PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY, SPORT AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); G. Kyllo in the chair.
The committee met at 2:47 p.m.
On Vote 18: ministry operations, $215,828,000 (continued).
R. Fleming: I certainly didn’t intend to have the last word in this set of estimates. I appreciate the minister’s time and the time of the staff of the ministry this afternoon. I know that the critic, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, and the minister should properly have the last word in this set of estimates, but the critic is not here today. I know she wanted to pass on thanks to the minister and to staff for the last couple of days of estimates debate.
I simply want to ask at this stage, before we close this set of estimates, about amalgamation in the capital regional district. The minister — and the Premier, actually — have made a couple of definitive statements to follow through on the signal that was sent in November 2014 in a number of municipalities here in the capital regional district.
While the referendum’s wording of each question was slightly different, they are approximately the same. And what it directed and requested of the province was that the province organize, oversee and, quite importantly, pay for an amalgamation study. The minister agreed. I have her comments here the day after the election, I believe, where she agreed that the province would be doing a governance study and said that it’s going to be very hard work. “It’s going to be complex. It’s going to be very, very difficult, but we are committed to doing that.”
Maybe just to begin, I would ask the minister to…. I’m aware of a number of letters that have been written to her recently, certainly since the beginning of 2015 and as recently as a couple of weeks ago, asking what the status of this study is. They haven’t heard a lot, apparently, that’s committal and certainly haven’t heard in the manner of enthusiasm that we heard last November from the minister. Where is this governance review study for the capital region at, at this point in time?
Hon. C. Oakes: For a minute there I…. It’s great that we do have staff, and I’d like to thank the member opposite for the recognition of the staff. They do an outstanding job. And to the member opposite, thank you for bringing this question forward to estimates.
There was a common theme over the last few days when we talked about local governments. It’s about: how do we modernize local governments to ensure that we’re meeting the needs of citizens around modernizing governance systems? We recognize that there is only one taxpayer and that it’s the responsibility of all governments to ensure that the most efficient and effective delivery of public services has happened.
As you know, eight of the 13 municipalities in the capital region had non-binding questions related to governance services on the November 2014 election ballot. We would wish to applaud those local governments for putting that question out to the citizens. It’s important to remember that each of the questions asked electors was quite mixed and that there wasn’t a clear approach or a clear definition of the problem that everyone could agree on. But there was a common theme, and there was a common thread that I think all municipal councils need to take seriously. That is that electors indicated that they want their governments, their local governments, to explore how to better integrate.
It is in this context that we are in the process of considering how best to proceed regarding the results of the referenda in the capital region. We see great opportunity for the province to support the conversation on governance and service integration. I’m committed to supporting the region in responding to the citizens. That conversation can’t solely be focused on amalgamation as a solution. It needs, instead, to have a broader dialogue about governance and service integration so that all municipalities can be involved.
We need to build a shared understanding for that conversation to be successful, including supporting public education about decision-making and services in the capital regional district. All this needs to be done in collaboration — collaboration between the province and the local governments, collaboration with the citizens and collaboration amongst the local governments and the region themselves.
Hearing from and consulting with local voices must be a cornerstone to this approach. The province will not impose a particular approach or a solution to the capital region. I have heard from mayors and councils, but I want to hear from others to gauge their interest and better understand how to collaborate on this goal. Decisions about potential next steps will come after I have a better understanding of how all of the local leaders believe that they can collaborate in this conversation on governance and services.
R. Fleming: I don’t think I heard very clearly the urgency that the minister expressed six months ago in that response. It sounds like — and I’ll be disappointed if this is the case — very, very little has been done to move ahead on what was quite a clear signal from the electors in the capital region.
I certainly agree with her that how the study is done, protecting the credibility of the study, means everything in terms of whether it would be useful. But it seems to me that the business about gathering opinions and being able to have meetings or communicate with mayors is something that can be done rather quickly. There are a lot of stakeholders and voices in this region that have spoken out, whether it’s leading industries, the chamber of commerce, business, academia.
There are a number of key regional stakeholders that don’t want to be told that there is a slow, iterative process going on that may or may not come to something at no specific date in the future. They want to know that the minister is following up on her word from six months ago, that this is something that the government takes very seriously — that it’s excited about, enthused about — and sees as an opportunity to more optimally govern this region.
I don’t think anybody would agree that the capital regional district is arranged in the best possible scenario that it could be at this point in time and have a forward-looking process. I just can’t believe, and maybe the minister can explain, how some of the key questions haven’t even been wrestled with at this point. It would seem to me….
Don’t have a meeting just to hear one-way dialogue with local government leaders. Come with ideas and reflect back upon what they’ve already told you. There are some pretty detailed proposals about what the study should look like out there already that I’ve found and that have been part of the discussion in the public realm. Can she give any idea about whether she favours a commission model to do this work, what the timelines look like?
It doesn’t sound like she has an idea about when this study will start, but, at least ideally, maybe she has an idea about when it should end — in time for the next election cycle, obviously, with plenty of time for it. I just need a better idea that the minister has been doing some thinking and some work about this and would ask her to maybe add some more details of what I’ve just requested.
Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite, thank you. This does provide us the opportunity to put on record the process of how we ensure the next steps.
One of the things we were clear on around amalgamation, and around a theme that we talked about over the last several days, was around the autonomy of local government. There is a process for us when we look at providing governance studies, and that is that we require a letter from local governments requesting a governance study.
To this point we have heard from the mayors of Victoria, North Saanich, Central Saanich, Sidney, Colwood and Esquimalt regarding their interest in the amalgamation issue. We’ve yet to hear from Langford and Saanich, so there is the opportunity, on the record, for those two local governments to ensure that their citizens did respond. I have an expectation that those local governments will be providing a letter to the province to look at amalgamation, so we are waiting on those two letters.
I would, though, to the member opposite…. Again, when we discussed back in the fall that this is going to be a complex, complicated process, I want to reiterate that.
In the letters that we’ve received back from local government, we have Victoria and Colwood who’ve requested a regional governance study. When we look at the communities of Central Saanich and North Saanich and Sidney, they want to look at how perhaps they could look at integrated services and amalgamation.
The communities are coming forward, the local governments are coming forward, and they have different ideas about this question around integrated services and amalgamation. We will work closely in collaboration with the local governments, but it’s ultimately up to the local governments to determine the services for their citizens and the approach they want to take.
