In the House
Doug speaking to Bill 20, the Auditor General for Local Government Act
I’m happy to take my place in debate of Bill 20 in second reading, the Auditor General for Local Government Act, and I want to put my comments in the frame, in the words of the minister who introduced this bill, of value for money.
Before spending $2.6 million, you need to know what the problem is that you are trying to address, and that’s what the mayors are saying and councillors are saying about this act. They said it at the UBCM in September. They said it last month when I met with mayors of some of the major cities, and they said it just this past week when I met with mayors in the constituency of Stikine.
First, let’s look at what the government says it isn’t addressing in the bill. What it’s not addressing, it says, is policy. It’s not addressing the objectives of local government. In fact, section 3 of the bill reads: “…the auditor general must not call into question the merits of policy decisions or objectives of a local government.”
At the UBCM, the newsletter during the UBCM, when this topic was being addressed…. The newsletter wrote: “The province has promised that the auditor general for local government would not have any more authority than provincial or federal auditors general to probe into matters of government policy.” This is what the minister has also said, and yet, what we just heard in a previous speaker, the member for Nechako Lakes, on the government side, is that cost structure of wages and benefits is what this is about.
Well, if cost structure of wages and benefits for employees such as CAOs of municipalities is not a matter of government policy, then I don’t know what it is. Now we have the minister who introduced this bill and a caucus member at odds, saying opposite things about the purpose of the bill. So it’s no wonder the mayors are confused and councillors are confused about what the purpose of this bill is. We also had, at the UBCM….
The minister committed that the auditor general for local government would not set or order changes to tax rates. In other words, industrial tax rates, for instance, were not under scrutiny by this bill and by the auditor general for local government. Yet, here we had another speaker from the government side, the member for Abbotsford-Mission who just spoke, and his words were: “…taxing businesses out of existence.” This was one of the purposes that the auditor general for local government should address. So again, we have the minister and a member of the caucus at odds over what the purpose of this bill is. It’s no wonder mayors and councillors are saying: “What’s the problem the government is trying to address with this bill?”
Some of the messaging from the other side is that this bill is about accountability. Let’s be clear. On this side, we’re in favour of accountability and honesty and transparency with the public. But based on this government’s track record, it’s a bit of a credibility gap when they start talking about accountability.
We had a quote, and again we have a quote from the member from the government side, Nechako Lakes, who just spoke this afternoon, saying that taxpayer dollars must be respected and dollars spent wisely. Earlier, the member for Kootenay East spoke to the purpose of this bill and said: “This is about making local government more responsive to the taxpayer, the way that the province has to be responsive to the taxpayer…”
Well, let’s deal with the second half of that quote first: “…the way the province has to be more responsive to the taxpayer…” That is a bit rich coming from this government. Responsive to the taxpayer by saying: “The deficit would be $500 million a couple years ago when, in fact, it was $3 billion. Is that accountability?
That is a bit rich, coming from this government. Responsive to the taxpayer by saying the deficit would be $500 million a couple years ago when in fact it was $3 billion — is that accountability? We’re talking about accountability. Or is it saying that they would not bring in the HST before the election, and then the HST was brought in after the election? This is in direct contrast to what the member on the other side previously said that Bill 20 is about: the way the province has to be responsive to the taxpayer and the way municipalities have to be more responsive to the taxpayer.
And what’s their definition of honesty and openness? Is it saying that you believe in balanced budgets, but then having to amend your own balanced-budget legislation because of the deficit after deficit, year after year, that this government has put on the taxpayers? It’s a bit rich, the second half of the quote from the member for Kootenay East, so let’s look at the first half of the quote that he spoke about earlier. This is about making local government more responsive to the taxpayer. This is apparently what Bill 20 is about, according to the member for Kootenay East.
Well, perhaps, hon. Speaker, he’s showing his lack of elected government experience. By legislation, municipalities must produce an external audit and must balance the budget every year — no deficits. Now that’s accountability. My experience in ten years as a municipal councillor was with the external audit process. It was thorough. It was a lot of hard work on behalf of the CAO and the external auditor to come in. There was also budget time, when we had to grapple with producing a deficit-free budget every year.
That’s the accountability that’s already in existence, and when the member for Kootenay East is saying this Bill 20 is about making local government more responsive to the taxpayer, I think he’s missing out on the fact that there are checks and balances, which exist today, that make municipalities far more responsible to the taxpayer than this government has ever demonstrated in its behaviour in the last 11 years.
Layered on top of that accountability is the inspector of municipalities. The inspector of municipalities may require a local government auditor to provide a report on any matter and may hold an inquiry into any local government matter and make recommendations to cabinet. There’s another layer of accountability.
Of course, we have the provincial Auditor General, who has the power to investigate any municipal project that involves any provincial funding. So let’s talk a little bit about the Auditor General as an independent officer of the Legislature.
