1555]

The law firm of Young Anderson has a long history in civic government. Those of you that have served on local government — and I know there are people who gave many years of service to local government — will be familiar, especially if you’re from a smaller community, with Young Anderson. They’ve been active with the UBCM for years. Those of you that participated in local government, as I said, will certainly be familiar with the firm.

There’s the so-called value-for-money auditing, which the minister at that time talked about as something that needed to be done. But the value-for-money auditing, of course, I think as members will know, is a far broader type of auditing than you traditionally get with financial audits.

What Young Anderson said and what mayors in my area said repeatedly is that this is something that could be done without the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government. It was always something that could be done. Under section 171(3) of the Community Charter, both the inspector of municipalities and every municipal council can already do this work. They’re not precluded from doing it.

One of the key arguments for setting up a bureaucracy that has likely cost $7 million…. In fact, the key financial argument is one that didn’t make sense at the time and doesn’t make sense now. Similarly, if the province wants to order these types of audits, they always could. They already can do that. So the sole rationale that was given by the minister back with Bill 20 was a power that was already there for local governments, for the province, and at far less cost than what you’re spending with this office.

The redundancy remains. The fact that what we’re fixing here is not something that was needed originally in 2012, and it’s not needed now — redundant. I thought this was a government that was going to get rid of these redundancies, be more efficient. But again and again, the rhetoric is one thing and the actions completely the other,
[ Page 9252 ]
completely different — spending $5 million for one audit just to keep a promise that was made with very little thought, when the key task that’s identified for setting up this new office is something that isn’t needed.

It’s not just me. It’s Young Anderson that has said this. People who specialize in law at the local government level are saying it’s redundant as well.

I’ll read the direct quote. This is from a Young Anderson report on this specific office. It is “a largely redundant office to examine expenditures that are already under the discipline of pay-as-you-go financing,” and it “may be a purely symbolic provincial gesture.”

That’s not the NDP. That’s not the Leader of the Opposition. It’s Young Anderson. This is not a partisan group. This is a group with years of experience in local government, a firm that I think the mayor of 100 Mile House and the councillor from North Vancouver…. I bet that you depended on that legal advice as we in Golden did — and the mayor of Penticton. So it’s a law firm that has a long history and that we have depended upon.

Their statement on the redundancy mirrors what I’m saying. I’ll quote again. It says: “…a largely redundant office to examine expenditures that are already under the discipline of pay-as-you-go” and “may be purely symbolic.” Wow. That’s pretty expensive, to spend $7 million on that. That’s a problem.

I think all of us could think of better ways to spend that amount of money than to waste it on ventures such as this. There are better ideas out there. When this was first proposed, I had councillors and staff from my local government coming to me and saying that there are better ways of doing this.

One of the suggestions was this. I would invite the minister to just listen to this idea, which is to have the UBCM and the LGMA — the LGMA, of course, is the association of local government professionals — come together with the University of Victoria Local Government Institute partnership and identify quantitative and qualitative ways, using value-for-money tools, to look for efficiencies. That would be an extraordinarily cheaper way of achieving what the government’s stated objective is. It would be way cheaper. It’s an idea.

[1600]

This is a government that professes to put this forward to get best practice, but then is deaf to any ideas that are put forward as a more efficient alternative and plows ahead with a project that has failed, demonstrably, to be cost-effective. It is a flop, and it remains a flop. With these changes, that will not change the usefulness of what we have here.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Let’s look at some other ideas. You could make changes to the Community Charter. You could do staff development work. You could do all of these things for substantially less money and less disruption. What the opposition has said consistently is that there is a case for using the existing provincial Auditor General’s office to do the work if there is a need.

That’s a case that was first made by the member for Surrey-Whalley, very eloquently, when he was the critic for Finance in this legislation for Bill 20. He laid out all of the options that, in retrospect, at the time should have been obvious but surely, in retrospect after this flop, is the way to go: to just use the Auditor General’s office. They have the capacity. They’re able to do it. They’re willing to do it. It is the most obvious thing to do.

Let’s come back to the second point. That’s the key point that the minister made for Bill 20 in the first place for audits. Let’s come to the second point. This is again a quote from Ida Chong back in 2012: “Independence in conducting performance audits is vital to the credibility of any auditor general.” You do know that this bill removes that independence.

But at the time, “Independence in conducting performance audits is vital to the credibility” of an auditor general. “That’s why, for example, the auditor general for local government would be appointed for a fixed term….” Oh, that didn’t quite work out, eh? What was the fixed term — until you’re fired? That’s not really a fixed term, I don’t think. But okay, fixed term. And “…would have other powers and protections that the provincial Auditor General has.” Yeah, that’s not true. That wasn’t true. You fired her. That’s not great protection, right?

The minister also tried to assure us that the AGLG would not be used as a provincial government tool to go after specific local governments. That argument was tied to the independence of the AGLG, which was, frankly, always questionable. These changes indisputably end any argument of independence.

Now, the minister wasn’t the only one who emphasized the independence of the office. If you’re one of the speakers and you’ve got talking points, just remember that those talking points, from year to year, change. They’re easy to quote back at you.

The member for Kootenay East — what did he say about independence? Hey, guaranteed. This “will be a separate, independent office that doesn’t report to the Legislature. I think that’s a good thing.” That was his quote, right? Presumably, now that it is explicitly not separate and it is explicitly not independent, that’ll be a good thing too. This year, that’s the flavour of the month. Independence was so important before. Now it’s the lack of independence that’s so important.

The member from Vancouver-Lonsdale we’ve already mentioned, but you’ve got a quote here too. “It creates a separate, independent office that does not report back to the Legislature.” That’s a good thing. Oh, okay. Now, the member, presumably, in voting for this legislation thinks that’s no longer a good thing, because she’s voting to get rid of it.
[ Page 9253 ]

I mean, in 2012 — go back and read the Hansard — every Liberal speaker said the same thing: “Independence, independence.” John Les was particularly interesting. He poured scorn on us in opposition for suggesting weaknesses in the bill that, hey, we’re here to fix today. It turns out, I guess, that he is no more expert on this than he was on earthquake preparedness. The debate was so filled with hubris, so filled with utter contempt that the opposition could have anything good to offer this House in terms of an idea. It turns out we were right.

[1605]

I would invite you to go back and read what the member for Surrey-Whalley said was the likely outcome of this legislation. He offered a suggestion of a better course of action. How much would have been saved if this government for once listened to a debate in this House, listened respectfully? What would happen? What a world that would be. No HST. Oh, that’s a long list. I don’t have time for all of the things we could have done better.

Let’s even go back to a more recent debate we had here. I think it was in question period. This minister’s predecessor said in the Legislature on March 9 of this year: “any auditor, to be effective, needs to be independent from politicians.” Well, good thing we didn’t tattoo that on our arms, eh? Good thing that’s not permanent. Good thing we can remove that from the wall. It’s sort of like when I used to teach…. Actually, a lot of this place reminds me of Animal Farm. We should have put that up on the wall. We could go and get — who was the one? — Squealer to go and erase it every night and change it. Now here we are: four legs, bad; two legs, good. So here we go.

But I think if you look at what was said in 2012, the opposition has been consistent. What we said in 2012 and why we voted against this waste of money was that the AGLG was redundant, and it still is redundant. We said that it’s ineffective; it still is ineffective. We said that it was expensive. It is demonstrably a waste of money and, therefore, unreasonably expensive and even more open to abuse with these changes.

So I’m proud and happy to consistently argue the same thing and to consistently vote against a bill that I think was ill-considered, that speaks to the weakness of this Legislature in actually debating bills properly and going through a proper process to make good decisions and that will remain a problem that will only be solved by the election of an NDP government with the commitment to get rid of this office as one of the first things we do when we form a government.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

D. Ashton: It’s my pleasure to speak to this bill today on behalf of the constituents and citizens that I represent in Penticton, Summerland, Peachland and Naramata. Bill 36, the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, is of special interest to me, because like many other members in this House, I spent many years in local government before being elected as an MLA. I have to admit that before I was elected to local government, I did give much thought to the inner workings of the actions and operations at city hall, as I came from private enterprise and was taught to look after the pennies.

Needless to say, my time as a city councillor, regional district chair and mayor of the city of Penticton quickly taught me so much about how these agencies operate and the occasional need for independent guidance. I have to say that there are a phenomenal group of dedicated individuals that work in local government. But as you know, sometimes an outside look is worth its weight in gold. As a matter of fact, Penticton actually asked to be the first audit for the auditor general when it was created, to see if we got what we had to do and if we got it right.

The Office of the AGLG was created to assist local governments in improving their operations. It gives advice and recommendations to help local governments deliver their services more efficiently and more effectively. As we all know, the messages are — that have been said on numerous occasions on this side of the House — the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act amends and applies what we have learned in the first two years since the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government was launched in January of 2013. It amends the Auditor General for Local Government Act by clarifying and enhancing the governance and accountability within the provisions of the act.

Our government is committed to staying the course with the AGLG, and the office is already on a stronger footing. We believe that the work of the AGLG will result in opportunities for local government to learn, to improve their operations, to share their expertise and to demonstrate accountability to the one taxpayer that we all serve. No matter who we represent, we all serve one taxpayer — the citizens of British Columbia.

[1610]

The amendments will strengthen the relationship between the Auditor General for Local Government, the audit council, the minister, government and local governments by more clearly defining the roles and responsibilities and enhancing the accountability framework. They’ll also make clear that as a provincial appointee, the AGLG is accountable to government and accountable to the audit council.

The AGLG will continue to have the independence to select and conduct the performance audit program, but there will be clear responsibility to deliver results. The authorities of the minister and the audit council to review the performance of the office and the AGLG and hold the AGLG to account will be strengthened. These amendments mean that the audit council will have a clear authority to review the AGLG’s performance and delivery. The audit council will be able to ask the AGLG for information it feels necessary to carry out its responsibilities and will now be able to provide a report to the
[ Page 9254 ]
minister at any time.

As well, the amendments align with recommendations from the audit council’s independent review of the AGLG in April of this year. The proposed amendments will make it clear that as a provincial appointee, the AGLG is accountable to government and the audit council. While the AGLG will continue to have the independence to select and conduct the performance audit program, there will be a clear responsibility to deliver results, and consequences for that non-delivery if it so shall take place.

The authority of the minister and the audit council to review the performance of the office and of the AGLG and to hold the AGLG to account will be strengthened. By appointing the AGLG under the Public Service Act, the AGLG will be subject to the B.C. public service Standards of Conduct, and the AGLG must take the B.C. public service oath of employment. The AGLG will be accountable to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in relation to human resource matters — i.e., personal conduct — and the Public Service Agency policies in relation to human resource matters will apply to the AGLG. This allows for holdback measures to be established if so desired.