It is a cautionary note that we value, respect and want to ensure that local governments are having the opportunity to provide to us at the province the direction that they wish to see. We are respecting their autonomy in this but will be there to collaborate and work with them once they’ve come upon a decision.
R. Fleming: Just to be clear. The minister said explicitly on November 18, 2014: “We will be doing a governance study.” Now what I’m hearing today is: “We may do a governance study, depending on how many letters we get from different mayors.” If I could put this delicately, the likelihood of all 13 municipalities agreeing on exactly how to proceed on an amalgamation study is unlikely, and it’s probably symptomatic of why there are 13 municipalities to begin with.
The minister did not say: “We will be waiting for a signal.” She said: “We respect the signal that the electorate” — not the mayors writing letters on letterhead — “sent in November.” I want to make sure and take some comfort this afternoon that the government isn’t simply playing for time, delaying, failing to wait.
So yes, it’s a controversial area. There’s no question about it. There are some provinces that have done this well and some that have done it disastrously. But I want some assurance that the minister isn’t going to be fearful about that, that she’s going to live up to her commitment to proceed on this.
We are going to be running the clock very quickly on when the next electoral cycle is for municipalities. It’s not up to the province to try and wade a non-controversial course and then have nothing to show for it. It’s up to government to work with local governments as best they can, forge a broad consensus — not a complete consensus, because that may not be possible; if it is, that’s great — and to actually give voters something to decide upon in 2018. That time will go very quickly if nothing is done.
I just want to ask the minister again if she can give any idea of the timeline. What if some of these councils and mayors don’t send in letters? Do we simply wait for them forever to send in a letter? I mean, several councils have already contacted her. Their patience is not, I wouldn’t say, wearing thin, but they are wondering when the minister is going to take some steps here.
Hon. C. Oakes: The member is incorrect. What I had said is that there is a process in place. We have two more local governments that we are waiting to hear back from.
Here is the opportunity. As I read this into Hansard, and as the MLA, we are waiting for letters from Langford and Saanich. The citizens put on the ballot and voted in favour of looking at this, so we are waiting for letters from Langford and Saanich. There is an opportunity, as there always is as citizens, to go to your local government and to their Committee of the Whole or the opportunity that provides citizens to engage with their local government and remind them that the citizens voted to review and to have a governance study.
The next step on that is that based on the letters we have, we need dialogue. These local governments need to have dialogue with one another to come to at least some form of consensus about how we move forward and what they’re looking for. We are prepared to work collaboratively with the local governments in this conversation around governance and integrated services and on how we move forward. But the dialogue needs to come.
We will not, as the province, impose on the local governments a decision. They need to have dialogue and start working on a collaborative approach amongst themselves to decide how they want to move forward. We will be with them in that collaboration.
R. Fleming: Has the minister communicated to the two outstanding municipalities, Langford and Saanich, how long they will have until they make a submission and respond to the idea of a timeline and proceeding with the study?
Hon. C. Oakes: We have had the conversation with local government leaders in the area about the fact that we are waiting on two of the final letters to come forward, from Langford and Saanich. We will not impose on those communities to forward a letter but, again, remind the citizens living in Langford and Saanich to go to your local government and remind them to submit a letter to the province requesting a governance review.
R. Fleming: Well, it seems reasonable to me, not heavy-handed in any way, for the province, in respect of the mayors and councils who’ve already communicated with the minister and in respect, most importantly, of those who cast a ballot for or against amalgamation, wherever they lived last November, that government give the two municipalities she hasn’t heard from yet a reasonable but not an indefinite amount of time to respond. I would put to her that given that a majority of municipalities have already communicated with her and we’re only waiting on two, a reasonable timeline might be rather soon.
Really, the mayors and councillors there need to communicate to her on behalf of those who’ve directed them to, which is their electors last November. This isn’t something that needs to be dragged on indefinitely. It’s something that…. I think the minister should put in place a reasonable timeline to correspond with her. Most people have already complied voluntarily with that as well.
I would ask her: when is she going to ask these two municipalities to let their views be known?
Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we discussed over the last few days our respect for local governments and their autonomy. We respect that local governments determine the priorities of the citizens that they represent as local governments. We will not impose on these communities. For the member opposite, you are more than willing as a citizen living in the area to let Langford and Saanich know how you feel.
We respect local governments. We respect their autonomy. We will not impose upon them. The citizens have every opportunity to go to those two communities and ensure that the process that we have laid out — that a letter needs to come from a local government requesting to the province for us to do a review — happens in that fashion.
R. Fleming: Well, then let me ask the minister this. Has she picked up the phone and spoken to the mayors of those two municipalities directly and said, “Hey, I’ve heard from a majority of your colleagues in the region. You did have a referendum. I did say seven months ago that we’ll be doing a governance study” and have that conversation with them?
Hon. C. Oakes: I see a theme, again, that…. You live in the region. Have you attended the local governments? Have you had this conversation as a citizen and as a representative in the area? For me as a minister, it is my responsibility to respect the autonomy of local governments.
We’ve heard other issues canvassed and policies brought forward by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, ensuring that the province understands and respects local governments’ autonomy. If the member opposite is suggesting for one second that we do not respect the autonomy of the local governments, I think he should say it here on the Hansard.
R. Fleming: We have been, with all due respect to the minister, talking about amalgamation in one form or another in this region for three or four decades, quite frankly. It took a lot of effort on behalf of citizens to get the mayors and councils to agree to even have a question on the ballot last fall. Those votes were counted. They were interpreted. They were sent to the minister. She said: “It’s going to be very, very difficult, but we’re committed to doing that” — “that” being a governance study.
Now I hear: “Well, I don’t think we want to do it unless everybody is on exactly the same page.” That doesn’t sound like somebody who’s prepared to do the very, very difficult work to move forward on an issue, which is a study, by the way. It’s not binding on anyone, I wouldn’t think, unless the minister is going to contour the study to have binding recommendations.
It’s important to get going on this work. It wouldn’t be fair to anybody to allow this study to not proceed because one or two municipalities did not want to participate — wanted to pick up their marbles and go home — or to ignore, in either of these cases, what their voters were allowed to participate on last November.
Again, to the minister. There has to be a point at which she is going to fulfil what she pledged last November, which was a commitment — full stop — to doing a governance study. Is it actually possible, in her mind, that the governance study may not proceed because she doesn’t hear from a mayor or council in the region?
Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite clearly describes the situation that we’re dealing with. We have been looking at this issue, as the member opposite suggests, for decades. It is prudent for me as the minister to wait, whether it’s a couple of weeks, for two local governments — respecting two local governments — to come forward and provide a letter.
I imagine that the member will go out to these communities to remind them that letters can be submitted from Langford and Saanich. If the member is so…. To ensure that this process moves forward, that is a process that the member opposite could take upon himself to do.
R. Fleming: Why didn’t the minister just say, “I’ll give them a couple more weeks,” in her previous answers? I think what people are fearing is that this’ll drag on to a couple of years. I think I heard something that was a little more definitive there.
Does the minister expect and deem as reasonable a couple more weeks for these two municipalities, who haven’t written to her yet, as a reasonable timeline? Or are we, as many citizens are starting to fear, seeing this government contemplate something of a considerable delay that could be months, if not years?
Hon. C. Oakes: What I said to the member opposite…. That we respect local governments. We respect their priorities. We respect the fact that…. I imagine that those two communities, which I have read into the Hansard now probably at least seven or eight times, of Langford and Saanich will ensure, or the citizens that live in that region will contact their local governments to ensure, that letters are provided to the province, as per process for every other single local government in the province of British Columbia, so that we can ensure that the collaborative work takes place.
R. Fleming: Maybe I could ask the minister some slightly different questions about this same topic. I was
hoping, quite frankly, to hear the same tone of enthusiasm and excitement about what I think is an opportunity and a clear signal from voters in this region to proceed towards an amalgamation study. I think I’ve got something remarkably more subdued than that.
Nonetheless, I’m sure the minister has been doing a lot of hard thinking about what a good study would look like. Maybe I could ask her a couple of questions about that. One of the letters she did receive was from the mayor of Victoria.
There were a few suggestions. I think she described them as guidelines for her consideration on this governance project. Part of it is to continue to allow the public to have an ability to influence and try and persuade those conducting the study, and maybe we’re talking about a commission of eminent persons who’ll be in charge of this study.
I think what the mayor of Victoria was asking the minister to agree to, or to consider, was that there be an opportunity both in the report-conduct stages as well as the report recommendation stage.
I wonder if she’s been able to look at these ten suggested guidelines that have been given to her by the city of Victoria, and if she has any comments on the advisability and how she feels about some of these, what I think are, quite commonsense guidelines.
Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we are waiting for the two communities of Langford and Saanich to provide us with their letters on that. Yes, we are receiving recommendations from several of the local governments. It’s useful information, and we’ll take it into consideration.
R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could comment a little bit about how she might see the scope of the study being conducted. I know she’s speaking with the mayors and councillors as we speak, and over previous weeks and months, and is waiting to speak to two more. Just wondering if she has any thoughts about — what I’m going to call a commission, but — whatever this study commission or panel will look like.
In terms of looking at…. It’s going to be quite a bit of work, as she has said herself. It’s going to be very complex, very difficult. It will require gathering the experiences of a number of Canadian cities.
In recent years, through the 1990s and the early 2000s, a number of medium-sized cities in Canada have successfully amalgamated. Places like Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec City and Halifax would be very good examples for this study to consider.
Then there have been some megacity mergers that have been very controversial but are not, perhaps, very applicable to the Victoria situation. In the case of Toronto, you’re talking about a metropolis of several million people. In the case of Montreal, you’re talking about a city that’s also large but also has municipal structures that were formally divided, mainly on language divisions and regions.
Anyway, my point being, the amalgamation study needs to understand the recent Canadian experience. That will take a bit of very qualified research work to do. It’s going to have to look at, I think, the issues that people in the capital region are concerned about. You’ve got 13 municipalities. Do you go to a one-municipality model? Do you look at three? Do you look at five? Those sorts of things.
In other words, does the minister see the resourcing that will be required to do this study well as something that she’s prepared to support to get a comprehensive, wide-ranging report? Also, does she think that the report should make, essentially, one recommended model at the end of this process, or should they, on the basis of submissions, public feedback and, really, in the independent opinion of whomever is in charge of this commission, make several recommendations — two or three models for the region’s residents to consider?
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Throughout the last few months I’ve been reading a lot of amalgamation studies. We’ve got some international scholars, actually, on amalgamation that live and participate and are highly regarded intellectuals here in the Victoria region, actually — Robert Bish. We’ve got Andrew Sancton and Enid Slack that have done a significant amount of work on what amalgamations look like.
The member opposite mentioned a couple of examples of how to look at amalgamation. I encourage the member to perhaps do some investigation of his own about the findings of some of these individuals and some of the communities that he identified. I think that if you look at that…. When I was doing the study…. We all look for a simple solution. We all look for that example, that model, that ideal out there that will be an exact fit for what we want as we look at governance and we look at these integrated services.
What I can tell the member opposite is that this is going to be incredibly complex, and it’s going to be critically important to listen to what the communities, the local governments, the citizens feel. To talk about a scope at this point or a direction that we’re taking without the opportunity to go out and listen to the problem, as the citizens and the local governments have identified…. To understand what that is, and for citizens and local governments to understand what amalgamation is and to understand what integrated services is, is going to take time.
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister, because she mentioned it there a couple of times, on service integra-
tion. There has been a long history of pursuing service integration. Of course, there are a number of utilities that are integrated and administered through the capital regional district here around drinking water and hopefully, at some point in time, a wastewater utility as well.
I want to make it clear that she doesn’t…. Or maybe she does. On this governance study, this amalgamation study, does she see it as being primarily about service integration? Or would it include political amalgamation and service integration? I think it’s important to make the distinction.
We have 91 mayors and councillors here in 13 municipalities. We’ve had service integration discussions. We have seven municipal police forces as well as an RCMP detachment. It needs to be clear to people in greater Victoria, because it was clear on the ballot that they weren’t talking about pursuing just more service integration projects. They were talking about a governance review, using the word “amalgamation” that would talk about fewer municipalities. I want to be clear that in her mind, that’s what this study’s purpose would be as well.
Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite said that it was clear, that it was clear in the questions that were put forward to the electorate. I’m going to read into Hansard what the questions were. If the member thinks that this is clear, I would like to understand…. It’s a great opportunity for the member opposite to provide that golden idea of how this will move forward.