By contrast, under Bill 20, the auditor general for local government reports to the minister and takes direction from an audit council appointed by government. The same government that misled on the HST, lied on their promise not to sell B.C. Rail and does not follow its own balanced budget legislation is going to direct an audit council to investigate municipal affairs. Now, that’s a bit rich, and even the cabinet….
Deputy Speaker: Member, I will ask you to withdraw that remark.
D. Donaldson: Oh, okay. I withdraw that remark, hon. Speaker.
Then we have a cabinet minister, who has the purpose of this bill that is at odds with two caucus members, on the purpose of the bill. You know, there’s a bit of an accountability issue there. I will give….
Interjection.
D. Donaldson: I’m pointing to Nechako Lakes.
I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to the government on this bill in one aspect. That’s the performance audit aspect and maximizing value for money. Now, if you’re really concerned as a provincial government in maximizing value for money, the $2.6 million, then wouldn’t you look at whether the Auditor General could do this job? The Auditor General, who has the expertise in performance audits, who is efficient…. I’m deputy chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance. The Auditor General presents his budget every year. He points out that he is the most efficient, cost-effective Auditor General in Canada, compared to other provincial funding. And the structure is in place as well.
If you were concerned about maximizing value for money, wouldn’t you look at an existing structure, an existing independent officer of the Legislature — an efficient, independent officer — perhaps, to do the work? But no, this is not what happened. We have $2.6 million going to the creation of a new office. If you were looking at value for money, would you not look at what independent local government auditors could do?
You know, when the member for Kootenay East spoke about the purpose of the bill, and I’m just looking for the quote from him on that, he said: “When I talk to them about this and when 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 I talk to are actually quite open-minded to that.”
In fact, perhaps he’s not attended UBCMs as an elected official, but at UBCMs this is exactly what happens. There are organized, structured talks, where people get together and share ideas and share best practices. This is what happens already with the municipal governments at the UBCM.
I would ask that if the performance audit is the key, then rather than spending $2.6 million on an entirely new office, why wouldn’t you spend considerably less than that, if that’s your true objective, and support municipalities, support the UBCM and, at considerably less cost, fund local government auditors to conduct performance audits that could be shared at UBCM in the forums that already exist. If you’re looking at value for money, you’re not looking at the best use of dollars when you’re creating this office under Bill 20.
Let’s look at what the opportunity costs are of creating the auditor general for local government. Opportunity costs are the costs of what could have happened if the money was spent elsewhere. Well, we have municipalities downloaded with victim services by this government. Smithers — the council spends $26,000 a year on victim services that they didn’t spend before. That was downloaded to them. So that’s an opportunity cost that’s lost.
We have municipalities having to support a lot of organizations that used to get gaming grants from this government, and those services are being downloaded onto municipalities. We don’t have a DriveABLE office in the northwest. Seniors have to drive five hours to Prince George to take a DriveABLE test — five hours. So instead of funding, under Bill 20, $2.6 million for a new office, the opportunity cost is lost to provide a DriveABLE. We’re talking about value for dollars, as the minister describes.
Law offices in Hazelton. Community law services have been cut. They exist on a bare skeleton. If you’re concerned about the justice system and delays in justice, then why are you funding as a priority Bill 20, $2.6 million? Wouldn’t it be better to put those funds in a priority area like justice?
Reading rooms in Atlin and Telkwa were cut under this government. That’s an opportunity cost of Bill 20.
College programming in Dease Lake. This is an employment issue. It’s been cut by this government. If you’re concerned about employment, you would fund that. Opportunity cost of Bill 20 is not having the value for the dollar to go and fund opportunities for training like that.
So where has this come from? All I can assume, from what we’ve seen and what we’ve heard from the Premier, is that this came from her leadership contest. Again, another member, the Premier of this Legislature, has no municipal elected experience. So she made this promise without a lot of knowledge, I assume, about the issue, and this is what’s happened. The opportunity costs….
The municipalities didn’t ask for the auditor general for local government. They said it was a solution looking for a problem. It came from a leadership race, and now the taxpayers are getting stuck with a $2.6 million bill
So it came from a leadership race, and now the taxpayers are getting stuck with a $2.6 million bill. They’re not being able to use that money for some of the more important aspects I’ve outlined — municipalities, victim services, justice system backlogs, DriveABLE for seniors, training in colleges so local people can have local jobs.
This is the outcome of an ill-thought-out campaign promise by the Premier during her leadership race, and now we are suffering through it and the taxpayers are going to suffer through it. This is what this bill is about. It’s not about more accountability. The accountability is there. It’s not about performance audits. There are other mechanisms that are less costly that could be employed that the UBCM, I’m sure, would be happy to hear about, that they’d like to be brought into the conversation on. That is why I cannot support this bill.