The amendments align fully with the recommendations to clearly define the roles, responsibilities and expectations and strengthen the accountability framework. The proposed amendments enhance the relationship between the AGLG, the audit council, the minister, the government and local governments by clarifying and defining roles and responsibilities of these parties and enhancing the accountability framework for the auditor general. These amendments maintain the function of the independence of the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government and protect the independence of the auditor general in crucial areas.

The AGLG will continue to have sole discretion to select the performance audits to be conducted. Previously, there was a provision that did not provide the role of the minister in the budget and estimates process for the AGLG. That provision has been removed, and the minister will present the AGLG’s budget estimates for Treasury Board approval. This makes the office’s budget process more consistent with other government entities and strengthens the role of the minister without comprising the independence of the office’s operations.

Many thanks, hon. Speaker, for allowing me to speak here today. I now leave the floor for a further jiggery-pokery debate on the issue.

B. Routley: I’m sure I won’t disappoint. I think that that’s exactly what we’re seeing, yet again another example of jiggery-pokery in this Legislative Assembly.

It’s really interesting, and it’s actually valuable to do your homework and look back in history. I thought it would be a fascinating thing to do to go back to look and see what old brother Bill, Mr. Jiggery-Pokery, was saying back in 2012 on the introduction of the bill and to see what the Liberal side of the House had to say. I think it’s really valuable. Let’s have a walk down memory lane, as it were.

[1615]

It’s really fascinating that the government at that time was saying they want to look closely at this legislation, and now we’re talking about this amendment. Even then, the discussion was: what exactly is the problem this government intends to address? Where’s the beef? Where was the problem?

Well, there was no problem from the Union of B.C. Municipalities. There was no problem from any of the municipalities throughout B.C. Nobody was clambering into this chamber or lining up to see ministers, saying: “Oh, we need to have this. This is going to be so wonderful, to have an auditor specifically to deal with municipalities.” No, we didn’t need that. It wasn’t asked for by the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

I go back and look at what the Cowichan Valley regional district had to say. I talked to them at the time, and the CVRD — their various mayors. We’ve got the mayors of Duncan, North Cowichan. They actually had a meeting with representatives to talk about this proposal, and they told me that they didn’t understand why this was even necessary. They called it a problem in search of a solution that didn’t exist.

Some of the area directives even suggested that the Liberal government needs to get its own house in order before they start looking at municipal governments. I think then, as now, that’s absolutely true. Look at the record. We hear about all of the computer data breaches. Oh, my goodness. There are so many, I’ve lost count. Hon. Speaker, I don’t know if you’ve kept up with the count, but it’s really challenging to keep up with all of the scandals. I’m not sure we can find it on the computer anymore.

If you ask freedom of information, they probably lost the data, and they’re not quite sure themselves exactly where we’re at. Again, more jiggery-pokery of the deluxe kind, really, in this case, when you look at all of the money that has been blown on these crazy projects. The Liberals at the time, back in 2012…. I was listening very carefully to hear what they were talking about when they were talking about value for money. It’s interesting.

You know, back then, I said — this is a quote from 2012 — “I’ve heard Liberal after Liberal get up and speak about value for money. Well, where is it? Where is the value for money in this process, hon. Speaker? Where is it? It’s not forthcoming. I haven’t heard one Liberal speaker stand up and talk about how we’re going to get value for money. It’s just not there.”

No analysis. In other words, there was no analysis by the Liberal government. The Liberal government didn’t go into some back room with their computer nerds and come up with some complicated plan on how they were going to look at analysis. No, this is just one of those
[ Page 9255 ]
ready-fire-aim approaches that has come about.

Talk about political pandering. We all know how this really came about. There was no analysis done on why we needed value for money. This is just good spin that they put out. Fiscally, this government is planning to run a deficit, which local governments cannot do.

It’s interesting. With all the billions of dollars in contractual obligations, of course they say: “But that’s not debt. We’ve got a balanced budget.” They want us to look the other way when we talk about contractual commitments and the rising tide of millions after millions after millions being spent — totally unaccountable, totally without any plan for value for money. Where is the plan for value for money for us? When once have we in this House been delivered a document that explains the value for money, even particularly on what we are talking about here today? Imagine, they have blown 5.2 million hard-earned dollars of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

[1620]

They blew that money without any consideration for what the union of municipalities wanted, without any consideration of what the good opposition in the province of British Columbia were telling them about the need for value-for-money analysis. Isn’t it interesting? Those are the words that we were speaking in this House. We were saying: “What’s the need for this? Where’s the plan? What’s the value-for-money analysis?”

Oh, it gets even more interesting. I just have to take a walk down memory lane here at what some of the Liberal Party were saying about me. Oh, they were saying that…. Isn’t it scary?

There was a fellow then whose name rhymed with Colin Hansen. I think I can talk about him now. He’s no longer in the Legislature. He had a lot to say about me, and he was quite insulting at the time. Quite insulting. But it’s interesting that those words will come back today, and they’re his words. They’re not my words. It’s what he had to say about the member for Cowichan Valley.

He said: “This $2.6 million — we’ve heard arguments saying it could be spent elsewhere.” He said he “found it interesting to listen to the debate from the member for Cowichan Valley when he was talking about how nobody could give him a definition of value for money.”

I just spoke about that. I just referred you back to that. So think about this. Couldn’t hear a definition.

“I found that one of the strangest arguments that has been made in this chamber for a very long time.”

This quote continues:

“I can tell you one of the things I feel some anxiety about, when we sort of start to look forward to the next provincial election” and the ballot box. “I have a sense that they have a choice between two political parties…. They have a choice of the B.C. Liberal Party, which actually has a good understanding as to what value for money means.”

Oh, do they? Do they really?

Deputy Speaker: Member, on Bill 36, please.

B. Routley: On this amendment. Thank you, hon. Speaker, for that reminder. I’m sure we’re going to get along fine. I’m going to be very careful to listen to your reprimands and the need to focus on this amendment. That’s exactly what I’m doing today — talking to this amendment. This bill and this amendment that’s part of this bill.

They said they had a choice of the B.C. Liberal Party and that they were actually going to look at — listen to this — new ways to find efficiencies. How did that work out? Well, we have the benefit of looking in the rearview mirror now, don’t we? Don’t we have the benefit of looking in the rearview mirror?

What I see is…. Never mind the $2.6 million they were talking about. They blew $5.2 million for one audit. Then somebody woke up and said: “Oh me, oh my. This isn’t working out for us. We’re going to have to fire the person in charge.”

Oh, really? So you had no plan for value for money back in 2013. Nobody could get up and articulate what it meant. In fact, listen to this former Liberal Finance Minister. This gets even better.

“It’s not always about doing the same old things that have always been done and then there’s a shortfall and you just throw more money at the problem. What we have done on this side of the House, as government, is we’re actually saying we’re going to look for efficiencies. We’re going to take the advice from outside, whether it’s from the Auditor General or from others who can guide us on how we can actually find more cost-saving ways of delivering services that the taxpayers expect from their provincial government.”

My, my. These are the words of the government about this piece of legislation that we’re talking about right here, and they’re now talking about amending it, this bill.

I really love this one. This is the magic wand, okay? This was the minister at the time. This is when he went for the throat of the member for Cowichan Valley.

[1625]

He said: “If I could wave a magic wand, this would be it. I would produce 4.5 million copies of Hansard of the member for Cowichan Valley explaining how he didn’t understand what value for money meant.” Oh, really? “I would wave that magic wand, and I would have one copy of the transcript delivered to every single British Columbian so that they could read that.”

Boy, do I wish his magic wand was working for him that day. That would have been wonderful, because then every British Columbian could be reminded who was right and who was wrong about predicting and talking about value for money.

I remember, when I was a pension trustee, somebody was trying to explain some of these complicated terms like “derivatives.” I remember sitting down with this guy dressed in a three-piece suit. He had what looked like a shotgun blast on a page. He was telling me how derivatives work and how it was all going to work out best for
[ Page 9256 ]
us if we would just follow his plan. Fortunately, we didn’t, because if we had, we would have lost millions of dollars in the pension plan, listening to his bizarre explanation of derivatives.

Now, here’s old Bill in the Legislature. I admit I’m not some Rhodes Scholar or anything like that, but I do have a thoughtful mind. I was thinking about when they say value for money and they stand up, member after member, and talk about how they’re going to get value for money, there ought to be something behind those words. Somebody should stand up in this House and say what exactly this means, which is what I was trying to do.

Could you explain to me value for money? Oh, I was such an idiot that I was chastised by the former Minister of Finance. Oh, what was this member from Cowichan thinking? “I want to send copies out to the whole world” so the whole world — with his magic wand — could hear the member talk about value for money.

Well, who gets the last laugh at the end of the day? We all know that this is disgraceful, that the government has, at the end of the day, had to fire the person that they hired to talk about value for money for getting absolutely zip — nothing, zero, nada. Talk about a turkey shoot. Oh my goodness.

In finishing up, he said: “I think the voters of British Columbia have to ask themselves” — yes, they do, hon. Speaker — “which party can best deliver on the responsibility for taxpayer dollars.”

My, oh my — responsibility for taxpayer dollars we’re going to talk about now, best value for their taxpayer dollars that they have in British Columbia. Oh boy. “Very, very fearful,” he finished up: “the member for Cowichan Valley.”

You know, it’s great. It’s all very interesting. I want to say, because he’s not here to defend himself, that he did a lot of good things in this Legislature as well. I don’t want to in any way say that everything that he did…. He was here, like every other MLA, fighting for British Columbians. But just like myself, who has made mistakes and admitted my mistakes in the Legislature….

By the way, I’ve heard that other MLAs in this House wanted to talk about the member for Cowichan Valley. I’m not here talking about their drinking-and-driving record or anything like that. I didn’t point out names, name people’s ridings and show a heart of unforgiveness. I’ve forgiven. I’ve been forgiven by the chamber. In fact, I had the chamber in my office the other day. A wonderful meeting we had. I just want the record clear on that as well.

Hey, we all can make mistakes. But we also need to be held accountable, at the end of the day. So what’s turnabout comes for fair play, I figure. I’ve had to eat my share of humble pie and poke the last few feathers down, okay? It’s just the last few feathers that are hard getting down.

[1630]

At the end of the day, the reality is that this government promised good fiscal planning. They promised that we were going to get value for money, and at the end of the day, there hasn’t been value for money for British Columbians.

This has been a colossal hole to throw money into, a total waste. Really. If any one of us had had a program like this, we would have scrunched it up and thrown it away, and that’s what the NDP believes ought to be happening here.

The government should stand up for their convictions. When they know that something has failed as colossally as this has failed, they should just roll it up in a ball and throw it in the garbage can, because they know, at the end of the day, that the nonsense that they were talking about was because the Premier of British Columbia had promised some kind of political commitments in a back room. It was nothing about…. It was fulfilling the needs of some political promises to business organizations. It wasn’t about consultation with communities. It wasn’t about consultation. There was no transparency. There was certainly no value for money.

Talk about cleaning up our own house when we talk about value for money. We could stray…. I know I won’t be straying too much. I’m talking about this bill and the concept and how important these concepts have to be, of getting value for money. When they say these things, it has to mean something.