Central Saanich. “Should the district of Central Saanich petition the province to fund a cost-benefit analysis of an amalgamation of Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney, yes or no?”
In North Saanich their question was a non-binding question. “Are you in favour of a study, provincially funded, to investigate the feasibility, costs and implications of amalgamating the three municipalities on the Saanich Peninsula of Sidney, Central Saanich and North Saanich, yes or no?”
In Sidney their question was a non-binding question. “Are you in favour of a provincially funded study to investigate the feasibility, costs and implications of amalgamating the three municipalities of the Saanich Peninsula, yes or no?”
Then we move into Esquimalt. “Are you in favour of the township of Esquimalt exploring options to achieve efficiencies by further sharing some service with other municipalities?” They didn’t identify the other municipalities. “Are you in favour of exploring the reduction of the number of municipalities within greater Victoria through amalgamation, yes or no?”
Then we move into Victoria’s question. “Are you in favour of reducing the number of municipalities in greater Victoria through amalgamation?”
Saanich. “Do you support council initiating a community-based review of the governance structure and policies within Saanich and our partnerships within the region?”
Oak Bay. “Are you in favour of the district of Oak Bay being amalgamated into a larger regional municipality, yes or no?”
Langford: “Are you in favour of the city of Langford being amalgamated into a larger regional municipality?”
R. Fleming: No, I think what’s common in all those questions is that they were talking about fewer municipalities, whether you’re talking about three or one. I just asked the minister a question about that, and she didn’t choose to answer. Maybe I’ll ask her again. The study should provide not one set of recommendations or one model in particular but perhaps several.
I want to ask the minister, in her mind as well. Involving the public during the study but going out after the study is done, should the public be given the option of looking at one set of recommendations — one map, if you like, of what the capital regional district might look like under a new governance regime? Or should there be a couple of options, two or three options perhaps, for the public to review?
Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite said that all the questions did talk about amalgamation. That’s incorrect. I could read through all of the questions again, but I won’t waste everyone’s time. Some of them were about integration of service, and one was about governance. That is significantly different.
I’d be happy to provide the member opposite with some information on amalgamation, integrated service and education — on what that means. Again, we are not prepared to predetermine a solution or an outcome before we’ve actually had the dialogue with the local governments, that local governments have had dialogue with one another and, quite frankly, that local governments have had that dialogue with the citizens.
R. Fleming: Well, as somebody said, “It’s going to be complex, but it’s worth doing” — as the minister said. I thank her for her time this afternoon.
I’ll give her one more opportunity just so I can tell residents in the region and she can speak directly to them in Hansard: does she have any idea when she will have something substantive to say on the commitment she made immediately after the election in November that the governance study is going to proceed, that the province is going to play a prominent role with local government in doing that? When are we going to hear something about draft guidelines, draft terms of reference — any idea about who might be involved and when this might proceed?
Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to thank the member opposite, and I appreciate his comments. I would like to speak directly to the citizens of the capital regional area. There is a long history that the member alluded to.
I think it’s very important that we understand the pitfalls of rushing in and being heavy-handed and not respecting the local government autonomy. The member, as a former city councillor, should understand the importance of respecting local governments.
We are not going to predetermine a solution, but we are willing and prepared to work collaboratively with the local governments and the citizens to listen, to respect their ideas as we move forward on this. We had staff prepared as I opened up this conversation.
I think I will read it into the record again just so that we are extremely clear that there is a common thread that I think all municipal councils need to take seriously. The electors have indicated that they want their governments to explore how to better integrate.
In that context, we are in the process of considering how to best proceed regarding the results of the referenda in the capital region, waiting for those two final communities to step forward. We see the opportunity for the province to support the conversation on governance and service integration, and I’m committing my support to the region in responding to the citizens.
The conversation can’t just be focused solely on amalgamation as a solution. It needs to be broader dialogue about governance and service integration, and we need to build a shared understanding for that conversation to be successful, including supporting public education about decision-making and services in the capital region.
All this needs to be done in collaboration — not by a heavy fist by the province, but collaboration between the province and local governments and collaboration amongst the local governments in the region themselves. Hearing from and consulting and listening to the local voices must be a cornerstone to our approach.
We will not rush this. We will ensure we are listening to the citizens, and the province will not impose a particular approach or solution on the capital region. Decisions about potential next steps will come after I have a better understanding of how local leaders believe they can collaborate in this conversation on governance and services. I’m optimistic, and I look forward to working collaboratively with this region.
R. Fleming: I don’t think I have any other questions. I thank the minister for her answers at this point in time. I’m not entirely satisfied with them at all, but it will give me something to report back to my constituents and to the mayors and councillors who will undoubtedly pore over the Hansard from this delightful exchange this afternoon.
I do want to say, though, just to sincerely express to the minister: I do want this study to be done right. This is an opportunity that only comes around every once in a while. There are so many people that have an interest in seeing it done fairly, it being done comprehensively.
There are tremendous opportunity costs that need to be accounted for in this study when it’s done. This region pays annually and every decade by having the political system that it does — so diffuse — and this region, I think, has paid a serious price for that over the years.
I don’t want to predetermine, either, what the outcome of the study will look like. I want somebody who is eminently qualified to be able to do it, to consult broadly in the region. But I do want it to be done. I don’t want the starts and stops and the failure to seize momentum to continue.
This is an opportunity. This is a signal that was sent by voters in the region. It falls upon the minister’s desk. I know she doesn’t hail from this region. She does seem to know something about it. It’s her responsibility, though, and it’s in that light that I urge her to exercise that responsibility and to move forward on this.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will now call vote 18.
Interjection.
The Chair: Final statement from the minister.
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. First, I, too, would like to express my appreciation to the incredible public servants we have that support both local government, community, sport and cultural development and all of the Crowns that provide such great service to the citizens of British Columbia. I thank you very much for your efforts, and I thank you for your support through this estimates process.
I would like to thank the member opposite and the critic for her support and her passion for local governments and for community, sport and cultural development as well.
I would, if I possibly may, like to take the opportunity just to clarify a comment from yesterday regarding government’s contribution of $74 million in grants to local governments. It’s important to note that the substantial contributions also include the supports provided through regional district grants as well as traffic-fine revenue-sharing, which helps fund policing and community safety. I just wanted to make that clarification.
Vote 18: ministry operations, $215,828,000 — approved.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY, SPORT AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); G. Kyllo in the chair.
The committee met at 2:47 p.m.
On Vote 18: ministry operations, $215,828,000 (continued).
R. Fleming: I certainly didn’t intend to have the last word in this set of estimates. I appreciate the minister’s time and the time of the staff of the ministry this afternoon. I know that the critic, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, and the minister should properly have the last word in this set of estimates, but the critic is not here today. I know she wanted to pass on thanks to the minister and to staff for the last couple of days of estimates debate.
I simply want to ask at this stage, before we close this set of estimates, about amalgamation in the capital regional district. The minister — and the Premier, actually — have made a couple of definitive statements to follow through on the signal that was sent in November 2014 in a number of municipalities here in the capital regional district.
While the referendum’s wording of each question was slightly different, they are approximately the same. And what it directed and requested of the province was that the province organize, oversee and, quite importantly, pay for an amalgamation study. The minister agreed. I have her comments here the day after the election, I believe, where she agreed that the province would be doing a governance study and said that it’s going to be very hard work. “It’s going to be complex. It’s going to be very, very difficult, but we are committed to doing that.”
Maybe just to begin, I would ask the minister to…. I’m aware of a number of letters that have been written to her recently, certainly since the beginning of 2015 and as recently as a couple of weeks ago, asking what the status of this study is. They haven’t heard a lot, apparently, that’s committal and certainly haven’t heard in the manner of enthusiasm that we heard last November from the minister. Where is this governance review study for the capital region at, at this point in time?
Hon. C. Oakes: For a minute there I…. It’s great that we do have staff, and I’d like to thank the member opposite for the recognition of the staff. They do an outstanding job. And to the member opposite, thank you for bringing this question forward to estimates.
There was a common theme over the last few days when we talked about local governments. It’s about: how do we modernize local governments to ensure that we’re meeting the needs of citizens around modernizing governance systems? We recognize that there is only one taxpayer and that it’s the responsibility of all governments to ensure that the most efficient and effective delivery of public services has happened.
As you know, eight of the 13 municipalities in the capital region had non-binding questions related to governance services on the November 2014 election ballot. We would wish to applaud those local governments for putting that question out to the citizens. It’s important to remember that each of the questions asked electors was quite mixed and that there wasn’t a clear approach or a clear definition of the problem that everyone could agree on. But there was a common theme, and there was a common thread that I think all municipal councils need to take seriously. That is that electors indicated that they want their governments, their local governments, to explore how to better integrate.
It is in this context that we are in the process of considering how best to proceed regarding the results of the referenda in the capital region. We see great opportunity for the province to support the conversation on governance and service integration. I’m committed to supporting the region in responding to the citizens. That conversation can’t solely be focused on amalgamation as a solution. It needs, instead, to have a broader dialogue about governance and service integration so that all municipalities can be involved.
We need to build a shared understanding for that conversation to be successful, including supporting public education about decision-making and services in the capital regional district. All this needs to be done in collaboration — collaboration between the province and the local governments, collaboration with the citizens and collaboration amongst the local governments and the region themselves.
Hearing from and consulting with local voices must be a cornerstone to this approach. The province will not impose a particular approach or a solution to the capital region. I have heard from mayors and councils, but I want to hear from others to gauge their interest and better understand how to collaborate on this goal. Decisions about potential next steps will come after I have a better understanding of how all of the local leaders believe that they can collaborate in this conversation on governance and services.
R. Fleming: I don’t think I heard very clearly the urgency that the minister expressed six months ago in that response. It sounds like — and I’ll be disappointed if this is the case — very, very little has been done to move ahead on what was quite a clear signal from the electors in the capital region.
I certainly agree with her that how the study is done, protecting the credibility of the study, means everything in terms of whether it would be useful. But it seems to me that the business about gathering opinions and being able to have meetings or communicate with mayors is something that can be done rather quickly. There are a lot of stakeholders and voices in this region that have spoken out, whether it’s leading industries, the chamber of commerce, business, academia.
There are a number of key regional stakeholders that don’t want to be told that there is a slow, iterative process going on that may or may not come to something at no specific date in the future. They want to know that the minister is following up on her word from six months ago, that this is something that the government takes very seriously — that it’s excited about, enthused about — and sees as an opportunity to more optimally govern this region.
I don’t think anybody would agree that the capital regional district is arranged in the best possible scenario that it could be at this point in time and have a forward-looking process. I just can’t believe, and maybe the minister can explain, how some of the key questions haven’t even been wrestled with at this point. It would seem to me….
Don’t have a meeting just to hear one-way dialogue with local government leaders. Come with ideas and reflect back upon what they’ve already told you. There are some pretty detailed proposals about what the study should look like out there already that I’ve found and that have been part of the discussion in the public realm. Can she give any idea about whether she favours a commission model to do this work, what the timelines look like?
It doesn’t sound like she has an idea about when this study will start, but, at least ideally, maybe she has an idea about when it should end — in time for the next election cycle, obviously, with plenty of time for it. I just need a better idea that the minister has been doing some thinking and some work about this and would ask her to maybe add some more details of what I’ve just requested.
Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite, thank you. This does provide us the opportunity to put on record the process of how we ensure the next steps.
One of the things we were clear on around amalgamation, and around a theme that we talked about over the last several days, was around the autonomy of local government. There is a process for us when we look at providing governance studies, and that is that we require a letter from local governments requesting a governance study.
To this point we have heard from the mayors of Victoria, North Saanich, Central Saanich, Sidney, Colwood and Esquimalt regarding their interest in the amalgamation issue. We’ve yet to hear from Langford and Saanich, so there is the opportunity, on the record, for those two local governments to ensure that their citizens did respond. I have an expectation that those local governments will be providing a letter to the province to look at amalgamation, so we are waiting on those two letters.
I would, though, to the member opposite…. Again, when we discussed back in the fall that this is going to be a complex, complicated process, I want to reiterate that.
In the letters that we’ve received back from local government, we have Victoria and Colwood who’ve requested a regional governance study. When we look at the communities of Central Saanich and North Saanich and Sidney, they want to look at how perhaps they could look at integrated services and amalgamation.
The communities are coming forward, the local governments are coming forward, and they have different ideas about this question around integrated services and amalgamation. We will work closely in collaboration with the local governments, but it’s ultimately up to the local governments to determine the services for their citizens and the approach they want to take.