Then you find out that when we had all these run-of-river projects…. Do you know that we’re dumping water over the spillway, and we’re paying more for the electricity generated by water by these run-of-river projects than we can produce it for ourselves? Now, that’s not good value for money. The government should get a report card on that, and it would be a fail. They would not be given good value for their money to British Columbians.

There was no closer examination. There was a grab-bag of Liberal Premier promises, and it all comes down to, at the end of the day, that we can do better in British Columbia. We can do a lot better than to have a government that chastises the official opposition when we try to shed some light into the discussion, when we say: “Well, wait a minute. What does this really mean? What does this mean when you say ‘value for money’?”

Then they get up and they insult you without any explanation, no explanation. I’m still not any better off than I was then. Nobody from the other side has yet explained what value for money exactly means. You know why? Because it’s one of those weird concepts, just like a shotgun sheet with a blast on it for explaining derivatives. It doesn’t make any sense, and they know it.

You have to look at where we’re going in the province of British Columbia when you look at getting performance audits. Again, you talk to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The majority of them have now voted, and this government no longer even acknowledges democracy. The majority of the Union of B.C. Municipalities voted to reject this. It was an HST-like vote. And oh,
[ Page 9257 ]
when it came to the HST, there again, no consultation. That got voted out. Now we had the Union of B.C. Municipalities vote out, saying: “Let’s get rid of it. Let’s just throw it away.” Again, the government says: “No. We’re on the high horse right now. Were going to ram it to you, and we are bringing in legislation to amend the bill.”

They should be scrapping it. They know they should be scrapping it. The Union of B.C. Municipalities has asked that they scrap the bill, and unfortunately, it just hasn’t happened.

Back in 2011, the government first committed that the AGLG would not make or overrule policy decisions of elected officials. That was their promise. So they had gone on this boondoggle, promising to create this program, and then at the end of the day, when they realized that even they couldn’t figure out what value for money really meant, they were going to introduce it anyway.

[1635]

I just want to wrap up my point of view on this in saying that the right thing to do, from my point of view, is to not try to amend this. They should just get rid of the legislation. That’s what the good people of the Cowichan Valley, I’m sure, would want.

The good people of the Cowichan Valley know that if the Union of B.C. Municipalities, in a democratic vote — the majority of them — said, “We don’t want this,” that we should be listening. This higher authority in the Legislature should not just turn their back on the Union of B.C. Municipalities, especially when you hear them more recently at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I heard a lot of the ministers over there promise consultation, collaboration. “We’re going to work together.” All of those words were said, but what does it really mean if, at the end of the day, they vote, they tell you exactly how they feel, and they’re totally ignored?

It’s unacceptable. Today I hope that the government will listen, but I’m not optimistic, once again.

D. Barnett: It is my pleasure to add my voice today to Bill 36, the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act.

I take a great deal of interest in this issue because of my long experience in local government. Like many of my colleagues in this House, I served on municipal councils for years. My experience includes two stints as mayor of 100 Mile House, from 1986 to 1990 and again from 1996 to 2008. I was also a director with the Cariboo regional district for seven years, so I feel well qualified to speak to this bill.

Many of my colleagues throughout the province of British Columbia who are still mayors and regional district directors do support this bill, regardless of what the opposition says. We always, as local governments, look for help from other agencies of government that could help us be more strategic, be more efficient and help us in our way.

Many times local governments are elected that have had no experience at local governance before. They look for this type of assistance. And I do know what value for money means, and I do know that this is a good bill.

Our government is committed….

Interjection.

D. Barnett: My colleague across the way really doesn’t understand what value for money is. On this side of the House, we have a balanced budget. Our mandate is jobs. So we do know what value for money does mean.

Our government is committed to staying the course with the AGLG, and the office is already on a stronger footing. We believe the work of the AGLG will result in opportunities for local governments to learn, to improve their operations and to demonstrate accountability to the one taxpayer that we all serve.

The amendments will strengthen the relationship between the Auditor General for Local Government, the audit council, the minister, government and local governments by clearly defining roles and responsibilities and enhancing the accountability framework. The authorities of the minister and audit council to review the performance of the office and the AGLG and hold the AGLG to account will be strengthened.

These amendments mean that the audit council will have a clear authority to review the AGLG’s performance and delivery. The audit council will be able to ask the AGLG for information it feels is needed to carry out its responsibilities and will now be able to provide a report to the minister at any time. As well, the amendments align with the recommendations from the audit council’s independent review of the AGLG in April 2015.

The proposed amendments will make it clear that as a provincial appointee, the AGLG is accountable to government and to the audit council. While the AGLG will continue to have the independence to select and conduct the performance audit program, there will be a clear responsibility to deliver results and consequences for non-delivery.

[1640]

The authority of the minister and the audit council to review the performance of the office and the AGLG and hold the AGLG to account will be strengthened. The proposed amendments establish two clear streams of accountability. The audit council will have clear authority for reviewing and monitoring the performance of the AGLG as it relates to the AGLG’s purpose and mandate, conducting performance audits, including how the AGLG fulfils its mandate. The council will not have authority over human resource matters within the office.

Specifically, the amendments strengthen the role of the minister by enabling the minister to initiate a review of the office or AGLG at any time, in addition to the mandated review in 2017; enabling the minister to directly
[ Page 9258 ]
recommend suspension or removal of the AGLG without waiting for a recommendation from the audit council; ensuring that the minister has a role in the budget and estimates process for the AGLG.

The amendments strengthen the role of the audit council by providing the audit council with broad authority to request from the AGLG information necessary to carry out its responsibilities and to prepare a report to the minister at any time on any or all aspects of the AGLG’s performance within its purview, broadening and clarifying the audit council’s authority to review and monitor the AGLG’s performance.

This includes the ability to conduct a review of the auditor general’s performance, including as it relates to fulfilling the mandate of the office and managing the operations of the office, including a review undertaken by a contractor; clarifying that the audit council can recommend the suspension or removal of the AGLG without being invited to do so by the minister.

The Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development has had discussions with members of the UBCM executive and indicated that government is committed to staying the course with the AGLG and believes the office is already on a stronger footing. The views expressed in UBCM’s report and survey of audited local government helped inform the future direction for the office of the AGLG.

In addition, the proposed amendments provide that UBCM must be consulted in regards to the themes for performance audits conducted by the AGLG.

B. Ralston: Well, we’re going to visit this office once again. I think it’s important to remember how this came about. The Premier, then out of office, was proposing to run for the leadership of the B.C. Liberal Party. Generally, in order to be a candidate, you have to have some kind of a platform — something. You have to be able to say something if you’re running for the leadership of a major political party.

I know that Brian Bonney used to work at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. One of the ideas that was given to her was this idea that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had about an auditor for local government. That idea was seized upon and made its way into the Premier’s platform — I guess, if you want to call that disparate connection of a few distorted ideas a platform — and that’s what she went forward with. When she won the leadership, this idea then was…. The public servants were obliged to transform this into legislation.

It is interesting to reflect on what the CFIB wanted the office to look at. There were two things. They wanted the office to look at collective agreements — that is, those agreements bargained between unions representing municipal employees and their respective municipalities. They also wanted the office to look at levels of taxation. Yet in the legislation, those two ideas, those two concerns of the CFIB — and this was by express statement of the then minister, Ida Chong — were not part of the legislation.

[1645]

The genesis of the bill found no place in the actual legislation that came forward. But one of the leitmotifs, the themes, that we heard repeatedly in the debate — and my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, the critic from Coquitlam-Maillardville and other colleagues have stressed this — was independence. This is, I think, a very common and accepted principle in the world of audit — that in order to have an effective audit, you had to be independent.

Performance audit is a bit different from financial audit, and I can claim a little knowledge in this area, having chaired the Public Accounts Committee for a few years. Performance audit is a bit different from financial audit in that it looks at programs. It doesn’t criticize policy, but it looks at the efficiency, the economy and the results of a given policy and the way that it’s implemented. Performance audit, indeed, does have some value to offer to governments who are running or operating a program, and typically, suggestions come forward and flow from those audits.

But the very value of a performance audit resides in its independence. In other words, the auditor is not directed in advance to a specific target, and the auditor is not directed to come up with a certain result or to audit a certain aspect of municipal governments. Rightly so, in the generally accepted theory of performance audit. Indeed, some of the speakers back when this legislation was first before the House stressed that theme.

The then minister, Ida Chong, stressed that. I’m quoting from her. This is Tuesday, March 27, 2012. “We also indicated that this reporting structure — that is, the audit council…. The reporting structure for any auditor general aims to satisfy both independence and accountability, and that’s what this audit council is designed to do…. For that reason we have set up a structure that I believe meets the test of independence.”

So she was scrupulous in her concern that the office be independent, for all of those reasons that are required in order to have an effective, incredible audit. This theme was echoed by the member for Kootenay East, and he’s often not a fan of independence, particularly if it’s something that he’s running.

This would be something that he said on February 14, 2012. “Secondly, this will be a separate, independent office that doesn’t report to the Legislature.”

In some of the debate, the then minister and the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has offered these quotes, but I think they’re worthy of repetition. The minister has now moved on to another assignment. The minister of the day when this whole issue blew up, back in the spring, said — and I presume that these talking points were
[ Page 9259 ]
agreed by all and sundry on the other side: “The AGLG, as I said in the previous, is a functionally independent office with a high degree of autonomy.”

March 9, 2015: “It’s a good opportunity to remind the member opposite again that, as we know, for any auditor to be effective, it needs to be independent from politicians. In this case, it is here as well.”

Repeated in another answer, I suppose in question period: “Again, any auditor, to be effective, needs to be independent from politicians, as is the case here.” I think the repetition was because the same talking point was being repeated. I think it makes my point that this was being stressed by the minister.

Again, the same day: “Thank you for the question. Again, the Auditor General for Local Government is functionally an independent office with a high degree of autonomy.” The following day: “It’s an independent office. The report by the audit council was put on file in February.”

[1650]

Understanding the nature of performance audit, the original minister who introduced the legislation, one of the speakers, the member for Kootenay East and the then minister as recently as this spring all stressed independence as being essential.

Now some of the speakers here on the Liberal side have…. Many of them, I think, in fairness, weren’t here prior to 2013, although the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin was. But most of the ones that have spoken — the member for Chilliwack and the member for Penticton — were members who were elected in 2013. So they didn’t perhaps have the benefit of the debate and perhaps weren’t as familiar with the commitment made by the Premier back in 2011. I’ll perhaps be willing to concede that. So they perhaps don’t have some of the background.

In the spring, in defending the legislation, the minister was very quick, as I’ve said, to point out that the independence was required. But when one looks at what’s being done here in these amendments, it’s going in the very opposite direction of independence — the very opposite direction.

The auditor general will be hired in accordance with the Public Service Act, much as one would hire a deputy minister. The Auditor General for Local Government can be removed with or without cause by the minister or even separately by the audit council. The auditor general will be required to adhere to audit standards that may be promulgated by the audit council, rather than rely on the independence and the judgment of the person being hired. In section 18 — the minister “may, at any time, review one or both of the act and the functioning of the office of the auditor general.”

Essentially, what is being created is another branch of the ministry, a little bit similar to the inspector-general of municipalities, which is a function that has been absorbed into the office of the deputy minister but maintains a supervisory role over municipalities. So any fiction or pretence that this person is independent is just not supported in the legislation whatsoever. Now, the members opposite can say this in debate, but that doesn’t make it so. Essentially, what you have is a government department, or a branch of the government department, which will focus on auditing certain municipalities.

Given that lack of independence, given that direction by the deputy minister, certain concerns understandably arise. How will these audits be directed? Will there be topics selected? Apparently the audit council will suggest topics and require the auditor general to listen to their comments on any proposed final audit report. That’s section 13. It provides “that the auditor general must consider any comments provided by the audit council in respect of a proposed final audit report.” So in other words, in the audit, order-in-council appointees, political appointees of the government, will have the power to comment and, one presumes, to direct changes to the report proposed by an auditor general.

Is this going to become a political instrument of the minister or the ministry to look at municipalities that are not in favour with the government? We know, and I’m sure we can all think of, a few that apparently court disfavour with the government by running their municipality in a different way than the minister or the government might prefer or taking a stance on certain issues that differ with those of the government.

So independence is no longer the reality. The reality is that this a senior public servant employed at beck and call, essentially.

[1655]

Clearly, one of the measures…. There are court cases that talk about standards of independence for judicial officials, but where you can be dismissed without cause, there’s no legal or judicial independence whatsoever. That’s well documented in many cases about, for example, justices of the peace and the way in which they might be compensated, and would that make them independent or not?

Since there is no independence, one wonders what this office will now be directed to. The idea that somehow it’s already strengthened…. I think that was the quotation in the talking points from a couple of the members — that by these amendments, the office has already been strengthened. It’s like having a broken leg. When you put a cast on it, well, I suppose it’s strengthened, but it doesn’t really deal with the issue.

I think this idea is simply more money in pursuit of a bad idea. The words that my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke cited from Young Anderson…. Young Anderson, for those who don’t know, is a major law firm in the Lower Mainland focusing almost entirely on municipal law, one of the leading sources of opinions on municipal law in the province. What they said, back when this office was created, is that it is “a largely redundant
[ Page 9260 ]
office to examine expenditures that are already under the discipline of pay-as-you-go financing and may be a purely symbolic provincial gesture.” A purely symbolic provincial gesture.

Granted, sometimes in politics you need to do symbolic gestures, but do you need to pay $7 million to do them? I would really question that. As the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has suggested — himself a former mayor — there are other ways that municipalities could be assisted in strengthening their operations. Whether it’s staff development, whether it’s the occasional secondment of officials, whether it’s the money to bring in, on an occasional basis, someone to further train staff to do internal audits within the municipalities, there are a number of programs that could be developed at a far-reduced cost in a cooperative way between the ministry, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and individual municipalities.

I think that would all be welcome. But instead, the simple fact is that the Premier is unwilling to admit that her idea was a bad one. It has wasted a lot of money, and it should be given a graceful exit from the legislative stage. Instead, it’s being changed, completely transmogrified into something that was never intended and is contrary to all the assurances given by all the ministers who touched this file up till now that it was going to be independent. And really, for what purpose other than to support and maintain the vanity of the Premier?

This is a vanity project to satisfy a commitment that the Premier rather thoughtlessly made to the CFIB back in 2011, and unfortunately, she’s not willing to admit that she’s wrong. So here we are proposing to spend more money, inducing many of the members here to…. I understand how it works, and I understand why these speeches are being made, but there’s no heart or soul in them. None of these members actually, I think, really believe what they’re saying. They know they have to say this because that’s the position that’s been taken on this bill.

I’m speaking against the bill, if that wasn’t clear already. The sooner this bill is defeated and that money that’s going to be wasted on this is put to some other use…. There are a number of alternatives, and if the committee system was more active here, we might be able to provide those issues. Or talk to our spokesperson for municipal affairs, who’d be happy to give ideas, if they’re desired. But I know that they’re not. There’s a closed mind over there on this issue for the reasons that I’ve said.

Clearly, this bill is one that deserves to be given a graceful death as soon as possible.

[1700]

L. Reimer: It’s an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of my constituents of Anmore, Belcarra, Port Moody and Coquitlam — and also as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development — to support this bill.

As a part of our ongoing efforts to make government more accountable and transparent, our government has been moving forward ever since the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government was launched in 2013. Contrary to the opinions on the other side of the House, this was a bold and innovative initiative. It represents our commitment to the people of British Columbia to demonstrate accountability to the one taxpayer that we all serve.

As with any innovation, there will be a period of adjustment. With the benefit of experience, Bill 36, the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, represents our efforts to apply what we have learned over the past two years since setting up the office of the AGLG. Bill 36 succeeds in clarifying specific roles and responsibilities and will allow the AGLG to operate more efficiently.

The amendments contained in this legislation will strengthen the relationship between the AGLG, the audit council, the minister, our government and local governments by enhancing the accountability framework.

Prior to being elected to this House, many of us served in local government, and I’m no exception. Before I became the MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam, I served two terms on Coquitlam city council. It was a tremendous opportunity to learn about the inner workings of local government and how it affects daily life for everyone. It served as a reminder that each of us depends on a long list of things that local governments provide on a daily basis: for example, a healthy, safe and reliable water supply; fire protection services; police services; recycling; waste management; parks; recreational facilities; community centres — just to name a few. The list goes on and on.

With such a wide list of responsibilities, doesn’t it make sense to have the same standard of accountability for local governments right across the entire province? Should not taxpayers in Prince Rupert have the same rights as those in New Westminster? Well, I can assure you that taxpayers in Coquitlam expect a high standard. That’s why I support this legislation.

Bill 36 will make it clear that as a provincial appointee, the AGLG will be accountable to government and to the audit council. But I should specify here that the AGLG will continue to have the independence to select and conduct the performance audit program, and that’s a very important point. But there will be a clear responsibility to deliver results.

Bill 36 will ensure that the minister and audit council will be able to review the performance of the office and hold the AGLG to account. Furthermore, the audit council will be able to ask the AGLG for information it feels is needed to carry out its responsibilities. In addition, it will now be able to provide a report to the minister at any time. To be clear, all of these amendments align with the recommendations from the audit council’s independent
[ Page 9261 ]
review of the AGLG that was conducted in April of 2015.

In effect, the proposed amendments will make it clear that as a provincial appointee, the AGLG is accountable to government and to the audit council. While the AGLG will continue to have the independence to select and conduct the performance audit program, as I just mentioned, there will be a clear responsibility to deliver good results. More importantly, there will also be consequences for non-delivery.

The proposed amendments also establish two clear streams of accountability. The audit council will have clear authority for reviewing and monitoring the performance of the AGLG, including how the AGLG fulfils its mandate. In addition, the council will not have authority over human resource matters within the Office of the AGLG.

The role of the minister will be clarified and strengthened also. This will include: enabling the minister to initiate a review of the office or the AGLG at any time — that’s in addition to the mandated review in 2017; enabling the minister to directly recommend suspension or removal of the AGLG without waiting for a recommendation from the audit council; and ensuring that the minister has a role in the budget and estimates process for the AGLG.

[1705]

With respect to the role of the audit council, the following amendments contained in this legislation will provide the audit council with broad authority to request from the AGLG information necessary to carry out its responsibilities and to prepare a report to the minister at any time on any or all aspects of the AGLG’s performance, broadening and clarifying the audit council’s authority to review and monitor the AGLG’s performance. Furthermore, it will clarify that the audit council can recommend the suspension or removal of the AGLG without being invited to do so by the minister.

Finally, Bill 36 will clarify the terms and conditions of employment for the AGLG by appointing the AGLG under the Public Service Act. This allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to set the terms and conditions of employment. This could also include the establishment of holdback measures, such as allowing for removal with or without cause, applying the employment termination standards regulation and providing certainty regarding severance in the event of a termination without cause. However, the AGLG will retain the sole discretion to select the performance audits to be undertaken, as I have said several times before.

As you can see, hon. Speaker, all of these amendments align with the recommendations from the audit council’s independent review of the AGLG in April 2015. I’m therefore satisfied that all of these considerations will fulfil the proper role and performance of the AGLG moving forward. We will have the same standard for every local government all across the province. Local ratepayers can be satisfied that there will be oversight and that they will receive fair value for their hard-earned tax dollars.

Ultimately, people depend on all the services and facilities that local government provide. So on behalf of my constituents of Anmore, Belcarra, Port Moody and Coquitlam, I will therefore be voting in favour of the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Now I recognize the member for Nanaimo.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and might I extend to you formally in this chamber my congratulations on your recent appointment. You bring, I trust, honour to the chair, and you will enjoy that particular office, I’m sure.

I’m going to try and keep in mind, as I say a few words here today, a wise saying passed on to me by a constituent in reference to something she’d heard. That was that you should keep your words soft and sweet, because you never know when you’ll have to eat them. That might, in fact, be the theme of the government here today when one looks back over the debate.

I want to pay tribute to the members on the opposition side who have spoken today. We have had a wonderful array of approaches in the commentary on this bill. My friend and colleague the member for Cowichan Valley, I think, enjoyed that most delicious of all things today, and that is revenge — revenge that is a dish best eaten cold. It’s only too bad that Colin Hansen wasn’t here to hear it, but that’s for another thing. We had the intelligent and thoughtful remarks of the member for Surrey-Whalley, who always brings an incredible intellectual capacity to the debates in this House.

We have also had the comments of the Liberal members. Now, I want to express to each and every one of them who had an opportunity to speak, and those that might continue to speak afterwards, the incredible sympathy and compassion and empathy I feel for them as they stand up today and defend this bill. I was doing that myself back in 1991 to ’96, when the government would bring in legislation that wasn’t always perfect.

Your job as a backbencher was to get up and hopefully say something scintillating enough that you might, to use the words of the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, slip down the rabbit hole — or up the rabbit hole; I’m never sure which, in Alice in Wonderland — into cabinet if you were able to vigorously defend a government’s bill, even when you thought in your heart of hearts, or in your mind, in any event, or knew or believed it wasn’t the best piece of legislation.

Here we are today in that exact circumstance, which is why I express my sympathy for the members opposite. You don’t have to be from Arkansas, and you don’t have to be Bill Clinton, to recognize when you’ve got a whole government engaged in that wonderful activity that Bill Clinton so eloquently described as trying to put lipstick on a pig.

[1710]

If you have ever seen people trying to twist and turn and defend the indefensible, we have seen it today. The member for Chilliwack, I thought, was particularly good in his remarks.