It is a cautionary note that we value, respect and want to ensure that local governments are having the opportunity to provide to us at the province the direction that they wish to see. We are respecting their autonomy in this but will be there to collaborate and work with them once they’ve come upon a decision.
R. Fleming: Just to be clear. The minister said explicitly on November 18, 2014: “We will be doing a governance study.” Now what I’m hearing today is: “We may do a governance study, depending on how many letters we get from different mayors.” If I could put this delicately, the likelihood of all 13 municipalities agreeing on exactly how to proceed on an amalgamation study is unlikely, and it’s probably symptomatic of why there are 13 municipalities to begin with.
The minister did not say: “We will be waiting for a signal.” She said: “We respect the signal that the electorate” — not the mayors writing letters on letterhead — “sent in November.” I want to make sure and take some comfort this afternoon that the government isn’t simply playing for time, delaying, failing to wait.
So yes, it’s a controversial area. There’s no question about it. There are some provinces that have done this well and some that have done it disastrously. But I want some assurance that the minister isn’t going to be fearful about that, that she’s going to live up to her commitment to proceed on this.
We are going to be running the clock very quickly on when the next electoral cycle is for municipalities. It’s not up to the province to try and wade a non-controversial course and then have nothing to show for it. It’s up to government to work with local governments as best they can, forge a broad consensus — not a complete consensus, because that may not be possible; if it is, that’s great — and to actually give voters something to decide upon in 2018. That time will go very quickly if nothing is done.
I just want to ask the minister again if she can give any idea of the timeline. What if some of these councils and mayors don’t send in letters? Do we simply wait for them forever to send in a letter? I mean, several councils have already contacted her. Their patience is not, I wouldn’t say, wearing thin, but they are wondering when the minister is going to take some steps here.
Hon. C. Oakes: The member is incorrect. What I had said is that there is a process in place. We have two more local governments that we are waiting to hear back from.
Here is the opportunity. As I read this into Hansard, and as the MLA, we are waiting for letters from Langford and Saanich. The citizens put on the ballot and voted in favour of looking at this, so we are waiting for letters from Langford and Saanich. There is an opportunity, as there always is as citizens, to go to your local government and to their Committee of the Whole or the opportunity that provides citizens to engage with their local government and remind them that the citizens voted to review and to have a governance study.
The next step on that is that based on the letters we have, we need dialogue. These local governments need to have dialogue with one another to come to at least some form of consensus about how we move forward and what they’re looking for. We are prepared to work collaboratively with the local governments in this conversation around governance and integrated services and on how we move forward. But the dialogue needs to come.
We will not, as the province, impose on the local governments a decision. They need to have dialogue and start working on a collaborative approach amongst themselves to decide how they want to move forward. We will be with them in that collaboration.
R. Fleming: Has the minister communicated to the two outstanding municipalities, Langford and Saanich, how long they will have until they make a submission and respond to the idea of a timeline and proceeding with the study?
Hon. C. Oakes: We have had the conversation with local government leaders in the area about the fact that we are waiting on two of the final letters to come forward, from Langford and Saanich. We will not impose on those communities to forward a letter but, again, remind the citizens living in Langford and Saanich to go to your local government and remind them to submit a letter to the province requesting a governance review.
R. Fleming: Well, it seems reasonable to me, not heavy-handed in any way, for the province, in respect of the mayors and councils who’ve already communicated with the minister and in respect, most importantly, of those who cast a ballot for or against amalgamation, wherever they lived last November, that government give the two municipalities she hasn’t heard from yet a reasonable but not an indefinite amount of time to respond. I would put to her that given that a majority of municipalities have already communicated with her and we’re only waiting on two, a reasonable timeline might be rather soon.
Really, the mayors and councillors there need to communicate to her on behalf of those who’ve directed them to, which is their electors last November. This isn’t something that needs to be dragged on indefinitely. It’s something that…. I think the minister should put in place a reasonable timeline to correspond with her. Most people have already complied voluntarily with that as well.
I would ask her: when is she going to ask these two municipalities to let their views be known?
Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we discussed over the last few days our respect for local governments and their autonomy. We respect that local governments determine the priorities of the citizens that they represent as local governments. We will not impose on these communities. For the member opposite, you are more than willing as a citizen living in the area to let Langford and Saanich know how you feel.
We respect local governments. We respect their autonomy. We will not impose upon them. The citizens have every opportunity to go to those two communities and ensure that the process that we have laid out — that a letter needs to come from a local government requesting to the province for us to do a review — happens in that fashion.
R. Fleming: Well, then let me ask the minister this. Has she picked up the phone and spoken to the mayors of those two municipalities directly and said, “Hey, I’ve heard from a majority of your colleagues in the region. You did have a referendum. I did say seven months ago that we’ll be doing a governance study” and have that conversation with them?
Hon. C. Oakes: I see a theme, again, that…. You live in the region. Have you attended the local governments? Have you had this conversation as a citizen and as a representative in the area? For me as a minister, it is my responsibility to respect the autonomy of local governments.
We’ve heard other issues canvassed and policies brought forward by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, ensuring that the province understands and respects local governments’ autonomy. If the member opposite is suggesting for one second that we do not respect the autonomy of the local governments, I think he should say it here on the Hansard.
R. Fleming: We have been, with all due respect to the minister, talking about amalgamation in one form or another in this region for three or four decades, quite frankly. It took a lot of effort on behalf of citizens to get the mayors and councils to agree to even have a question on the ballot last fall. Those votes were counted. They were interpreted. They were sent to the minister. She said: “It’s going to be very, very difficult, but we’re committed to doing that” — “that” being a governance study.
Now I hear: “Well, I don’t think we want to do it unless everybody is on exactly the same page.” That doesn’t sound like somebody who’s prepared to do the very, very difficult work to move forward on an issue, which is a study, by the way. It’s not binding on anyone, I wouldn’t think, unless the minister is going to contour the study to have binding recommendations.
It’s important to get going on this work. It wouldn’t be fair to anybody to allow this study to not proceed because one or two municipalities did not want to participate — wanted to pick up their marbles and go home — or to ignore, in either of these cases, what their voters were allowed to participate on last November.
Again, to the minister. There has to be a point at which she is going to fulfil what she pledged last November, which was a commitment — full stop — to doing a governance study. Is it actually possible, in her mind, that the governance study may not proceed because she doesn’t hear from a mayor or council in the region?
Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite clearly describes the situation that we’re dealing with. We have been looking at this issue, as the member opposite suggests, for decades. It is prudent for me as the minister to wait, whether it’s a couple of weeks, for two local governments — respecting two local governments — to come forward and provide a letter.
I imagine that the member will go out to these communities to remind them that letters can be submitted from Langford and Saanich. If the member is so…. To ensure that this process moves forward, that is a process that the member opposite could take upon himself to do.
R. Fleming: Why didn’t the minister just say, “I’ll give them a couple more weeks,” in her previous answers? I think what people are fearing is that this’ll drag on to a couple of years. I think I heard something that was a little more definitive there.
Does the minister expect and deem as reasonable a couple more weeks for these two municipalities, who haven’t written to her yet, as a reasonable timeline? Or are we, as many citizens are starting to fear, seeing this government contemplate something of a considerable delay that could be months, if not years?
Hon. C. Oakes: What I said to the member opposite…. That we respect local governments. We respect their priorities. We respect the fact that…. I imagine that those two communities, which I have read into the Hansard now probably at least seven or eight times, of Langford and Saanich will ensure, or the citizens that live in that region will contact their local governments to ensure, that letters are provided to the province, as per process for every other single local government in the province of British Columbia, so that we can ensure that the collaborative work takes place.
R. Fleming: Maybe I could ask the minister some slightly different questions about this same topic. I was
hoping, quite frankly, to hear the same tone of enthusiasm and excitement about what I think is an opportunity and a clear signal from voters in this region to proceed towards an amalgamation study. I think I’ve got something remarkably more subdued than that.
Nonetheless, I’m sure the minister has been doing a lot of hard thinking about what a good study would look like. Maybe I could ask her a couple of questions about that. One of the letters she did receive was from the mayor of Victoria.
There were a few suggestions. I think she described them as guidelines for her consideration on this governance project. Part of it is to continue to allow the public to have an ability to influence and try and persuade those conducting the study, and maybe we’re talking about a commission of eminent persons who’ll be in charge of this study.
I think what the mayor of Victoria was asking the minister to agree to, or to consider, was that there be an opportunity both in the report-conduct stages as well as the report recommendation stage.
I wonder if she’s been able to look at these ten suggested guidelines that have been given to her by the city of Victoria, and if she has any comments on the advisability and how she feels about some of these, what I think are, quite commonsense guidelines.
Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we are waiting for the two communities of Langford and Saanich to provide us with their letters on that. Yes, we are receiving recommendations from several of the local governments. It’s useful information, and we’ll take it into consideration.
R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could comment a little bit about how she might see the scope of the study being conducted. I know she’s speaking with the mayors and councillors as we speak, and over previous weeks and months, and is waiting to speak to two more. Just wondering if she has any thoughts about — what I’m going to call a commission, but — whatever this study commission or panel will look like.
In terms of looking at…. It’s going to be quite a bit of work, as she has said herself. It’s going to be very complex, very difficult. It will require gathering the experiences of a number of Canadian cities.
In recent years, through the 1990s and the early 2000s, a number of medium-sized cities in Canada have successfully amalgamated. Places like Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec City and Halifax would be very good examples for this study to consider.
Then there have been some megacity mergers that have been very controversial but are not, perhaps, very applicable to the Victoria situation. In the case of Toronto, you’re talking about a metropolis of several million people. In the case of Montreal, you’re talking about a city that’s also large but also has municipal structures that were formally divided, mainly on language divisions and regions.
Anyway, my point being, the amalgamation study needs to understand the recent Canadian experience. That will take a bit of very qualified research work to do. It’s going to have to look at, I think, the issues that people in the capital region are concerned about. You’ve got 13 municipalities. Do you go to a one-municipality model? Do you look at three? Do you look at five? Those sorts of things.
In other words, does the minister see the resourcing that will be required to do this study well as something that she’s prepared to support to get a comprehensive, wide-ranging report? Also, does she think that the report should make, essentially, one recommended model at the end of this process, or should they, on the basis of submissions, public feedback and, really, in the independent opinion of whomever is in charge of this commission, make several recommendations — two or three models for the region’s residents to consider?
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Throughout the last few months I’ve been reading a lot of amalgamation studies. We’ve got some international scholars, actually, on amalgamation that live and participate and are highly regarded intellectuals here in the Victoria region, actually — Robert Bish. We’ve got Andrew Sancton and Enid Slack that have done a significant amount of work on what amalgamations look like.
The member opposite mentioned a couple of examples of how to look at amalgamation. I encourage the member to perhaps do some investigation of his own about the findings of some of these individuals and some of the communities that he identified. I think that if you look at that…. When I was doing the study…. We all look for a simple solution. We all look for that example, that model, that ideal out there that will be an exact fit for what we want as we look at governance and we look at these integrated services.
What I can tell the member opposite is that this is going to be incredibly complex, and it’s going to be critically important to listen to what the communities, the local governments, the citizens feel. To talk about a scope at this point or a direction that we’re taking without the opportunity to go out and listen to the problem, as the citizens and the local governments have identified…. To understand what that is, and for citizens and local governments to understand what amalgamation is and to understand what integrated services is, is going to take time.
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister, because she mentioned it there a couple of times, on service integra-
tion. There has been a long history of pursuing service integration. Of course, there are a number of utilities that are integrated and administered through the capital regional district here around drinking water and hopefully, at some point in time, a wastewater utility as well.
I want to make it clear that she doesn’t…. Or maybe she does. On this governance study, this amalgamation study, does she see it as being primarily about service integration? Or would it include political amalgamation and service integration? I think it’s important to make the distinction.
We have 91 mayors and councillors here in 13 municipalities. We’ve had service integration discussions. We have seven municipal police forces as well as an RCMP detachment. It needs to be clear to people in greater Victoria, because it was clear on the ballot that they weren’t talking about pursuing just more service integration projects. They were talking about a governance review, using the word “amalgamation” that would talk about fewer municipalities. I want to be clear that in her mind, that’s what this study’s purpose would be as well.
Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite said that it was clear, that it was clear in the questions that were put forward to the electorate. I’m going to read into Hansard what the questions were. If the member thinks that this is clear, I would like to understand…. It’s a great opportunity for the member opposite to provide that golden idea of how this will move forward.
Central Saanich. “Should the district of Central Saanich petition the province to fund a cost-benefit analysis of an amalgamation of Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney, yes or no?”
In North Saanich their question was a non-binding question. “Are you in favour of a study, provincially funded, to investigate the feasibility, costs and implications of amalgamating the three municipalities on the Saanich Peninsula of Sidney, Central Saanich and North Saanich, yes or no?”
In Sidney their question was a non-binding question. “Are you in favour of a provincially funded study to investigate the feasibility, costs and implications of amalgamating the three municipalities of the Saanich Peninsula, yes or no?”
Then we move into Esquimalt. “Are you in favour of the township of Esquimalt exploring options to achieve efficiencies by further sharing some service with other municipalities?” They didn’t identify the other municipalities. “Are you in favour of exploring the reduction of the number of municipalities within greater Victoria through amalgamation, yes or no?”
Then we move into Victoria’s question. “Are you in favour of reducing the number of municipalities in greater Victoria through amalgamation?”
Saanich. “Do you support council initiating a community-based review of the governance structure and policies within Saanich and our partnerships within the region?”
Oak Bay. “Are you in favour of the district of Oak Bay being amalgamated into a larger regional municipality, yes or no?”
Langford: “Are you in favour of the city of Langford being amalgamated into a larger regional municipality?”
R. Fleming: No, I think what’s common in all those questions is that they were talking about fewer municipalities, whether you’re talking about three or one. I just asked the minister a question about that, and she didn’t choose to answer. Maybe I’ll ask her again. The study should provide not one set of recommendations or one model in particular but perhaps several.
I want to ask the minister, in her mind as well. Involving the public during the study but going out after the study is done, should the public be given the option of looking at one set of recommendations — one map, if you like, of what the capital regional district might look like under a new governance regime? Or should there be a couple of options, two or three options perhaps, for the public to review?
Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite said that all the questions did talk about amalgamation. That’s incorrect. I could read through all of the questions again, but I won’t waste everyone’s time. Some of them were about integration of service, and one was about governance. That is significantly different.
I’d be happy to provide the member opposite with some information on amalgamation, integrated service and education — on what that means. Again, we are not prepared to predetermine a solution or an outcome before we’ve actually had the dialogue with the local governments, that local governments have had dialogue with one another and, quite frankly, that local governments have had that dialogue with the citizens.
R. Fleming: Well, as somebody said, “It’s going to be complex, but it’s worth doing” — as the minister said. I thank her for her time this afternoon.
I’ll give her one more opportunity just so I can tell residents in the region and she can speak directly to them in Hansard: does she have any idea when she will have something substantive to say on the commitment she made immediately after the election in November that the governance study is going to proceed, that the province is going to play a prominent role with local government in doing that? When are we going to hear something about draft guidelines, draft terms of reference — any idea about who might be involved and when this might proceed?
Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to thank the member opposite, and I appreciate his comments. I would like to speak directly to the citizens of the capital regional area. There is a long history that the member alluded to.
I think it’s very important that we understand the pitfalls of rushing in and being heavy-handed and not respecting the local government autonomy. The member, as a former city councillor, should understand the importance of respecting local governments.
We are not going to predetermine a solution, but we are willing and prepared to work collaboratively with the local governments and the citizens to listen, to respect their ideas as we move forward on this. We had staff prepared as I opened up this conversation.
I think I will read it into the record again just so that we are extremely clear that there is a common thread that I think all municipal councils need to take seriously. The electors have indicated that they want their governments to explore how to better integrate.
In that context, we are in the process of considering how to best proceed regarding the results of the referenda in the capital region, waiting for those two final communities to step forward. We see the opportunity for the province to support the conversation on governance and service integration, and I’m committing my support to the region in responding to the citizens.
The conversation can’t just be focused solely on amalgamation as a solution. It needs to be broader dialogue about governance and service integration, and we need to build a shared understanding for that conversation to be successful, including supporting public education about decision-making and services in the capital region.
All this needs to be done in collaboration — not by a heavy fist by the province, but collaboration between the province and local governments and collaboration amongst the local governments in the region themselves. Hearing from and consulting and listening to the local voices must be a cornerstone to our approach.
We will not rush this. We will ensure we are listening to the citizens, and the province will not impose a particular approach or solution on the capital region. Decisions about potential next steps will come after I have a better understanding of how local leaders believe they can collaborate in this conversation on governance and services. I’m optimistic, and I look forward to working collaboratively with this region.
R. Fleming: I don’t think I have any other questions. I thank the minister for her answers at this point in time. I’m not entirely satisfied with them at all, but it will give me something to report back to my constituents and to the mayors and councillors who will undoubtedly pore over the Hansard from this delightful exchange this afternoon.
I do want to say, though, just to sincerely express to the minister: I do want this study to be done right. This is an opportunity that only comes around every once in a while. There are so many people that have an interest in seeing it done fairly, it being done comprehensively.
There are tremendous opportunity costs that need to be accounted for in this study when it’s done. This region pays annually and every decade by having the political system that it does — so diffuse — and this region, I think, has paid a serious price for that over the years.
I don’t want to predetermine, either, what the outcome of the study will look like. I want somebody who is eminently qualified to be able to do it, to consult broadly in the region. But I do want it to be done. I don’t want the starts and stops and the failure to seize momentum to continue.
This is an opportunity. This is a signal that was sent by voters in the region. It falls upon the minister’s desk. I know she doesn’t hail from this region. She does seem to know something about it. It’s her responsibility, though, and it’s in that light that I urge her to exercise that responsibility and to move forward on this.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will now call vote 18.
Interjection.
The Chair: Final statement from the minister.
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. First, I, too, would like to express my appreciation to the incredible public servants we have that support both local government, community, sport and cultural development and all of the Crowns that provide such great service to the citizens of British Columbia. I thank you very much for your efforts, and I thank you for your support through this estimates process.
I would like to thank the member opposite and the critic for her support and her passion for local governments and for community, sport and cultural development as well.
I would, if I possibly may, like to take the opportunity just to clarify a comment from yesterday regarding government’s contribution of $74 million in grants to local governments. It’s important to note that the substantial contributions also include the supports provided through regional district grants as well as traffic-fine revenue-sharing, which helps fund policing and community safety. I just wanted to make that clarification.
Vote 18: ministry operations, $215,828,000 — approved.