We’ve had the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam talking eloquently about one taxpayer we all serve, as if the only people who counted in the province were the taxpayers. I might remind her, as I might remind other members, that there are many actual seniors in our province who don’t pay any tax because they’re so poor. I suppose that the government is saying that no one really speaks for them and they don’t count. Or there’s perhaps young struggling families who don’t have to pay any income tax or tax either, and I suppose they’re not being served by this government.

If it was all about money and if it was all about the use of government revenue which comes from our taxation system, boy, oh boy, the member for Cowichan Valley hit it on the head. That was a nail, a spike he drove right home, when he talked about value for money. In fairness to the member, when I was prepping a couple of notes for this discussion this afternoon, I wrote down “value for money,” because that’s one of the things I understand an audit is all about. I remembered that line from the debates previously.

The member for Cowichan Valley was most eloquent in driving home that understanding value for money might in fact be an important thing. But what exactly have we received for our $5.2 million to date? What exactly has been achieved by that magnificent expenditure of cash from the government coffers, all collected from the good people of British Columbia and those happy tourists who drop cash in the tills of various businesses around our province?

What we are trying to do is to fix a bit of a mess. I’m going to try and remember my words: keep your words soft and sweet; you never know when you’ll have to eat them. It flows out of the Premier’s remarkable desire from time to time to say things and then force the government to carry it through, regardless of how ridiculous or silly or implausible it may be, or how it is the absolute antithesis of good public policy. Now, we all remember the yoga on the bridge. Now, there was a bright idea — yoga on the bridge. Well, that was just a marvellous concept, and that one disappeared.

Now, I understand that we have come out of a leadership process some time back where the Premier became the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, and she had made this campaign commitment. So in a burst of enthusiasm, supposedly all designed to save the good people of British Columbia, particularly municipal taxpayers money — I’m going to use the language of the government here — we would appoint an Auditor General for Local Government.

An Auditor General for Local Government — well, hasn’t it worked out brilliantly? So far, we’ve achieved one audit. Gosh knows what we’re going to actually receive in terms of….

Interjections.

L. Krog: Two audits? Six. The members correct me. I’m glad they’re listening to the debate. Six audits for $5.2 million, not including legal costs to date. Now, as still a member of the bar, a very part-time member of the bar, I’m always thrilled to see this government’s desire, ability and enthusiasm to spend money on lawyers and legal fees and lawsuits.

Here we are involved in this lovely little problem of the dismissal of the auditor general, tying up more taxpayers’ money — to use the language of the government again — all of that lovely money just being frittered away fighting a problem that, again, all flowed out of the Premier. But that’s the wonderful thing about being Premier. When you’re Premier, you can command a caucus, if you’re good at it, and dangle the carrot of cabinet posts, but ultimately, somebody has to clean up the mess.

You know that I’m very fond of quotation. Just to let the House know that I’m not oblivious to this, my son once quite cleverly, becoming a bit tired of listening to his father, said over dinner one night in Vancouver: “You know what, Dad? You know what Oscar Wilde said?” I said: “No, son, what did he say?” “Oscar Wilde once said: ‘Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit.’” I thought: “What a clever lad, what a clever lad. Put down the old man very successfully.”

[1715]

When I was thinking about this debate today, I was trying to remember some lines from The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Thanks to the library, who actually have a copy, I was able to go and look and find the words that sprang to my mind when I was thinking about the mess that we’re all engaged in cleaning up here in this chamber by trying to fix the bill and fix the office of the Auditor General for Local Government. That’s really what we’re doing. We’re cleaning up the Premier’s and the government’s mess.

There are these wonderful words. For the members who wish to go and read them, they can see them themselves. The narrator says on page 179: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy. They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together and let other people clean up the mess they had made.” If ever words were appropriate, that is appropriate here today. We’re all engaged in cleaning up the mess that this government has made.

I’m embarrassed almost to have to quote back the words that were repeated so frequently by the minister then responsible around this bill. “The AGLG, as I said in the previous, is a functionally independent office with a high degree of autonomy.” That was March 3. March 9:
[ Page 9263 ]
“It’s a good opportunity to remind the member opposite again that, as we know, for any auditor to be effective, it needs to be independent from politicians.” In this case, it is here as well. Again on March 9: “Again, the Auditor General for Local Government is functionally an independent office with a high degree of autonomy.”

My goodness, I can see the member remembering her dulcet tones, her wisdom cast like pearls before the swine of the B.C. Legislature, trying to enumerate the glories and honesty and integrity of the office. What do we have today? Well, we’ve got Bill 36, Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act.

Now, it’s pretty rare that you get to the meat of the bill so quickly, but I must say the legislative drafters in this case have been particularly skillful. Section 2 says: “Section 2 is amended by adding the following subsection: (1.1) An appointment under subsection (1) must be made under section 15 (1) (b) of the Public Service Act.”

Now, it’s always good to look at the Public Service Act. So let’s go to section 15 (1) of the Public Service Act, because that’s how this person is going to be appointed.

“(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint persons the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers (a) will be acting in a confidential capacity to the Lieutenant Governor, Executive Council or a member of the Executive Council, or (b) will be appointed to a position that requires special professional, technical or administrative qualifications.

“(2) A person referred to in subsection (1) (a) or (b) may be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on terms and conditions, including remuneration, authorized by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or set out in the regulations.”

For the uninitiated who may be listening at home or the government members who haven’t paid any attention to this or who have stood up and waxed eloquently, reading their prepared scripts that the Premier’s propaganda bureau has managed to put together as quickly as usual, you know what that means? That means the independent auditor general, spoken of so eloquently by the former minister, who reminded us about his independence — or her independence, as it turned out to be….

What that means is they serve at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. What that means in simple language is that they can be fired at any time. Any time, they can be dismissed. Imagine an officeholder that can be dismissed at any time willing to take on local governments, or anyone for that matter, when they face immediate dismissal by cabinet, because that’s what the Lieutenant Governor in Council is. For those who are listening at home, it’s cabinet.

What is cabinet? Cabinet is that little body of folks that the Premier heads, where she gets to pick the membership, and if she doesn’t want you in the cabinet, out you go.

[1720]

That’s how our system works — nothing wrong with that. But to suggest for a moment that someone who was appointed under the Public Service Act who acts in a confidential capacity to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that’s what the act says — is somehow going to perform to the standard that you would like is, I suggest, on the face of it, possible and, indeed, I would hope, if a really good person is chosen, even likely.

But the appearance and the substance of that independence is absolutely absent — absolutely absent from this process. And this is the bill that’s supposed to correct the mess they made.

We go on to section 4. It says section 6 of the Auditor General for Local Government Act “is amended (a) in subsection (1) by striking out ‘for cause or because of incapacity’ and substituting ‘with or without cause.’”

What does that really mean? Well, section 6, under the subheading “Suspension, removal or resignation of auditor general,” now says: “6 (1) On the recommendation of the minister, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, for cause or because of incapacity, order that the auditor general be suspended with or without remuneration or be removed. (2) Before making the recommendation referred to in subsection (1), the minister must consider the recommendation of the audit council under section 19 (1) (c). (3) The auditor general may resign by giving written notice to the minister.”

Now, it’s just subsection (1) that has changed. And you go further down, and section 4(c) talks about “striking out ‘the recommendation of the audit council’ and substituting ‘a recommendation, if any, of the audit council.’” So what does that mean?

Well, I’ll tell you what it means. It means that you can be doing a perfectly good job, and you can still get fired. Now, about the only positions I know of in this province where you can still get fired, theoretically, and you’ve done a really good job is when you’re an elected politician. People do that all the time.

I see some of the members over there sagely nodding, understanding how the process works. But we accept that in a democratic country. Where we don’t accept it is when you are, ultimately, what this position is all about: a public servant. So what this really means is that you can be candid any time, and we don’t even really have to worry about the audit council, particularly.

The audit council — there’s an interesting body. That’s supposed to have so much control, authority and power to deal with this matter. Section 18 of the existing act talks about the audit council: “The audit council consists of the members appointed under subsection (2).”

Subsection (2) reads: “On the recommendation of the minister, the Lieutenant Governor in Council” — cabinet — “may appoint no fewer than 5 persons to be members of the audit council and must designate one of the members as chair of the council.”

In fairness, I want to go on. It does say, in sub (5): “In order for a person to be appointed as a member of the audit council, the person must have knowledge, skills, education or experience in one or more of the following areas: (a) accounting; (b) auditing; (c) governance
[ Page 9264 ]
of the Province” — read, political appointment; “(d) local and regional governance; (e) a subject area set out in the regulations.”

It then even goes on to talk about how you must consult with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Oh my goodness. Isn’t that an interesting concept? They didn’t bother to consult with the Union of B.C. Municipalities about this amending act, but it does require that they do consult about the appointment of the audit council.

Let’s get this kind of straight. We’ve got this sort of supervisory body called the audit council, which is appointed by the cabinet. And we’ve got this person now who’s likewise going to be appointed by the cabinet. So in essence, everybody in this whole process is dependent on the cabinet. It’s like one of those fascinating little Russian eggs you can get, or a doll, where you keep opening it up and the doll gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

[1725]

And then you end up with this tiny little beautifully carved figure. It’s a magnificent thing. It’s a wonderful piece of art. I’m always impressed. I actually have a couple at home. But at the essence of it, at the centre of all of this, there is no independence. There’s no independence in any aspect of this. And it’s not going to be made independent just because the government members stand up and claim that it is so and talk about the value of the audit council. Everybody here in this process that I’ve talked about today, described in statute, described in the act itself and the bill before the House, is dependent on the cabinet. Everyone is dependent on the cabinet.

Now, it’s bad enough that nobody was begging for this. One of the other members talked about this. There was nobody pounding down doors or rapping on the office doors of mayors of this province and the various municipalities, saying: “We really need an auditor general.” And if it is an issue, why did we need to reinvent the wheel? We had a perfectly acceptable — indeed, credible — independent office already in the Auditor General of British Columbia.

Could the government, in its incredible wisdom, with all the intelligence arrayed over there…? I’m looking at one of those members now. I believe he was one of those brilliant scholars, with degrees beyond degrees. Surely, with that kind of intelligence on the government benches, somebody could have said, “Oh gosh, golly, gee. Heck, why don’t we just add some duties to the independent office, a person who’s already an independent officer of the B.C. Legislature” and won’t owe their allegiance to the cabinet but only to the chamber and the people of British Columbia in the truest and purest sense? But oh no, we couldn’t do that. We had to go ahead and create this fiasco that’s now involved us in a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.

Now, instead of improving and perhaps stepping back and saying, “Oh gosh, we’re sorry for wasting all of this money and time and using up the time of the Legislature to try and fix it….” Gosh, no. Instead of doing that, we’re now trying to make it even less transparent, less independent and, I would argue, less effective for the very levels of government that are elected by the people of this province.

You know, it’s like that old line about the Bourbon kings: they have forgotten nothing, and they have learned nothing.

You would have thought that this government, looking over this, knowing now, as we do, that just last week 55 percent of the elected representatives of local government in this province, in their collective wisdom, said, “This is a dumb idea. Just pull it….” You would have thought this government would have taken advantage of that opportunity to announce during this session that they were going to abolish the office; that they would, in turn, perhaps do the sensible thing, which many have suggested as an alternative, and give statutory powers to the Auditor General; and get on with this, if this is such a pressing problem for British Columbians. But no, we couldn’t possibly do that.

Instead, we have to engage in this long process with a bill before this House that is essentially trying to fix something that never should have been created in the first place.

Now, I’m not going to suggest this is a Frankenstein, by any means, that isn’t meant to survive, but that’s pretty much what we’ve done here. We’ve created an office that hasn’t been effective, that hasn’t delivered on its promise and, indeed, has been nothing but an irritant to local government.

There are a multitude of ways that you can improve the efficiency of local government. Sometimes — and you don’t have to talk to too many politicians or city managers around the province to know what one of those is — you actually take the advice of the experts you already have. But as we all know, sometimes it’s pretty hard politically to make the tough decision, notwithstanding the city manager and staff have made a recommendation, so you make what I’ll call a political decision — which may or not be in the best interests of people, but that’s what you do.

So what’s the point of having an auditor general go back and tell folks that they probably made the wrong decision when they knew that they made the wrong decision? Because that’s their political right, because under our system, they’re the elected officials.

[1730]

All that aside, what we can conclude from this is, and what we know is clear from the legislation, is that the office now, which has been a political embarrassment, will not be more independent, will be less independent and, indeed, will not be independent at all — let’s be blunt about that — and it will not be transparent.

What the bill is proposing is that we now have basically a placeholder, appointed by cabinet, supervised by a group of other placeholders appointed by cabinet, and
[ Page 9265 ]
all for the purpose of trying to clean up the Premier’s political mess.

Now, there is a time in politics when you have an opportunity to acknowledge a mistake and move on. You know what? In this federal campaign, gosh knows, of the three leading parties….

Interjection.

L. Krog: I have no doubt the member is probably a member of that major political party that enjoys high office in Ottawa now.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We’ve seen candidates drop off because they’ve made mistakes and said things they shouldn’t have. That’s happened to every major party, but a most significant number from the Conservative Party, interestingly enough. There wasn’t enough background checking, etc., and you’re in the middle of a political campaign. You acknowledge your mistake. You shouldn’t appoint some idiot as your candidate or let them run. I get all that. But you do it quickly, and you move on.

This government, months into this mess now, instead of acknowledging that it’s been a mistake and a disaster, wants to exacerbate the damage they have done to themselves politically and rub in the faces of the people of British Columbia the loss and wasting of revenue. They want to do all that by introducing this bill to try and fix the unfixable, to defend the indefensible, to do something that no sensible British Columbian really believes is either necessary or effective. And when presented with alternatives that might have actually been effective, they refuse consistently to do so.

To paraphrase what the member for Surrey-Whalley said, if it isn’t obvious already, I won’t be voting in favour of this bill — just in case it’s not obvious. When you’re dealing with a government that is presented with an obvious fiasco that it can solve and turns around and tries to make it worse, not better, sometimes you feel compelled to actually make it perfectly clear to them where you stand, just in case they haven’t been listening or they don’t get it.

The good folks at the UBCM last week made it clear where they stand. It’s too bad the government has chosen once again not to listen to good advice — to the public servants who advise them, to the good elected officials of the UBCM, to all of those folks.

The opposition is doing and has done, I would argue having listened to the debate this afternoon, its best to try and give the government an opportunity to do the sensible thing. But you know what? If they insist on doing this, then we’re only left with the conclusion that they are so wilfully proud that they can never admit a mistake, that they will continue to make more mistakes and worse mistakes, because when you start making them, you just compound them.

We are truly today compounding a legislative mistake, a public policy error that doesn’t match the magnitude of some of the boondoggles this government is engaged in, but it’s a symbolic gesture to the people of British Columbia that is basically the big “we don’t care — we don’t care about you, and we don’t care about what you think.”

The Premier certainly doesn’t care about what people think. “We’re going to continue to push this through” regardless of how silly it may be, how much money it will waste, how — to come back to the point I wanted to make throughout this, if it hasn’t become clear — so utterly removed from value for money this process is, this office and the work it’s doing. It’s utterly removed from the concept of value for money.

[1735]

If there was ever an occasion where you weren’t getting value for money, this is a prime example. You know what? So $5 million, $7 million, $8 million, $10 million — who knows what it’ll end up costing just for the work that’s been done to date, plus the legal fees we’re spending now in the lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.

Add it all up in a $44 billion budget — maybe not a lot of money. But Bev Oda isn’t in cabinet anymore because of orange juice, arguably. The fact is people can understand this. The people of British Columbia get this. They can understand this. They see an office that serves no demonstrable purpose, that has spent a great deal of money with precious little for results, with a couple of municipalities saying: “Oh, it was helpful advice.”

If you’ve got $5 million plus, if you’ve got $7 million plus, if you’ve got $10 million plus, there’s a lot of good you could be doing for the people of British Columbia, for local government. This isn’t the way to do it.

This government has its opportunity. We’re here for a few more days, I understand, so I invite the minister and I invite the cabinet…. It has so much more power now, as a result of this legislation — so much more power. I invite them to take advantage of the opportunity to say: “Oops. Maybe this isn’t the best thing. Maybe we’ll pull it back.” After all, they pulled the motion picture bill for three years.

Surely, if they can do that for the motion picture bill, they can take a second look at this legislation and decide that, in fact, it isn’t good public policy. It’s not good for British Columbians, and the opposition quite rightly opposes this. Stop trying to fix the mess you made. Acknowledge the mess and get on with it.

R. Sultan: It’s always a pleasure to stand up and exchange compliments with one of the brighter stars of the benches opposite, who brings his wit and legal background to bear on issues regardless of the strength of the argument.
[ Page 9266 ]

Just so everybody understands where I’m coming from, I’m a great believer in local government — and, in fact, small local government. I’ve lived in various large cities in North America. Some of my best years were spent in Boston, which is in fact not one city but approximately 100.

I lived in a community called Weston, in the suburbs, which had its own mayor, its own police department, its own fire department and its own school system. Right next door was the city of Waltham, of approximately the same size. These fragmented small cities and towns were replicated in the entire arc of wonderful places to live, which in the whole constitute Boston. Any idea that this should be one great big city would be greeted with horror by the citizens of those individual cities and towns.

We’ve seen the consequence of senior governments which think they know better how local governments should operate. In Toronto, where we had the disaster a number of years ago where the provincial government…. It seems to be characterized by one misstep after the other ever since Mr. Rae was Premier, it seemed to me, in kind of an awkward peculiarity of timing for members opposite. They amalgamated all the various individual cities and towns in the attempt to obtain greater efficiency. They did not get greater efficiency. What they ended up with was Mayor Ford, and you can see what harm he did, both to the image of that city and, indeed, the whole country.

We have 300 municipalities in British Columbia, my adviser in matters municipal, the member for Surrey–White Rock, has told me. He’s so eager to hear my speech, I see he’s left. Approximately 300 municipalities — and of course, as the member for Nanaimo pointed out — gathered here last week at the Union of B.C. Municipalities conference. They ranged in size from Surrey — 500,000 people, soon to be the largest community in British Columbia — to the mayor, who I also met, of a community of 195 people in Silverton. She proudly proclaimed that she was just about the smallest municipality represented at UBCM.

[1740]

So 195 people up to more than 500,000. That’s the range of scale we see in municipalities across British Columbia.

I think it would be fair to concede, as the member for Nanaimo has suggested, that many of these people are less than thrilled with the idea that somehow a municipal auditor is roaming the aisles to see what, in fact, they are up to.

The arguments he has listed — and I’ll add a few of my own — are: “It costs money,” “It’s none of your business,” “We’re close to perfect already,” “We already have an auditor. Why do we need another one?” and “We’re held to account at election time.” These seem to be the principal arguments denying the merit of the legislation that we’re debating this afternoon.

However, I would argue the case for the auditor general on several dimensions. First of all, the idea that somehow this is dabbling in matters which are none of our affair. Again, my legal expert from Surrey–White Rock reminded me that both the federal and provincial governments are creatures of the Constitution of Canada but the municipalities are creatures of the province. The province, in fact, can and does legislate in all matters impacting municipalities, regardless of what the municipalities may think of it. And we frequently hear from members opposite what they think of it.

We have an obligation under the constitution to help ensure the good government of these entities, because they are tucked under our wing, as you might say, by the Constitution of Canada. In that regard, that subservient position has not always been greeted well.

The previous Premier of this province, I am told, attempted to have the municipalities — such as the city of Vancouver, of which he was mayor — included under the Canadian constitution so he could escape the fetters of the province. He failed in that constitutional reform, as he would have judged it. Perhaps without surprise, when he became Premier of British Columbia, his ideas seemed to change rather markedly, so no more was heard of that idea.

The precedent for having an auditor general, of course, is easy to find. Federally, we have an Auditor General. We even have a Budget Officer, who delights in pointing out the budgetary foibles of our federal government. We have our own Auditor General here in British Columbia.

I think we’ve had a series of clearly independent, not always praising, professionals who, in my eye, have done very good work. Sometimes I wondered who we should fear most, the Auditor General or the position of the critics opposite. They have been quite fearless in their assessment of how well we’re doing and how well we’re not doing. What should, therefore, be the case with the municipalities to somehow be left out of the triad of inspection?

To cite another example, the Americans have a budget office which produces very sophisticated analysis of where the entire federal government of the United States is headed, and other countries have the same. There’s a lot of precedent for elected governments to have independent offices keeping an eye on what they do with the good of the taxpayer in mind.

Aside from those precedents, we also have to concede, I think, there has been a culture change in the country — in the democracies, generally — where at one time perhaps politicians could say: “Vote for me, and I’ll go over there and do the very best for you. Don’t worry about it. You’re in good hands.” Nuh-uh. That is really not good enough anymore. We have to be transparent.

[1745]

Twitter keeps us held to account minute by minute. We have to have all of our dinner receipts scanned by the
[ Page 9267 ]
comptroller of the Legislature and put up on the Internet periodically — at great cost, I might say. In fact, I argued once with the Clerk of the House that this was costing so much more than the actual expenditures, we could save money for the taxpayer if we just stole the money and dispensed with the function. But my argument did not receive much of a welcome.

We live in a fishbowl, and I think we have to get used to it. In fact, I would say that, remarkably easily, we have gotten used to it. This is just normal business now. What we spend, down to the last nickel of taxpayer money, is there for anybody to examine, should they care to do so. I think that’s the way it should be.

So what is it we’re talking about in terms of function? I’ve had mayors tell me: “Look, we audit all the time, so what’s the problem here? We hire reputable chartered accountants. It isn’t as though the columns don’t add up at year-end.”

Well, the auditor general, of course, does check up on audits, the literal check upon the financial statements of governments, and that’s an important function. But it’s not really where I think the big payoff is, because that’s becoming almost routine. I think it would be astonishing that an auditor trained in Canada would sign off on a fraudulent set of books; although, it does happen from time to time in the business world. And perhaps, for all I know, it even happens in governments — very rarely, I would think.

No, the real action for the auditor general is the performance audit. This is where people get kind of twitchy, and I can understand why. It is really having some stranger come in and assess the so-called value for money the member for Nanaimo referred to a moment ago.

For example, on the North Shore, where I represent my constituents as best I can, the North Van district recently had a performance audit. I know, having a discussion with Mayor Richard Walton, my friend, some time ago, that he echoed many of the sentiments of the member for Nanaimo, saying: “What are you folks up to over there? I’m a chartered accountant.” And he is, and he’s a very good one.

We have what we like to think is perhaps the very best chief administrative officer in all of the land in Dave Stuart. And certainly, Dave Stuart is a very capable manager and administrator, and there’s no money wasted on his watch that I’m aware of. “Why are you folks doing this?”

Well, he had a performance audit the other day. Guess what. He got a glowing report card. I think Mayor Walton must be very pleased with what the Auditor General of British Columbia had to say about the North Vancouver district. He said it’s well managed and they keep track of their assets very, very precisely and in great detail. He gave them a big gold star.

So performance audits aren’t necessarily there to condemn. They are also there to praise success and good performance. I think it is time that the municipalities accept, in today’s world of transparency and accountability, having somebody come in from time to time to check up and say: “Are you really as good as the very best can be, or are there some improvements that you might want to consider?” Accountability is in; opaqueness is out. That’s why it’s a good idea to have an office, professionally staffed, reporting to a professional council.

When we compare country to country around the world — for example, in the assessments of investment opportunities — where do people feel comfortable putting their money? Well, Canada, in fact, I believe, rates rather highly on that scale, and why is that so? The weather isn’t that great. The distances are vast. The infrastructure is sometimes undeveloped. We certainly have our issues with various regions and various aboriginal groups making life a little bit more complicated than might be expected in some other countries.

[1750]

But one thing, perhaps among others, I think draws foreigners to Canada, and that is good government. We have a reputation for sound, practical, efficient use of taxpayer money in a very democratic setting and lots of opportunity, in assemblies such as this one, to criticize what is going on and point out the mistakes as they inevitably occur.

This is more rare around the world than I think we give ourselves credit for. I think we are far better governed, in fact, than our great, powerful neighbour to the south with all of the apparatus of accountability and transparency that they like to brag about.

This bill will add to the body of legislation which helps assure that the citizens of British Columbia enjoy that good government — government which is effective and efficient federally, provincially and municipally. I’ll be voting for this bill.

D. Donaldson: I’m happy to take my place today in the second reading of Bill 36, the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015. When I was first elected, six years ago now, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, it was pointed out to me: “You are an MLA, a legislator. You’re going to be going to Victoria, and in Victoria in the chamber as a legislator, you make laws, and you review laws.”

Of course, it’s the government’s role to introduce the law and craft it, and then the opposition’s role is to analyze it and make critiques and point out where we don’t think it’s addressing the solution that needs to be addressed.

What I thought was that when a bill was introduced, a responsible government, a prudent government, would have consulted, would have talked to people who had opinions — it would have been testing the wind on where this could have come from — and then crafted a bill that reflected that.
[ Page 9268 ]

What I want to say is that I haven’t really seen that from this government. This bill and the bill that was previously introduced do not do that at all. The previous bill that introduced this bill, that this Bill 36 is amending and that established the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government, was typified and described at that time — this is just over a couple of years ago now, three years ago — by municipalities as a solution looking for a problem. The Auditor General for Local Government was described by municipalities as a solution looking for a problem. That’s not good legislation. That’s not good bill-making by a prudent government.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

It begs the question: where did it come from? If it was a solution looking for a problem and wasn’t crafted as a result of requests from the people most affected, the municipalities — it wasn’t crafted from consultation with municipalities; it wasn’t crafted for any of those reasons — where did it come from?

As we’ve already heard in this debate today, it came from a promise during a leadership campaign by the current Premier, a promise that has cost over $5 million to taxpayers now and is costing a lot more when we consider the legal fees and the legal remedies that have resulted from this poorly, poorly crafted legislation.

I wanted to discuss Bill 36 and this amendment to the Auditor General for Local Government Act by reflecting on what we discussed when the original bill came out. At that point, I was looking at the words of the member for Kootenay East. Now, I don’t recall whether that member was in the cabinet at that point. He is now, and I don’t know if he was welcomed back into the fold at that point. We know he had been taken out behind the woodshed by the previous Premier, Gordon Campbell, and was bullied, according to the member for Kootenay East.

[1755]

What he said in the debate, when we were considering the bill that Bill 36 addresses, was: “This is about making local government more responsive to the taxpayer, the way the province has to be responsive to the taxpayer….”

Let’s look a little bit at that last part of that sentence and the way that the province “has to be responsive to the taxpayer.” We know that $5.2 million was spent for one audit at the time, even though 18 were proposed. That’s how this government feels they’re being responsive to the taxpayer. We know, from discussions today during question period, that $100 million has been spent on a computer system that doesn’t work for teachers and administrators in schools. That’s on top of another $100 million that was spent on the system previous to that.

When we’re talking about Bill 36…. The essence of this office was that the province has to be more responsive to the taxpayer and, similarly, local government. We also have to look at the $200 million that was spent on the integrated computer management system — the system that was supposed to replace antiquated software systems in the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Social Development. That $200 million managed to not address 30 percent of the antiquated computer systems.

If this is what the government says is being responsive to the taxpayer, then I think they don’t have a lot to talk to municipalities about. The $5.2 million that was spent on one audit, at the time…. We have to look at opportunity costs. When we’re looking at Bill 36 and this amendment act, we have to look at opportunity costs that that $5.2 million could have covered if we’re talking about being responsive to the taxpayer.

When I think of my constituency, Stikine, when I think of the School of Exploration and Mining, when they’ve made representations to this government for core funding for their program — $500,000 a year — that could have been ten years of funding for a school that is now shut down. That could’ve been ten years of funding. It could’ve been ten years of students being put through the School of Exploration and Mining and finding jobs locally in the north. So we have to talk about opportunity costs.

Bill 36, the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, is an act that follows on an initiative to have an auditor general for local government, which was a solution looking for problems. Again, $5.2 million for one audit — what are the opportunity costs? What was lost that that money could have been spent on?

I think a very, very pertinent and timely topic that we can think about today was an expenditure on expanding the continuum of residential care for young people. That is very timely. It was a suggestion made by the Representative for Children and Youth, and it was not implemented by this government. But $5.2 million could have gone to expanding options in residential care that would have gone a long ways to address some of the issues that are timely and that we’ve been talking about today.

That’s Bill 36 that we’re talking about, the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act. What it is trying to fix is things like spending $5.2 million on one audit, and we had some examples of where the money could been better spent on people who need services, like on residential facilities or on young people trying to get an education and trying to get ahead.

The first part of the quote that I used, which came out when we were talking about the Auditor General for Local Government, by the member for Kootenay East is: “This is about making local government more responsive to the taxpayer….” Well, I spent ten years on a municipal council before I was elected to this Legislature, and many people in this Legislature have spent time on municipal councils.

[1800]

I think it shows, oftentimes, in the comments, because people who spend time on municipal councils often are able to see many sides to an argument and understand about compromise as well.

When the member for Kootenay East, the Minister of Energy and Mines now, says that this is about making local government more responsive to the taxpayer, I’m not sure that he understands municipalities. I mean, we know that by legislation municipalities must produce an external audit and must balance the budget every year — no deficits. That’s true accountability. When I think about some of the comments from the other side around balanced budgets…. Municipal governments have to balance their budget every year, but they do it responsibly.

We know that this government achieved a balanced budget by giving a $230 million tax break to the 2 percent of the most well-off in the province. That’s how they balance their budget. Again, opportunity costs — giving a $230 million tax break to the most well-off to balance the budget and not being able to fund options on residential care facilities and residential care options for the most vulnerable children in this province. That’s the contrast we’re looking at today.

Municipalities do, by legislation, balance their budget. They are responsible. No wonder municipalities said that this Auditor General for Local Government was a solution looking for a problem.

I love quoting the member for Kootenay East. It gives us a different perspective, a perspective I usually disagree with. When we were talking about the Auditor General for Local Government, he was quoted as saying: “When I talk to them” — that’s municipalities — “about this, and I say this is an opportunity to learn, maybe, some better ideas, some better practices — you know, what somebody is doing down the road in a different region that we might be able to learn from — the people that I talk to are actually quite open-minded…” about this.”

I agree with that, actually, but you know what? There’s an organization called the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and they’ve been doing this kind of practice for years. They bring people together. They have a website where best practices are shared. They do it for a lot less than the Auditor General for Local Government office has cost the taxpayers. They do it in an annual convention that we just had, but they also do it in regional meetings. There are many ways to learn from each other, and this is just one of them.

The Auditor General for Local Government was a whim from the current Premier when she was a candidate, and the kinds of lessons to be learned that are promoted are already being learned by municipalities through their organization, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I was at the last meeting of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which was just last week. I went to many meetings between my communities and the government. I appreciate the invitation from my municipalities — five municipalities and two regional districts — to attend those meetings.

I listened to the speech by the minister for communities and the Premier, and they talked about a true partnership with communities. Now we see Bill 36 introduced, the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, and without substantive consultation with the municipalities. Just last week they met. They weren’t consulted substantially on this Bill 36, and it’s introduced this week.

I ask the hon. Speaker, and I ask members on the other side: how is that a true partnership? In fact, I think that’s an insult to the communities by not consulting with them substantively and by introducing it a week after their convention. I mean, what else could it be construed as, other than an insult?

I don’t have too many comments to say today, because as I said before, the original Auditor General for Local Government’s office was a solution looking for a problem. This Bill 36 is simply amending the original bill, so it’s actually another amendment regarding a solution looking for a problem.

[1805]

I think, though, we need to touch on value for money, which was part of the reasoning we heard from this government around this office. The office is not needed. The municipalities have made that clear. They share good practices. They share lessons learned through their organization, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. They have to produce balanced budgets, by legislation. There is the Auditor General’s office. If there are other functions that need to be done, the expertise lies within, and it’s already funded as an independent office of the Legislature.

All this bill does, Bill 36, is put more government control over the Auditor General for Local Government’s office, more government control over an office that was a solution looking for a problem, on a whim from the Premier, who was then a candidate to be the leader. I’m not going to be supporting this bill. I stand with my municipalities, and I stand with most people in the province that want to see better value for their dollar from this government.

M. Morris: I’m listening to the discussion from both sides of the House. The concept of having oversight over just about everything we do is an honest concept. It’s something that has proven beneficial right around the world. When you have entities that forgo that oversight, oftentimes they get into a rut. They think they’re doing things the right way, or they’re doing things in their own particular way, and that’s where we see problems come up for the citizens of the community or whoever that entity represents.

I come from an organization, the RCMP, with a strong performance audit background. Throughout that process as a senior police manager within that organization, I came across a lot of organizations that felt that
[ Page 9270 ]
they didn’t need that oversight. They were autonomous, and they wanted to remain autonomous. But the audits proved that they could be doing things a little bit better.

There is continuous improvement that we have in all aspects of our life and all aspects of our organization, our communities, our cities, our towns and our villages that we need to be looking at all the time. Society is changing. Technology is changing. Things are moving forward in leaps and bounds. If we don’t stay on top of that, oftentimes we fall behind, and it costs us more money. It costs us more time, and we become very inefficient in how we do things.

This bill addresses that, and this bill will provide that oversight, that performance audit oversight, to all the communities in the province here, to make sure everybody is operating as efficiently as they can. I often go back to a model where we get people coming into an organization, and they bring their previous experience with them, which is a good thing. But then they get involved in a cycle where they see how it’s been done before, they do what’s been done before, and they get the same results that they always got before.

The solution that is often prescribed in many organizations like that is that they’ll put more money in or put more resources in so they do things a little bit quicker, but they’re doing the same things. They get results a little bit faster, but that leads to a spinning of the wheel. You’re not moving anywhere. You’re staying in the same place, and you’re throwing a whole bunch of money and effort and resources into something that’s just no longer working.

If you stop and look at things a little bit differently — and this audit position is one of the tools that help people look at things a little bit differently — they’ll say: “Oh, okay, let’s look at this a little bit differently. We’ll do something a little bit different, and we’ll get different results, and finally we can get that wheel moving ahead, and we can make good progress within that organization.” That’s one of the significant benefits to having that oversight with the auditor’s office that is independent, that provides that critical view of how things are done and can provide that expert advice on how to adjust things in the manner that they do business.

[1810]

The organizations, the communities that we serve, the province that we serve…. I’ve seen it, and I’m sure everybody on the other side of the House has seen examples of this — where we get stuck in ruts. Oftentimes we can’t jump out of that rut until somebody who is looking over our shoulder has an opportunity to have a look at that and can jerk our chain or do whatever they need to do to get our attention to get us on a different track and get us out of that rut.

This is where this bill is going to provide all kinds of evidence to the communities that are out there. It’s going to support a bunch of change.

We’ve heard often discussed here that we only have one taxpayer in the province. Are we missing the boat in some areas? Are we duplicating services? Are we missing some services that would be a little bit more efficient? Are we doing some things within the communities that have proven to be inefficient in other communities?

UBCM, I’ve heard, has been one of the vehicles to provide those kinds of services in the past, and they still provide those services. But I think that independent oversight by a qualified person who understands performance audits and who has a good basis of an audit program to work with will be very beneficial to the communities and very beneficial to the province. That’s why I’m speaking in favour of this particular bill.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to take my place in the debate around Bill 36, the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015. I guess this would be — what? — 2.0. I think that’s what it would be.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The beta motion. Exactly.

What’s really been interesting in this entire debate is to listen to members on the government side trumpet and say how great this particular piece of legislation is and how important this particular piece of legislation is yet completely want to ignore or, perhaps, forget the nightmare that they created that forced them or caused them, more like it, to bring forward this particular piece of legislation. What’s fascinating is some of the members opposite are using the same language that they used in the original version to justify this particular version, when this particular version actually takes away one of the key components of the first version that was their main justification.

Members opposite have stood up and said this particular piece of legislation will create an independent officer. The previous speaker just used that term three times — an independent officer. What this legislation does is actually take away the independence from what was formerly “an independent officer” that reported to this House. It brings it inside of government and into a ministry. That is hardly the definition of independence. More importantly, when you look at the track record of this government in terms of operating independently or allowing people to operate and make decisions independently, their record is anything but.

To fully examine and to take a closer look at the Auditor General for Local Government act 2.0, I think it’s probably best we go back and have an initial look at how we got here in the first place. We need to understand what happened with the first go-round to understand what’s taking place here — the amazing gymnastics that are worthy of anybody in Cirque du Soleil in terms of being able to make the arguments that this government is making around this particular piece of legislation.
[ Page 9271 ]

There was a time in this province…. There was a leader of the B.C. Liberals. His name was Gordon Campbell.

[1815]

Something that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano mentioned I think is worth noting. He said that, constitutionally, there are two orders of government. There are the federal and the provincial levels of government, and local government is a creature of the provincial government. That is absolutely correct.

There was a time when nothing could happen in local government without it being approved by the provincial government. Yes, they had their powers and their ability to do things, but at the end of the day, it was always signed off by the province. Even if it was just a signature, it was signed off by the province.

Gordon Campbell came along, and his mantra, his message, his raison d’être, in those years — I see the Speaker has a smile on her face, and I fully understand because the Speaker was there at the time — was that we have to give our municipalities freedom. We have to let 1,000 flowers bloom. Let municipalities be inventive. Let them be creative. Let them go out and strike their own path. Let them experiment. Let them try new ideas. One size does not fit all.

Local government doesn’t need to be told all the time by Big Brother in the province how and when to do things. There needed to be an understanding by the province that local government were equal partners. They were equal partners. They were talented people, accountable to their citizens, whether they were in a community of 150 people or a community of 600,000 people.

There are 162 municipalities in the province of British Columbia. Now, I know some members on the other side said there are 300, but if you go to the British Columbia government website, they will tell you there are 162 municipalities in the province of British Columbia. Each of those is unique. Each of those is accountable to their voters. Elections are held, and voters make decisions on the activities of those councils at election time.

As everybody in this chamber is fond of saying — and as I’ve heard many government members, including ministers, say: “The voters are never wrong. The voters will make the final decision.” You know what? That’s the basis of our system.

But Gordon Campbell said that local government…. To make this commitment a reality, he created something called the Community Charter, which was supposed to extend more powers, more abilities, to local government, to cut red tape to local government, to remove the heavy hand of the province from local governments.

Local councils thought this was great. I know that my colleague across the way, the former mayor of Langley city, thought this approach was great, that you know what? Local communities should be making decisions, should be free to try new ideas that sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, but all in the understanding and the knowledge that, at the end of the day, they were accountable to the voters of their community.

Now, unfortunately, as we all know in this chamber, and some on the government side may not want to admit it, that as time passed, those powers started to be constrained. All of a sudden the province thought…. You know what? They weren’t too keen on the independence that some municipalities started to show or how municipalities would use the charter to stand up and sometimes challenge the government. That charter, which had been so sacrosanct and held up in an election campaign sign that “There will be a community charter,” was kind of whittled away and whittled away.

[1820]

Then we had, as has been pointed out by some of my colleagues — the member for Surrey-Whalley, for example — the leadership race of the current Premier, who decided, after a conversation with an individual named Brian Bonney, who worked for the CFIB, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, that there was this problem that needed to be addressed. Somehow local government was the problem, and what was needed was an Auditor General for Local Government. That was the solution.

The Premier made this commitment. There was no consultation with the UBCM. There was no consultation with local governments, but the Premier made this commitment that we were going to have an Auditor General.

As has been pointed out, the key issues that the proposal was made for in the first place — for example, around contracts that local governments signed, which again is entirely within the jurisdiction of local government — were in fact not covered by the bill that was tabled in the Legislature. The minister at that time was quite clear they were not going to do that.

So it’s okay. The Premier’s pet project — this commitment she had made for a problem that she determined existed and required a solution which didn’t address, in her mind, the original problem that existed — would be the answer. We got the first iteration of the municipal auditor general.

There was a lot of skepticism at that time. It’s interesting — the remarks of the previous speaker. He said: “Sometimes you do things, and you fall into a rut. You’re not getting the results that you’re going to expect, so you need someone looking over your shoulder…”

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Don’t steal my line — not yet.

“…to kind of say: ‘Look, you’re not doing it right. Here are some ideas and some thoughts on how to do something.’”

Lo and behold, the opposition was just that group of people. We looked over the shoulder of the government at the legislation and said: “You know what? The way
[ Page 9272 ]
you’ve got this structured, this is not going to work. This is not going to work one bit.”

There are real problems. You’ve ignored an obvious solution, which is that we already have a fully functioning Auditor General that would have the capacity to do this kind of work at significantly less expense than the $5.2 million the government invested in this exercise.

But, oh no, government knew better. They were determined. They said: “No, no. It needs to be independent.” In fact, that was the rallying cry of this government from literally every single member. I think I heard the word “independence” mentioned more times than any time since the 13 colonies in 1776. That’s how committed they were to this idea of independence.

What was really interesting was the Premier’s own position on this particular bill. We raised this issue in the House during question period, we raised this issue at the debate stage of the legislation, we explored this issue in committee stage of the legislation, and it was always the same thing. “Oh no, no. The opposition is wrong. You guys are wrong. This will be independent. This is going to work. We know.”

You know what? I’ll tell you what one of the key warning signs was that we knew this whole thing was going to be one big farce. That was question period when, under questioning to the Premier about this whole exercise, the Premier stood up and praised the member from Cariboo North for bringing forward this legislation, for doing such a great job in developing this legislation — just outstanding work from this member in doing this legislation.

[1825]

The Premier of the province of British Columbia didn’t even realize or didn’t even know that when this legislation was developed, when this legislation was brought in, the member wasn’t even a member of this chamber. That’s the in-depth knowledge that the Premier had on this particular bill when it was brought into the House.

What was described as a fundamental province of the Premier…. The Premier couldn’t remember that it was Ida Chong who brought the legislation in. But we continued.

I know some members hate when they’re reminded of these things, but that is the job of opposition: to remind you of what you had to say, to remind you of what you said the legislation was going to accomplish. It’s our job to point out, particularly when we’ve got edition 2.0.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Well, I’m quite looking forward in 2017 to having that job on that side of the House and listening to you on this side of the House.

I know that we are coming to the end of the day. But just to give members a little flavour on where the debate will pick up…. I want to pick up a little bit of the flavour of the debate that we will get to tomorrow. It’s this issue of independence.

I can’t help but quote: “Secondly, this will be a separate, independent office….” That was Bill Bennett. I think it’s important to talk for just a minute about what this bill is not.

Madame Speaker: Member.

M. Farnworth: It’s not about encroaching on local government jurisdiction.

Madame Speaker: Member, riding names.

M. Farnworth: That’s not what this is about. It’s about setting up a process where local government can get some independent advice on how to do business. You don’t get that when the person giving the advice is inside government. That’s not what’s going to happen. That is not what is true independence.

I will have more to say on that tomorrow, because I do note the time passes, unfortunately, a little too quickly. However, at this particular point in time, hon. Speaker, I would move adjournment of the debate.

M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Cadieux moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada