2002 ubcm news - junenews/2002/ubcm... · councillor george puil, city of vancouver first...

NEWSin this issue...

UBCM NEWS is published byUnion of British Columbia Municipalities60 – 10551 Shellbridge Way Richmond, B.C.Canada V6X 2W9 (604) 270-8226 fax: (604) 270-9116

Website: www.civicnet.gov.bc.ca

Number 199 June 2002

Union of British Columbia Municipalities

ISSN 1198-7529

UBCM Page ....................... 2Around the Province........... 3Area Associations ...............4Policy ................................ 7/8Environment ...................9/10Aboriginial Update ........ 13/14Courses and Resources .. 15/16Justice ...............................18

FEATURES

Community Charter .......... 5/6Convention ....................... 12MFA...................................19

2002 Convention Information see page 12

Order your new 2002 UBCM Net•work•book -Order form on page 3

CONVENTION WEB SITE

Each year a section of CivicNet is dedicated to theUBCM Annual Convention. Information on the con-vention will be posted to the website at the followingaddress: http://www.civicnet.gov.bc.ca/ubcm/con-vention-2002/

The site includes information on the:• Convention Theme• President’s Message• Convention Brochure and Registration Form• Venues and Accommodations• Registration and General Business Information• Pre-Convention Sessions• Convention Workshops and Clinic Series• Networking Events• Partners Programs• Provincial Participation• Convention Program

Questions regarding the UBCM Convention can bedirected to [email protected] or Phone:604.270.8226.

Inside this Issue• Support sought for pandemic planning (p.7)• Provinces responds to 2001 resolutions (p.7)• New act and regulation for Agricultural Land

Reserve (p.7)• More infrastructure grants announced (p.7)• New drinking water action plan (p.9)• Modernizing federal pest control products legis-

lation (p.9)• Federal options on climate change (p.9)• Provincial legislation on environmental assess-

ment (p.10)• Recreation stewardship panel established (p.10)• Changes to contaminated sites legislation (p.9)• Management program for old information and

telecom products (p.11)• Apply for community to community program

funding (p.13)• Highlights of report on improving the Treaty proc-

ess (p.13)• Powers expanded for land management on re-

serves (p. 13)• Update on courthouse closures (p.13)• New rules for keep of prisoner program (p.13)• UBCM to respond to Discussion Paper on Civic

Liability (p.16)• Solicitor General confirms small and rural com-

munities will pay for policing (p.18)• Proposals for new forums to resolving minor by-

law disputes (p.18)• Treaty Referendum Results (p.19)

T he conference fea-tured presentations

on the Charter, commen-tary on each part by amember of the CharterCouncil, an opportunityfor questions from thefloor to an expert panel(Donald Lidstone, JanetErasmus, Dale Wall andBrenda Gibson) and fi-nally, questions to the del-egates in workbook for-mat. This mix of presenta-tions, commentary, ques-tions and opportunities toprovide advice is what thedelegates seemed to reallyenjoy, based on evaluationforms submitted toUBCM. Plus the manychances for discussionduring breaks made for avery productive two daysfor delegates, UBCM,Charter Council and gov-ernment officials. The del-egates themselves addeda great deal to the processby their obvious prepara-tion and the insightfulquestions they contrib-uted. UBCM also ac-knowledges the financialsupport of the Ministry ofCommunity, Aboriginaland Women’s Servicesand the Municipal FinanceAuthority.

Evaluation

The delegates gave the con-ference a 4.1 (out of 5) rat-ing with 89% of delegatesrating the conference“good or excellent”. Giventhat there were 15 workingdays to put this conferencetogether makes the evalua-tions even more impressive(see page 5 for more infor-mation on delegates evalu-ations).

Next Steps:Delegates’ Requests

Delegates were also askedwhat they wanted to seehappen next . Strongthemes were: more oppor-tunities for consultation(particularly regionallybased), more analysis, tobe kept up to date on newdevelopments, and tohave the opportunity fordiscussion at the Conven-tion (see page 5 for moreinformation).

ConferenceSummary

President HansCunningham opened theconference referring to thehistorical timelines (seepage 5) and chaired/mod-erated throughout theevent.

The first session was apresentation on the proc-ess to develop the Charterand discussion on “howto build a CommunityCharter”. Richard Taylorprovided the backgroundon the process and theseven steps to building aCharter (he referenced thebackground paper avail-able on UBCM’s websitethat described each ofthese seven steps.) MayorFrank Leonard com-mented on some of thechallenges facing theCharter Council – the tighttime frame; the balancingof local, public and pro-vincial interests; and thebalance between requiredor desirable content. Hestressed that the CharterCouncil moved the focusfrom a council-ministerrelationship to a council-

citizen relationship.The conference then

began a review of each Partbased on the format of:• summary of highlights(by a staff member)• commentary by a Char-ter Council member.• question & answer ses-sion.• opportunities for feed-back.

(See page 5 for statuson “CivicNet” access toabove segments).

Parts 2/3 –Municipal Purposesand Powers

UBCM’s Alison McNeilprovided the highlightsand Lois Leah Goodwinfrom the Ministry of Com-munity, Aboriginal andWomen’s Services gavethree examples of how touse the “tools” from thenew toolkit to tackle somereal life problems. Char-ter Council member JoyceHarder’s comments in-cluded the rationale ofproviding natural personpowers, the creation of 15spheres of jurisdiction, thecreation of four areas ofconcurrent local and pro-vincial regulatory author-ity and the decision tomaintain the status quo onbusiness regulation andprohibition.

Parts – 4/5 PublicAccountability andMunicipalProcedures

UBCM staff HarrietPermut, presented the sig-nificant points of these twoparts.

Marilyn Baker’s Char-ter Council commentaryspoke about the need inthese Parts to achieve bal-ance between the munici-pal and public interest. Insome cases the reductionof provincial supervisionand increased municipalpowers were balanced bynew accountability meas-ures. She also discussedsome of the work that isstill to come respecting per-formance measures andethical conduct matters.

Parts – 6/7 TheFinancial Sections

Dale Wall from the Minis-try provided the over-view. Mayor Leonard,wearing his Municipal Fi-nance Authority Chair hat,talked about the continu-ing work underway on fi-nancial liability and theborrowing process. Coun-cillor Pat Wallace’s Char-ter Council commentarytouched on the need topreserve the excellentcredit rating of the MFA,the streamlining of vari-ous financial, taxation andexemption processes, thedebate about a permissivetax exemption for indus-try, and the need for newrevenue sources for localgovernments.

The conference ad-journed for the day afteran intensive review of 6 ofthe 9 parts of the Charterand began the next morn-ing with remarks from theHonourable TedNebbeling, Minister ofState for CommunityCharter.

UBCM’s Community Charter Conference, held June 19-20 in Vancouver, was like a “mini-UBCM” convention. Over 400 local government delegates attended the two-day conferenceat the Vancouver Convention Exhibition Centre. Approximately 140 of UBCM’s 182members were represented (small communities and regional districts accounted for thebulk of the absences.) This event was about one half the size of a regular UBCMconvention (900 local government delegates).

Community Charter Conference startsConsultations on a Positive Note

Continued on page 17

2 UBCM NEWS JUNE 2002

UBCMPage

Chair Hans CunninghamPresident

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

Circulars List

Circulars List

GARY WILLIAMS and ASSOCIATES

Comprehensive Development Service ContractPlans Negotiation

Strategic Financial Plans Project Management

Tax Policy/Fiscal Policy Restructure Studies

Retreat Facilitator Interim Management

P.O. Box 786, Nelson B.C., V1L 5S9Phone: (250) 825-9586 Fax: (250) 825-9615

e-mail: [email protected]

~ March ~

19 Memo - UBCM Annual Sur-veys

20 In The House - LiquorPolicy: New Directions

~ April ~

9 Memo - Unusual Turn ofEvents in Haida CaseReport - Sustaining Com-munities Through ForestPolicy Change - UBCM Re-sponses and Recommen-dationsMemo - Agreement on In-ternal Trade (AIT) - Minis-ter’s Response to UBCM

12 Memo - Regional Commu-nity to Community ForumFunding Still Available

18 In The House - 2002 Bills21 Memo - Premier’s Softwood

Summit April 29th

29 Circular - 2002 ProvinceWide Community to Com-munity Forum

~ May ~

3 In The House - Recent Leg-islation

10 Executive Meeting High-lights

22 In The House - Open Cabi-

“Visit CivicNet”CivicNet, the UBCM website, is regularly updated tokeep the content current and relevant. We have re-cently established some featured topics so that mem-bers can access new information. The following cur-rent policy topics can be found on the home page:• Community Charter• Forestry• Energy• Civil Liability• Police Costs in Small Communities• Liquor

If you require information on the 2002 UBCM Con-vention to be held September 24 – 27 at the WhistlerConference Centre, check out the information on theCivicNet home page under the 2002 Convention link.

IN MEMORIAM

A t the recent Federation of Canadian Munici-palities conference in Hamilton the followingBC representatives were elected to serve on

the National Board of Directors for 2002-2003 :Mayor Michael Coleman, City of DuncanCouncillor Derek Corrigan, City of BurnabyCouncillor Clifford Dezell, City of Prince GeorgeCouncillor Stan Dixon, District of SecheltCouncillor Kirk Duff, RD of Central KootenayCouncillor Joanne Monaghan, District of KitimatCouncillor George Puil, City of VancouverFirst Vice-President Patricia Wallace, Union of BCMunicipalities

Congratulations to Mayor Steve Wallace of the Cityof Quesnel who was elected FCM Third Vice-Presi-dent.

UBCM TaxNotice Service

For the 2002 property taxyear, UBCM producedproperty tax notices for12 small communities.This consisted of printinga total of 6,108 tax noticefolios plus second ownercopies.

UBCM also sold 1,700blank copies of tax noticesto municipalities as wellas distributing 300 blankcopies to tax notice serv-ice members.

Muni S. Evers

UBCM has lost another ofits Past Presidents. MuniS. Evers passed awaypeacefully at home onApril 18, 2002 after a briefbattle with cancer.

Muni was awarded theOrder of Canada in 1984in recognition of lifelongservice to his communityas City of New Westmin-ster mayor (1969-1983);chairman and commis-sioner of the New West-minster Police Commis-sion (1959-1982); directorand vice-chair of theGreater Vancouver Re-gional District; vice-chairand member of the boardof trustees of the Munici-pal Finance Authority ofBC; president of the Un-ion of BC Municipalities(1975-76); and vice-presi-dent of the Federation ofCanadian Municipalities.

Muni also sat on nu-merous other community

and institutional boardsincluding the RoyalColumbian Hospital, thePacific National Exhibi-tion, the BC Lions footballclub, to name only a few.He was recognized numer-ous times for service to hiscommunity, the commu-nity at large, and his pro-fession of pharmacy.

Mayor Don RamsayVillage of HarrisonHot Springs

It is with great sadness thatwe advise his many friendsand colleagues at UBCMof the passing of MayorDon Ramsay at the age of52 after a lengthy illnesson May 27, 2002. Don wasone of the initial membersof the Harrison AdvisoryPlanning Commission in1995. He was first electedMayor in 1996 and was re-elected mayor for a secondterm in 1999.

net: Ministers Discuss theDraft Community Charter

29 Member Release - Com-munity Charter DiscussionPaper and draft Charter Re-leased

30 Memo - Maternity LeaveDisability Solutions

~ June ~

1 Notice - Symposium on theCommunity Charter andRegistration Form

6 In The House - More 2002BillsMemo - Community Char-ter Conference Update #1

7 Call for Nominations forUBCM ExecutiveMemo-Review of Contami-nated Sites Regulation

14 Memo - Softwood LumberDispute Impacts

19 Convention Bulletin #125 Prov of BC News Release:

24 More InfrastructureProjects to Benefit B.C

26 Convention RegistrationPackageMemo - InterjurisdictionalCommercial Vehicle Li-censing

28 Memo - Follow-up to Com-munity Charter Conference

What a relief to finallyhave the CommunityCharter tabled and avail-able for UBCM membersto review. I was so muchlooking forward to theopportunity to discuss theCharter with you and tohear your views. The re-cent UBCM CommunityCharter Conference wasthe first major opportunityfor that exchange. It wasprobably one of the bestmedium sized conferences(420 participants) thatUBCM has organized. Theconference was a successon at least two accounts:

• good presentationsand format; and

• great feed backfrom those attending.

It was an opportunityfor others and myself onthe UBCM Executive whoparticipated in the Char-ter Council to finally talkfreely about the discus-sions that we had whilecomposing the draft. Weleant a lot from the goodcomments at the confer-ence to consider in finaliz-ing the Charter.

I want to take anotheropportunity to thank allthose involved in organ-izing the conference. Theyhad 15 business days fromwhen the Charter was ta-bled to when the confer-ence doors opened. Anextraordinary effort inbringing the logistics andbusiness program to-gether. The UBCM stafftook responsibility for thelogistics and the businessprogram was collabora-tion between UBCM andthe Ministry of Commu-nity, Aboriginal andWomen’s Services. Wecould not have pulled thisevent off without thatclose collaboration. I thinkthat this relationship issomewhat unique in gov-ernment relations. Theseare staff that have sepa-rate reporting and ac-countability relationshipsbut can unite behind acommon objective. Theyworked seamlessly to de-sign a program that wouldget information on theCharter out and to solicitthe views and opinions ofUBCM members. Some

might question if the rela-tionship appears too closeand might not serve localgovernment’s interests. Idisagree and the proof isin the results – such as thesuccess of this conference.So I say a big public thanksto all those involved in theconference and commendour model of collabora-tion.

With the conferenceconcluded and variousreporting out wellunderway (see articles onpage 5 for instance formore information) it istime to outline some of thenext steps. For me, the nextstep is to report to the fullExecutive in mid-July. Wewill devote a significantpart of our agenda to theCommunity Charter. Ourkey activity will be to agreeon the major issues so faridentified that need to beresolved in finalizing theCharter. The Executivewill be preparing a majorpolicy paper to take to theConvention in September.The paper will make keyrecommendations to theCharter Council and gov-ernment on the items wesupport and those that wethink need to be reconsid-ered and where there isroom for improvement.The week following theExecutive meeting theCharter Council will meet.UBCM will present the fi-nal report on feedbackfrom the conference in ad-dition to the Executive’sdiscussions. I expect theCouncil will review thestatus of the “continuingwork” and its expectationsfor further work. Likelythe Council will meetagain in September to con-


UBCM NEWS JUNE 2002 3

Aroundthe Province

IDSTONE

OUNG

NDERSON

BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS

Suite 1616 - 808 Nelson StreetBox 12147, Nelson SquareVancouver, BC V6Z 2H2

Tel: (604) 689-7400 Fax: (604) 689-3444Toll Free: 1-800-665-3540

507 - 1207 Douglas Street 207 - 1441 Ellis StreetVictoria, BC V8W 2E7 Kelowna, BC V1Y 2A3Tel: (250) 383-2063 Tel: (250) 712-1130Fax: (250) 383-2064 Fax: (250) 712-1180

Dedicated to providing

comprehensive legal

services for municipalities

and regional districts

throughout British

Columbia

Water Supply & Treatment

Wastewater Collection & Treatment

Stormwater & Watercourse Management

Land Development & Community Planning

Solid Waste Management Operations

Municipal Engineering &Water Resources Services

n

Okanagan250-503-0841

www.kwl.bc.ca

Kootenays250-365-0778

Victoria250-595-4223

Vancouver604-985-5361

QuantityUBCM MEMBERS RATENet•work•book(s) @ $10.00 per copy $

GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION, CROWN CORPORATION, ETC.. RATENet•work•book(s) @ $20.00 per copy $

NON-MEMBERS RATENet•work•book(s) @ $30.00 per copy $

Add 7% GST (Reg. #108150541) $

BC residents add 7.5% PST $

TOTAL $

Attention:

Mun/RD/Org:

Address:

Yes! I want to order the updated 2002 Net•work•book (prepayment required)

Return to: Union of B.C. Municipalities, Suite 60 – 10551 Shellbridge Way, Richmond, BC V6X 2W9Tel: 604.270.8226 Fax: 604.270.9116 E-mail: [email protected]

The 2002 Net•work•book is Here!

The 2002 Net•work•book, which was distributed inMay, is a comprehensive workbook for those workingin local government or who want to know who’s whoin B.C. Local Government. The book includes:• municipal and regional government listings of elected

officials and senior staff;• Ministry of Communities, Aboriginal & Women’s Serv-

ices;• federal cabinet and B.C. MPs;• selected provincial agencies and commissions;

Member Visits

• other organizations that have ties to local government; and• consulting services in the professional directory section.

Considerable effort goes into the compilation ofinformation and we appreciate the cooperation wereceive from local government staff in updating theLocal Government Directory section of this book.

To purchase additional copies of theNet•work•book please contact UBCM:Phone: 604.270.8226; Fax: 604.270.9116;Email: http://civicnet.gov.bc.ca/ubcm/NWB/nwb_order_form.shtmlor complete the following form and fax to our office.

BC/FCM TRAVEL FUNDFinancial StatementMay 1, 2001- April 30, 2002

REVENUE:

Opening Balance May 1, 2001 $ 24,131.29FCM 2001 dues 3,061.12FCM 2002 dues 23,939.30Interest earned to April 30, 2002 142.19

$51,273.90

EXPENDITURES :

Members expenses $12,723.11FCM Administration Fee (4%) 1,075.30UBCM Administration Fee* 0.00

($13,798.41)

Closing balance $37,475.49

* UBCM does not deduct an administration charge

Each year staff meet withmunicipalities and re-gional districts in theirmunicipal halls and boardoffices as part of our on-going commitment to lo-cal government. This yearstaff met with 24 UBCMmembers.

In late April early May,UBCM staff met with

elected officials and seniorstaff at eleven municipal/regional district offices inNorthEastern BC. Mem-bers visited includedChetwynd, Dawson Creek,Fort St. John, Hudson’sHope, Peace River RD,Mackenzie, McBride,Pouce Coupe, Taylor, Tum-bler Ridge and Valemount.

UBCM staff concludedtheir visits with attendingthe North Central Munici-pal Association Conferencein Quesnel in conjunctionwith the UBCM Executivemeetings held during theconference.

Other members visitedthis year included:• a one day trip to the FraserValley for meetings with theFraser Valley Regional Dis-trict, Harrison Hot Springs,

Hope, Kent and Mission;• a visit to Logan Lake fol-lowing staff attendance at theLocal Government Manage-ment Association held inKamloops June 4 – 7th; and• a two day trip to the mid-Vancouver Island region formeetings with Parksville,Qualicum Beach, Courtenay,Comox, Comox-StrathconaRegional District,Cumberland and CampbellRiver.

The above photo of the District of Hope municipal hall representsjust one of 24 member visits by UBCM staff. Areas visitedincluded North - Eastern B.C., Fraser Valley and mid-VancouverIsland.

The BC Energy AwareCommittee is pleased toinvite all local governmentsin British Columbia to par-ticipate in the contest forthe ENERGY AWAREAWARD. The award isoffered annually to a mu-nicipality, or regional dis-trict, which enters a sub-mission that is judged tobest integrate energy plan-ning into community plan-ning processes and strate-gies. The award will con-

The Energy Aware Award

sist of a trophy (that travelson a yearly basis like theStanley Cup!), an an-nouncement in the localnewspaper to the winningapplicant and recognitionat the Union of BC Munici-palities Convention in Sep-tember 2002. Nominationsmust be received by Au-gust 30th, 2002 and senttoThe BC Energy AwareCommittee, c/o of UBCM.

Local governmentshave been sent the infor-

mation and nominationpackage. For informationcontact Odette Brassard at604-876-5710, [email protected].

Check the website or go directly to the nomination form at: http://w w w . e n e r g y a w a r e . b c . c a / d o c u m e n t s /Energy%20Aware%20Award%20Application%20Form.pdf


2002-2003 AREA ASSOCIATIONS

Association of Vancouver Island& Coastal Communities

PRESIDENT Councillor Mary Ashley Campbell River1ST VICE-PRESIDENT Councillor Stan Dixon Sechelt2ND VICE-PRESIDENT Chair George Holme Nanaimo RDPAST PRESIDENT Mayor Pearl Myhres ZeballosELECTORAL AREA REP. Director Adrian Belshaw Sunshine Coast RDDIRECTORS AT LARGE Councillor Bea Holland Victoria

Councillor Don Gemmel Powell RiverMayor Jack Peake Lake Cowichan

The 2002 Convention will be in Port Alberni – April 4-6, 2003

Association of Kootenay andBoundary Municipalities

PRESIDENT Councillor Gord DeRosa TrailPAST-PRESIDENT Director Rick Hardie KBRD1ST VICE-PRESIDENT Councillor Stan Lim GoldenDIRECTORS AT LARGE Councillor Bill Pfeifer Creston

Councillor Kirk Duff CastlegarDirector Bill Baird KBRDCouncillor Bev Bellina SparwoodDirector Martin Cullen RDEK

The 2003 Convention will be in Castlegar – April 24-26, 2003

Okanagan Municipal Mainline Association

PRESIDENT Councillor Ron Cannan Kelowna1ST VICE-PRESIDENT Mayor Gordon Daly EnderbyELECTORAL AREA DIRECTORDirector Steve Quinn Thompson Nicola RDDIRECTORS AT LARGE Mayor Bob Baird Merritt

Councillor Gus Boersma PentictonMayor Colin Mayes Salmon ArmMayor Tom Shields OsyoosMayor George Waldo PeachlandCouncillor Pat Wallace Kamloops

The 2003 Convention will be in Penticton – April 30 -May 2, 2003

AreaAssociations

Full Service Law Firm

Servicing the Interior of British Columbia

Municipal Law Contacts:

Brian D. Ross Frank R. Scordo

Main Office:248 Second Avenue AshcroftKamloops, B.C. 100 Mile House250-372-5542 Lillooet

Working Together Enterprises

Martin Thomas

Community strategies, workshops,application advice and followup

628 Battery Street, Victoria, BC V8V 1E5Tel: (250) 361-3766 • Fax: (250) 361-3750

Email: [email protected]

North Central Municipal Association

PRESIDENT Councillor Jim Thom Kitimat1ST VICE-PRESIDENT Director Ted Armstrong Cariboo RDREGIONAL DIRECTORS Director Eileen Benedict BNRD

Mayor Tom Briggs FFGRDCouncillor Ken Buchanan HazeltonMayor Harry Clarke NRRDCouncillor Paddy Greene SQCRDChair Karen Goodings PRRDDirector Greg Sehn Cariboo RD

DIRECTORS AT LARGE Mayor Sharon Hartwell TelkwaCouncillor Calvin Kruk Dawson CreekCouncillor Mary Sjostrom Quesnel

The 2003 Convention will be in Prince George – May 2-3,, 2003

Lower Mainland Municipal Association

PRESIDENT Councillor Ann Claggett Delta1ST VICE-PRESIDENT Councillor Sandy McCormick Vancouver2ND VICE-PRESIDENT Councillor Bob Fearnley North VancouverDIRECTORS AT LARGE Councillor Barbara Der Burnaby

Councillor Faye Isaac Maple RidgeCouncillor Terry Smith LangleyCouncillor Arlene Webster Hope

The 2003 Convention will be in Harrison Hot Springs – May 7-9,, 2003

FCM Update onInternationalTradeAgreements

T he Federation ofCanadian Munici-palities (FCM) is

continuing to act on itsmembers’ concerns aboutthe potential effect of in-ternational trade negotia-tions on their jurisdiction.Its working group has ob-tained legal analysis con-cluding that NAFTA andthe GATS may affect mu-nicipal regulatory author-ity to develop land useplans, apply zoning con-trols, set procurementpolicy and to enter intoP3s. It continues in itsdiscussions with the fed-eral government on theseand other related matters.To view the most recentFCM status reports on thisissue, go to the FCM website at www.fcm.ca andlook under World Trade.

RESERVOIR CLEANING

CAN-DIVE Construction Ltd.UNDERWATER CONTRACTORS

& MARINE PIPELINE SPECIALISTS

Tel: (604) 984-9131, Fax: (604) 984-9138,Email: [email protected]

Certified commercial diversoperating water-powered

vacuum systems to quickly andeffectively clean your reservoir

with little or no servicedisruptions.

UNDERWATERCLEANING AND

INSPECTIONSOLUTIONS


CommunityCharter

UMA Engineering Ltd. provides:• Land Use Planning• Transportation Planning & Engineering• Public Consultation• Economic & Tourism Studies• Water & Waste Management• Infrastructure Assessment & Rehabilitation• Stormwater Management• Digital Mapping & GIS• Project Management

Offices:Burnaby Tel: 604-438-5311Victoria Tel: 250-475-6355www.umagroup.com

• Consulting • Engineering • Construction • Management Services

PHONE/FAX: (250) 767-2240

TOLL-FREE PHONE/FAX: 1-800-499-6899

e-mail:Peachland, B.C. [email protected], V0H 1X4 www.lastingcreations.com

Area Association Consultation Events

A major interest of delegates to the conferencewas further opportunities for consultation,particularly area association (regional) events.

We understand:• AVICC will hold its meeting on July 12 in Nanaimo (call250.356.5133 for further information)• NCMA will schedule several events during August.

As part of their evaluation, delegates were asked whatthey would “like to see happen next in developing anunderstanding and response to the Charter?”

We have collected those responses and categorizedthem. The main themes were:• distribute materials from the conference for informationand action.• further analysis requested.• future meetings and consultations, including regionalmeetings, through UBCM convention and other opportuni-ties.• further information requested on new developments and• general comments on consultation needs, regional dis-trict considerations, finances and best practices guides.

We are addressing many of the information needsthrough a very complete document available on theCivicnet website.

On our Civicnet website you can access:• The presentations made on each of the nine Parts plus ontransition.• Community Charter Council presentations on each Part– most are now available but others will be added whenavailable.• The workbooks that delegates used at the conference –this is an opportunity for those that did not attend to lookover the questions and responsed too.• Initial delegate response based on a sample of about 50%of the workbook responses.• Several other documents and presentations.This should be of interest to those that attended theconference and those that could not.

Historical Perspective:Roots of the CharterThis is a short version of the time-lines and significantpoints in the last decade of local- provincial relationsthat relate to legislation and the Charter.• 1991 Local Government and the Constitutions – At the 1991convention UBCM adopted a policy paper on Local Governmentand the Constitutions. It recognized after all the attempts to gainrecognition of local government under the federal constitution wehad to start at home, in BC, to seek such recognition. The papercalled for a local government Bill of Rights.• Modernizing the Municipal Act phase. UBCM began in the early1990s to work with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to “Modernizethe Municipal Act” by removing a lot of provincial approvals. Thisinitiative was successful and in many respects it did not change theunderlying philosophy of the Act.• 1996 grants reductions of over $100 million –led governmentto agree to reform local government legislation and thus began theprocess of “Municipal Act Reform”. It was predicated on the viewthat if the provincial government was not going to help fund localgovernment, then they should get out of the way in terms of howlocal government manages its operations.• Municipal Act reform (3 year process) resulted in the LocalGovernment Act. This was an intense period of policy developmentand new legislation. Included was an examination of regionaldistricts.

Paralleling the legislative changes was the devel-opment of several political accords that affected, andadvanced the way UBCM conducted inter-govern-mental relations. Included were:• the Protocol on Sharing Environmental Responsibilities;• MOUs and Protocols on local government involvement inaboriginal treaty negotiations; and• the Protocol of Recognition signed in 1996

Basic backgrounder to CommunityCharter

• the Charter has its roots at UBCM 1991 convention. UBCMasked for this.• the Charter was introduced as a private member Bill in 1995and was featured in the Liberal Platform in the 1996 election.• New Era commitment contains a commitment to a communityCharter.• the Community Charter Council Act was passed in August2001 and contained the principles, the council membership andmandate that led to the development of the draft Charter.

Conference ProvidesAdvise on Next Steps

Basic Information onthe Community CharterUBCM’s Civicnet web site is a good source for basicinformation on the Charter. Not only can you link tocopies of the Charter and Discussion paper, you can findmany helpful documents that provide analysis or guidesto understanding the Charter. Some of these include:• Process to Develop the Community;• Locational guide: Moving from Local Government Actto the Community Charter;• The Community Charter and an Integrated Approach toCommunities and Municipal Governance;• UBCM version of highlights – w/section numbers;• Dispute resolutions: Chartering the proposed legislation;• Local Government & the Constitutions policy paper –1991;• Materials available from the UBCM Community Char-ter Conference held June 19-20, 2002; and• Attorney General Local Government Bylaw Forum Dis-cussion Paper.

Community CharterCouncil EvaluationOn-site feedback during and immediately after theconference was all extremely positive. We received122 evaluations or 29% of those attending.

The overall rating for the conference was 4.2 out of 5with 89% of delegates ranking the event “good or excel-lent” (One delegate rated everything poor). The del-egates appeared to really like the mixed format of pres-entations, questions and opportunities for feedback.

#1 Advance Registration Procedure 4.3#2 On-site Registration 4.3#3 Sound System 4.1#4 Meeting Centre Facilities 4.4#5 Coffee Service 4.0#6 No Host Reception 3.6#7 Continental Breakfast 3.6#8 Day One – Morning 4.1#9 Day One – Afternoon 4.2#10 Day Two – Morning 4.0#11 Day Two – Afternoon 3.8#12 Procedure for Q& A Session 4.2#13 Discussion Sessions 3.9

Preliminary Conference Results

D elegates to theC o m m u n i t yCharter Confer-

ence provided advice onall nine Parts of the draftCommunity Charter plustransition, implementa-tion and some final con-siderations. The prelimi-nary results are based on asample of 100 delegate re-sponses (which was about50% of those responding).These results are subjectto modification as the fullfinal results are com-pleted. However, UBCM

wanted to share as soon asit could, the early resultsof the delegate feedback.Copies of the final work-book summaries will bemade available to all mem-bers. In most cases the pre-liminary results clearlyindicate a preferred direc-tion and it is not likely thatthe full results will changedirection considerably. Ifyou didn’t attend andwould like to complete aworkbook, they can bedownloaded off theCivicNet web site under

the Community Chartersection.

The following are someof the more interesting re-sults:

Part 1 – Principles

When asked if the Charterprinciples were clear andconcise there was clearsupport. However, a sig-nificant number had res-ervations about the clarityof the downloading prin-ciple (s.2(2)c). There was a

concern expressed off thefloor as well, that it maynot clearly capture thevarious forms ofdownloading.

Parts 2 and 3 –Purposes andPowers

The top four regulatoryproblems identified byparticipants were (1) ani-mal control, (2) business,(3) enforcement, and (4)

Continued on page 6


George B. Cuff & Associates Ltd.MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS

58 Winchester AvenueSpruce Grove, Alberta T7X 1L8

GEORGE B. CUFF, CMC

Telephone (780) 960-3637Fax (780) 962-5899

e-mail: [email protected]

• Reviews of Corporate Governance & SeniorManagement Practices

• Assessment of Organizational Effectiveness• Training for Councils, Boards, ManagementIf you’ve got questions,

we’ve got the answers you’re looking forWe have been providing the public sector with audit opinions and accounting advice for well over 60years. But that’s not all. Increasingly, our clients are turning to us for related services as well, suchas management advice, feasibility studies, financial indicators reports, financial planning, informa-tion technology, and human resources planning. Our specialized skills, tailored for your needs, allowyou to use your resources — people, facilities, and money — as productively as possible.

For more information on how we can help your Municipality or Regional District, contact one of our16 offices in British Columbia, or one of our offices across Canada. We’ve got the answers.

Provincial Contact Partner: Bill Cox, PartnerTel: (604) 688-5421

Represented internationally by BDO International

BDO DUNWOODY LLP

Chartered Accountants

Management Consultants

building inspection (fol-lowed by signs, nuisances,land use and traffic).

Slightly less than one-half felt comfortable, atthis early date, that theCharter would give themthe tools to deal with theseproblems (a full 25% were“unsure” indicating aneed for more considera-tion of the Charter pow-ers).

“Concurrent jurisdic-tion” is a new model thatis introduced in the Char-ter. It recognizes that thereare some regulatory areasthat aren’t purely local orpurely provincial but areshared jurisdictions. It setsup four areas of concur-rent jurisdiction – health,environment, prohibitionof soil deposit or removal,and standards for build-ing construction. Del-egates indicated areaswhere they would like toregulate in each of the fourareas. The more fre-quently mentioned topicsare:Public Health – waterquality, septic systems,standards for publicswimming pools, alcoholand drugs.Protection of the naturalenvironment – creeks andstreams; air quality; shore-lines.Setting standards forBuildings and other struc-tures – local standards; firesprinklers; exterior fin-ishes.Prohibiting deposit/re-moval of soil and othermaterials – gravel;composting and demoli-tion and constructionwaste; contaminated soil;quarry operations.

Fairly consistently,60% said they would liketo seek these powersjointly through UBCMand 40% said they wouldbe prepared to seek these

powers individually.The final question in

this part was support forinter-municipal regula-tory schemes. Two-thirdsof delegates supported theconcept and indicated thatpossible areas would beanimal control; buildinginspection; business li-censing; and protectiveservices.

Part 4 – PublicParticipation andCouncilAccountability

A clear message from 85%of respondents was thatcouncil should have theauthority to invite othersto closed meetings (thosebeing consultants, law-yers, developers). Del-egates were still not happywith their ability to meetprivately for council-staffretreats.

Performance measureswas raised as a discussiontopic. A slight majority oflocal governments re-ported that they currentlymeasured performance.(When asked, there wasno real common method.So reactions to whether theCharter would affect thesepractices was mixed.) In-terestingly almost half ofrespondents favored somecommon performancemeasures that would fa-cilitate comparisons be-tween municipalities.

Conflict of Interest• 77% supported that theperiod of disqualification fora conflict violation should beextended to the next generalelection.• 72% supported a range ofpenalties other than just dis-qualification (fines or sus-pensions were mentioned asalternatives).

Part 5 – MunicipalProcedures

The workbook for this partbegan with three ques-tions:• 87% clear support for therole proposed for councilmembers.• 73% supported the re-vised role for the mayor.• 91% supported the dutyto keep matters confidential.

Parts 6 and 7 –Financial Sections

After asking what munici-palities might use businesstax exemptions for (eco-nomic development); ifthe authority should beallowed for neighboringmunicipalities even if yourmunicipality didn’t pro-vide exemptions (65% saidno); and opinions on vari-ous design issues (busi-ness as well as industry(36% yes); new and exist-ing businesses (26% yes);require repayment (67%yes); allow partial exemp-tions in geographic areas(53% yes); require electorapproval (50% no); allowexemptions only if exist-ing also receive exemp-tions (69% no); the bottomline in terms of supportfor business exemptionsunder any circumstanceswas 22% yes; 71% no and6% didn’t know.

The participants’ interestin utilizing the following newrevenue sources in their ju-risdiction was (numbers re-sponding not %):• road tolls 41• hotel room tax 58• fuel tax 52• local entertainment

tax 35• resort tax 31• parking stall tax 24• fees as a tax 29

Sales taxes were men-tioned frequently as an-other potential revenuesource.

Part 8 – Legal

This section of the delegateresponses focussed on theproposals for new LocalGovernment Bylaw Fo-rums for hearing bylawdisputes. There was awide range of views as tothe maximum fine undera bylaw that would beheard at these new forumsbut 45% set the ceiling at$500 and another 20% setthe ceiling at $1,000. Someof the comments sug-gested that the thresholdshould be set by local gov-ernment. A very strong88% felt that there shouldbe different amounts fordifferent types of bylawinfractions.

There was also verystrong support for dis-counts for early payment(95%); with similarlystrong support for localgovernments to set thedetails in their own by-laws (94%); and if thatwas not possible, for lo-cal governments to havethe ability to set out thedetails within an overallprovincial framework(63%).

There was good sup-port (74%) for formalcompliance agreements(with reduced fines) anda similar pattern that lo-cal government shouldset the details (83%) withsomewhat lower supportfor local governmentssetting details within aprovincial framework(61%). Finally, 70% sup-ported the ability to usevoluntary adjudicatorsin place of professionaladjudicators. What wasquite clear is that del-egates didn’t like the sug-gested name of LocalGovernment Bylaw Fo-rum (63% no) but therewas no common refer-ence among the sug-gested alternatives.

Part 9 –GovernmentalRelations

This part attracted somesignificant responses.When asked if the Charterprovides enough provi-sions to create the inter-governmental relation-ship that is needed, a sig-nificant 40% said yes, but33% said no and 27%didn’t know. When askedwhat was the best optionfor managing local-pro-vincial relations:• 34% said use existing or-ganizations.• 26% said set up a non-legislated consultative body.• 41% said to establish instatute a permanent Com-munity Charter Council.

Part 9 also deals withdispute resolution. A nearmajority saw the Charterassisting in resolving lo-cal-provincial disputes. Anear majority were inter-ested in expanding the listof matters subject to bind-ing arbitration. In bothcases the number of del-egates that responded“didn’t know” was signifi-cant (26% and 37% respec-tively).

Final Questions

The delegates were finallyasked some open-endedwrap-up questions.

Commonly mentionedas what delegates likedmost about the Charterwere:

• it’s simple, clear legisla-tion.• streamlined and concise.• greater flexibility, moreautonomy and broader pow-ers.• more authority to makelocal decisions locally.• a “giant step in the rightdirection”.

Areas that needed themost work to complete theCharter included:• clarifying thedownloading principle witha clear commitment to re-specting the principle;• clarifying the revenuesources and how they can beused;• re-evaluating/or remov-ing the business tax exemp-tion: and• reviewing the balance be-tween the role of the mayorand council.

Among the benefits ofthe Charter were en-hanced efficiency andmore local control. Thecapacity of small commu-nities was mentioned asone of the challenges ofusing the new Charter –small community con-cerns were not unique tothis question but werementioned in relation toseveral other topics.

In conclusion there ap-peared to be broad basicsupport for the Charter;the need as MinisterNebbeling stated for“tweaking” in a numberof areas; and some majorissues for the CharterCouncil members to seri-ously review.

UBCM thanks all thoseresponding and for theirdirection.

Continued from page 5


MURDY & MCALLISTERBARRISTERS & SOLICITORS

#1155 – Two Bentall Centre, 555 Burrard StreetP.O. Box 49059

Vancouver, B.C. V7X 1C4Fax: (604) 689-9029 Tel: (604) 689-5263

Since 1980 our firm has restricted its practice to acting for local government andproviding advice concerning municipal law to other clients.

PolicyUpdates

Contributed by Paul Cox, Provincial PandemicPlanning Coordinator, BC Centre for Disease Control

Schools are closed, all public gatherings are cancelled,hundreds of thousands of British Columbians areclinically ill and thousands are dying. Medical re-sources are becoming scarce and the supply chain isseverely disrupted. This has continued for weeks andthe end is not in sight. Other parts of the country andthe entire world are in a similar situation. As thingsappear to be improving, there is a second, more deadlywave of illness predicted.

Sometime in the near future, BC will be faced withthis scenario – a global epidemic that is caused by astrain of influenza virus that spreads rapidly andcauses extraordinarily high rates of illness and death.“Pandemic Influenza” has been here several timesbefore and it will be back. That is the bad news. Thegood news is that we have time to plan to minimizerates of death, illness and suffering, as well as limit thescope of social and economic upheaval.

The Pandemic itself cannot be prevented, effectiveplanning can mitigate its impact. To “reduce morbid-ity and mortality” is the goal of the “BC PandemicInfluenza Plan”, a set of planning guidelines beingdeveloped by the BC Pandemic Influenza AdvisoryCommittee. Although the advisory committee andsub-working groups are primarily composed of healthprofessionals, the scope of this type of disaster is suchthat it requires all sectors of society, from front-linehealth care workers to business, industry and govern-ment to plan together – NOW.

Within BC, Health Authorities are establishingPandemic Influenza planning committees. HealthAuthority planning committees NEED to work withmunicipalities and regional districts to ensure thatroles, responsibilities and resources are identified andeffectively utilized at the local level. Cooperative andcoordinated Pandemic planning will also build ourcapacity to respond effectively to many other naturaland human made disasters. Your Health Authorityneeds your support to ensure that Pandemic planningis given the highest possible priority in your locality.

ProvinceRespondsto 2001Resolutions

A total of 87 resolutions were forwarded to the

provincial government forconsideration followingthe 2001 UBCM Conven-tion. The responses re-ceived from the provin-cial government are cur-rently in draft form; weare anticipating receipt ofthe formal responses be-fore the end of June. Anumber of resolutionswere referred to the prov-ince under separate coveras priority and seven re-sponses were received in-dividually; also someresolutions were referredto Committees for consid-eration following Conven-tion. These resolutions’responses are not includedin this summary.

Of the 87 resolutionsforwarded to the prov-ince, the Provincial Gov-ernment indicated a will-ingness to considerchanges proposed in 37 ofthe resolutions. Of these,12 are being considered inthe development of thisphase of the CommunityCharter, 3 will be consid-ered in future phases, andfor a further 16 resolutionsthe Provincial Govern-ment indicated that itwould be willing to un-

dertake further study orreview. The province alsoadvised that it was notwilling to considerchanges in 20 of the reso-

lutions. Twenty-four reso-lutions have already beenaddressed or are beingaddressed, in whole or inpart, in current initiatives.

N otable changesto current legislation found in

Bill 21 relate to the Com-mission structure, delega-tion of authority to localgovernment, enforcementand dispute resolution.

Changes toCommission structure

This implements Cabinetdirection approved inJanuary 2002. A memofrom the Land ReserveCommission (LRC) wassent to all local govern-ments on January 29, 2002explaining these struc-tural changes includingthe establishment of six re-gional panels, (up fromthree, with one panel foreach geographic region ofthe province). There is noappeal from regional pan-els to full board. The newCommissioners were ap-pointed in April and arelisted on LRC’s website(www.lrc.gov.bc.ca).

Expansion ofDelegation Authority

The new Act gives theALC power to delegateauthority to decide appli-cations for non-farm useor subdivisions for landsin ALR not only to localgovernments but now alsoto public agencies, (e.g.

Land and Water BC, Oiland Gas Commission).UBCM has been assuredthat the LRC’s intent is toconsult fully with localgovernments before del-egating this authority to apublic body.

This authority meansthat local government andpublic agencies can con-trol what happens insideALR boundaries in rela-tion to subdivision andnon-farm. Once the poweris delegated, the local gov-ernment /public body willwear the Commission’s‘hat’ while processing ap-plications. The LRC em-phasizes that since delega-tion is voluntary, it is notoffloading. An agreementbetween the Land Com-mission and a local gov-ernment and/or publicbody has to be in placeprior to delegation, (onesuch agreement has beennegotiated with Fraser-Fort George Regional Dis-trict in January 2001).

Delegation is one of theways the LRC plans tomeet its Service Plan tar-gets for reduction of thenumber of applicationsthey handle directly.These targets are as fol-lows: sixty percent of localgovernments with ALR toreceive some sort of del-egation over three yearstranslating to a sixty per-cent reduction in applica-tions to LRC.

Enforcement

The new Act enhancesenforcement and compli-ance powers, includingthe ability to assess andcollect penalties for seri-ous infractions, (includingby local governments whohave a delegation agree-ment with the LRC).

Dispute Resolutionthrough Facilitation

The Act establishes a dis-pute resolution process toresolve disagreements be-tween the Commissionand local governmentsover “community issues”related to agricultural land(including Official Com-munity Plans and Re-gional Growth Strategies).It sets out a process forappointing a facilitator tomake an assessment andrecommendation to re-solve a dispute.

Regulatory Reform

The LRC reactivated theregulatory reform initia-tive they began over a yearago, (UBCM was con-sulted at that time and hascontinued to provide in-put). The plan is to bringthe new regulations into

New Act And Regulation ForAgricultural Land Reserve

Bill 21, the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) Act, passed third reading on May14, 2002. Bill 21 combines some of the provisions of three existing Acts which arebeing repealed: the Agricultural Land Reserve Act, the Land Reserve CommissionAct and the Soil Conservation Act. It also amends the land use provisions of theForest Land Reserve Act, (the Land Commission’s responsibility for the Forest LandReserve will be phased out by April 2003). Finally, a revised “Agricultural LandReserve (ALR) Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation” will be brought intoforce at the same time as the legislation, which is expected to be later this fall.

Continued on page 8


Providing Great Service to Great Clients

In business since 1975, we are 160+ people working out of seven different offices throughout BCand Alberta. In helping our clients solve their problems, we combine the talents of planners,engineers, landscape architects, design technologists, lawyers, local government consultants,accountants and service teams.

Our specialties include:

Ø Water & Wastewater Engineering Ø Local Government ConsultingØ Transportation Planning & Engineering Ø Community EnhancementØ Stormwater Management Ø Services for First NationsØ Land Development Ø Community Servicing & FinancingØ Information Management Systems

Richmond (604) 273-8700 . Kamloops (250) 374-8311 . Kelowna (250) 762-2517 . Calgary (403) 291-1193 .Fort St. John (250) 785-9691 . Nelson (250) 352-9774 . Quesnel (250) 992-9555 www.urban-systems.com

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS

1100 Melville Street, Suite 1600Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4A6

604 691-1002 Fax: 604 691-1062

Towers Perrin

OFFICES IN VANCOUVER, CALGARY, TORONTO & MONTREAL

MORE POLICY UPDATES

The months of Mayand June havebrought a lot of

good infrastructure newsto communities across theprovince. A total of 100projects have now beenannounced, including the15 green projects an-nounced on December 17,2001.

The more recent an-nouncements were 60green projects on May 16,2002; the Kamloops wa-ter treatment plant an-nouncement (also green)on June 6th; and a further

18 green and 6 “other”community based projects– on June 25th.

Under the Canada-BCInfrastructure program,the federal, provincial andlocal governments will in-vest a total of $800 millionby 2006. The June 25th an-nouncements bring thecombined total contribu-tion of the federal and pro-vincial governments tomore than $167 million,part of the $268 millionthat each is contributingtowards the program overits six-year lifespan. The

Infrastructure ProjectAnnouncements Roll Out

L-R Hon. George Abbott, Mayor Mel Rothenburger (City ofKamloops – funding recipient), Senator D. Ross Fitzpatrick

L-R Hon. George Abbott, Hon. Stephen Owen, Mayor HelenSparkes (UBCM representative), Mayor Corinne Lonsdale (Dis-trict of Squamish – funding recipient), Hon. Herb Dhaliwal

local government projectapplicants are contribut-ing the remaining one-third of the costs eligibleunder the program guide-lines, plus any additionalcosts.

UBCM has faxed theproject releases to mem-bers as they have beenannounced. A full list ofthe projects announced todate (indexed by date ofrelease with detailedbackgrounders) may befound online at the fed-eral web site at:www.wd.gc. ca/en g/

m e d i a c e n t r e /current.html or on the pro-vincial web site at:www.c s e .g ov .bc . c a/p u b l i c i n f o /newsreleases/.

There will be moreproject announcementsunder the program in theweeks and months ahead.The Management Com-mittee is also now work-ing on a revised guide fora future project applica-tion intake, which will befacilitated by a new onlineapplication process. Theprogram will be commu-nicating with local govern-ments about this next in-take when appropriate,and UBCM will ensurethat its members are keptinformed.

As one component of thisreview, UBCM was invitedto participate as astakeholder in a multi-ju-risdictional assessment ofthe impact of alternate serv-ice delivery models. Theconsultants doing the re-view facilitated a workshopon May 8 and 9 in Vancou-ver. UBCM was repre-sented by Mayor WayneHunter of Central Saanich,who is also the Vice-Chairof the Capital Regional Dis-trict, and by local govern-ment consultant DougAllan. The workshop wasalso attended by repre-sentatives of the BC Am-bulance Service, the Emer-gency Health ServicesCommission, Paramedics,CUPE, Regional HealthAuthorities, the ProvincialHealth Services Authority,the BC Medical Associa-tion, the EMS Director forthe City of Calgary, Hospi-tal Emergency staff, theMinistry of Health Plan-ning, and the Fire Chiefs’Association.

While the session pro-

Ambulance Service Under Review

effect around the sametime as the Act is pro-claimed. The overall goalis to streamline proce-dures and reduce regula-tory requirements.

The new regulationwill clarify permitted farmand non-farm uses in theALR and provide a list of

New Act and Regulation for AgriculturalLand Reserve


The provincial government is undertaking aCore Review of the BC Ambulance Service andthe Emergency Health Services Commission.

duced a good discussionof the issues involved inthe delivery of ambulanceservice from a wide rangeof perspectives, it is notknown whether the con-sultants’ conclusions werebased on what they heard,nor what recommenda-tions they made to the gov-ernment with respect toany reorganization of theambulance service.

Given the uncertaintyof outcomes associatedwith this process, UBCMwrote to Minister Hansenasking that local govern-ment be provided with thecontinued opportunity forinvolvement in this reviewand in the development ofwhatever new model maybe considered for the de-livery of ambulance serv-ice in the province. A re-quest was also made toreceive a copy of the re-port made to governmenton the review. UBCM willkeep i ts members in-formed if it learns of anyfurther progress on thisissue.

those uses which localgovernments may regu-late but not prohibit. Theyprovide for a wider rangeof permitted uses and sim-pler criteria for specifieduses in the ALR (e.g. dogkennels, equestrian facili-ties and certain roads andutility uses will now bepermitted without appli-cation to the LRC). Theprovisions will also out-

line those uses that theCommission permitswithout application butwhich a local governmentmay not wish to allow.

The LRC Chair andCEO is communicatingchanges in the new Actand regulations directly toUBCM members througha series of informationbulletins (also available ontheir website:www.lrc.gov.bc.ca). TheLRC advises that they planto meet with as many lo-cal governments as possi-

ble to explain the changesand answer questions.The LRC has respondedto UBCM’s request to pro-vide local governmentswith more time to comeup to speed on thechanges. Local govern-ments will need transitiontime to examine their regu-latory framework for ALRlands within their jurisdic-tion and to considerwhether adjustments arenecessary before the newlegislation and regulationsare enacted.

T he HonourableRich Coleman,Minister of Public

Safety and Solicitor Gen-eral announced at an OpenCabinet meeting on March15, 2001 new policies re-lated to the serving of liq-uor.

The Minister at that timeannounced that the prov-ince was looking at eightpolicy changes related tothe serving of liquor, out-lined below:1. New Licensing Proc-esses - The number of regu-latory classes will be reducedfrom 19 to two licence proc-esses, one for food-primaryand one for liquor-primary.2. No SetMaximum PatronCapacities - maximum pa-tron capacity for a liquor es-tablishment would be setthrough the Building Code -floor space available.3. Broader Grouping ofBusinesses4. Ability to Relocate theLicence

5. Policies for Transitionof Licences6. Extended OperatingHours - The new provincialregulations will extend liq-uor service to 4 a.m. and re-move the maximum of 14hours of service between 9a.m. and 4 a.m. Approvalwill be granted only on acase-by-case basis and only ifsupported by local govern-ment and police.7. Dual Restaurant/BarLicensing - The new regula-tion will allow an establish-ment to operate as a restau-rant during the day and a barin the evening. Not everyrestaurant will be eligible fora liquor-primary licence.Applications will be proc-essed in the same way as anyapplication for a new liquor-primary licence and will re-quire local government, po-lice and residents’ input andthe consideration of anumber of factors, including



Tel: (604) 531-1421Fax: (604) 531-8402

Toll-Free: 1-800-667-1421

300 – 1676 Martin DriveSurrey, B.C.V4A 6E7

ESTABLISHED 1951THOMPSON & McCONNELLBARRISTERS & SOLICITORS

Robert C.P. Walker Gregory M. Vanstone Marjorie E. MooneyJ. Craig Moulton Rodrick H. MacKenzie Michael C. WoodwardA.K. Thompson (dec’d) George B. Rush William C. McConnell (dec’d)

ADVISING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR OVER 40 YEARS

T he Minister ofHealth ServicesColin Hansen an-

nounced a $16 million ac-tion plan to strengthendrinking water protectionin the province.

The Drinking WaterAction Plan focuses oneight key principles:1. The safety of drinking wateris a health issue;2. Prevention and source pro-tection are a critical part of drink-ing water protection;3. Providing safe drinking wa-ter requires an integrated ap-proach;4. All water systems need tobe thoroughly assessed to de-termine risks;5. Proper treatment and waterdistribution system integrity areimportant to protect humanhealth;6. Tap water must meet ac-ceptable safety standards andbe monitored;7. Small systems require a flex-ible system with safeguards;8. Safe drinking water shouldbe affordable, with users payingappropriate costs.

Under the new actionplan the Ministry ofHealth Services will be thedesignated lead ministryand new posit ions of

drinking water protectionofficers will be establishedin each of the regionalhealth authorities. Underthe new program source-to-tap assessments will beperformed on all watersystems in the province.The assessments will beused to identify deficien-cies, and establish plansfor infrastructure up-grades and replacements.

Two technical commit-tees will be established toprovide advice on regula-tory changes and stand-ards, further standards fortap water are being con-sidered – a drinking wateradvisory committee and agroundwater advisorycommittee.

The costs of the new pro-gram and how it will bepaid for has not yet beenfinalized. The province hasindicated that consulta-tions with key stakeholderswill begin shortly to de-velop cost-recovery op-tions for the new actionplan. The UBCM will beinvolved in future discus-sions on the implementa-tion of the new drinkingwater action plan.

New Drinking WaterProtection Measures

Pest Control Products ActThe federal government on March 21, 2002 introducednew legislation to modernize pesticide regulation inCanada – Pest Control Products Act.

The new legislation is intended to:• strengthen health and environmental protection by tak-ing into account the cumulative effects of pesticide exposureand encouraging the registration of lower-risk products;• make the registration system more transparent by estab-lishing a public registry to allow access to detailed evalua-tion reports and the test data on which these evaluations arebased; and• strengthen post-registration control of pesticides by in-creasing the powers of inspection and requiring companiesto report any adverse effects of the pesticides after they havebeen approved.

Local governments will continue to have the au-thority to regulate by bylaw the use of pesticides, suchas when and where certain types of pesticides (usuallylawn, turf and garden products) may be used in thelocal community.

The federal and provincial government is also look-ing at a program to assist Canadians in reducing theirreliance on pesticides in urban areas. They are lookingat a number of ways of helping consumers to under-stand and make better decisions when using pesti-cides:• Product types available to homeowners – ensure that theproducts available are compatible with integrated pest man-agement principles (i.e. use pesticides only when necessary);• Harmonized classification of domestic (consumer) prod-ucts – to help facilitate the adoption of consistent sale, useand education for domestic products;• Product Labelling – make it easier for homeowners tounderstand the product they are using so as to avoid healthand environmental risks;• Education and training – enhancement of nationalstandards for service providers and vendors.

Environment

M i n i s t e rAndersonrecently re-

leased the federal govern-ment’s proposed climatechange program. He indi-cated that the Canadianobjective is a 6% reduc-tion in greenhouse emis-sions below 1990 levels(240 mega ton reduction),Canada has alreadyachieved a 30% reductionand has a decade in whichto meet the remaining70%. The federal proposalis intended to be flexibleand to focus on threemeasures that Canadacould use to meet the goalsit agreed to under theKyoto Agreement:1. increasing energy efficiencythrough domestic emissionstrading – no region will be askedto bear an unreasonable bur-den;2. targeted measures – on asector by sector basis;3. international measures –emission trading measures andpurchase needed credits in theinternational market.

The federal proposaloutlines four options tomeet the objectives out-lined in the Kyoto Agree-ment:Option 1: Broad AsPractical DomesticEmissions Trading(DET) – this option wouldrequire fossil fuel suppli-

ers, such as refiners, natu-ral gas distributors, coalmines and fossil fuel im-porters to hold permitsequivalent to the CO2emissions from the com-bustion of the fossil fuelthey sell.

This option would cap-ture approximately 80% ofCanada’s GHG emissionsand involve 100 to 500firms directly. The affectof this option would re-sult in higher energy coststo both industry and theconsumer. The federalgovernment would needto regulate the domesticemission trading system –auction permits for trad-ing with the new revenuegoing to the federal gov-ernment.Option 2: All TargetedMeasures – this optionwould attempt to achievethe climate change objec-tives through a broadrange of policy instru-ments, including incen-tives, covenants, regula-tions and fiscal measures.A close partnership be-tween the federal/provin-cial government would berequired to implement thisoption and its focus wouldbe on reducing green-house gas emissions in anumber of sectors electric-ity, oil and gas, transpor-tation, building, industry,

municipalities, agricul-ture and forestry. Ratherthan being driven by mar-ket forces this option isbuilt around regulatorymeasures, many of whichwould be the responsibil-ity of provincial govern-ments.

Measures could in-clude zero or low emis-sion technologies, in-creased use of ethanol ingasoline, increased invest-ment in public transit in-frastructure, increasebuilding code standardsetc.Option 3: Mixed Ap-proach – Large FinalEmitter Domestic Emis-sions Trading: in this op-tion permits would be al-located to “Large FinalEmitters” and the permitrequirement would be ap-plied directly to emissions,rather than to the fossilfuels whose combustionleads to emissions – per-mits would be linked toemissions intensity andoutput.

This option wouldcover approximately 8 or9 major industrial sectors,it would capture approxi-mately 40% of Canada’sGHG emissions and in-volve 400 to 500 firms. Theremaining reduction inGHG emissions would bedealt with through tar-geted measures.Option 4: AdjustedMixed Approach – un-

Climate Change Policy der this option permitswould be designed to easecompetitive concerns forcompanies experiencinggrowth and would takeinto account a sector’s ca-pacity to reduce emissionsat a reasonable cost, and byensuring that growth firmswould see their permit al-location grow. This optionwould also allow firms par-ticipating in the emissionstrading system to purchaseemission reductions or off-sets from firms outside thetrading system.

This option wouldcover a broader range ofindustry sectors and fo-cus more on market forcesin how it operated. Theprocess would also allowfocused measures to en-courage investment insome sectors, rather thanothers. This option in-cludes the planning as-sumption that Canada issuccessful in obtainingcredits for cleaner energyexports under the KyotoAgreement.

A report released bythe David Suzuki Foun-dation and the WorldWildlife Fund has esti-mated that Canada couldyield net economic ben-efits from implementingthe Kyoto Protocol:• A cumulative net economicsaving of $4 billion acrossthe economy reaching $1.6billion per year or $47 percapita in 2012.


The Ministry of Water, Land and AirProtection has es-

tablished a five memberpanel with expertise in theareas of stewardship, rec-reation and management.The panel will focus onthe resourcing issues fac-ing parks, fish and wild-life and recreation pro-grams. The panel will lookat a new managementmodel for park and wild-life recreation that con-nects fees with servicesand opportunities, and al-lows greater public in-volvement in decisionmaking.

The members of thepanel are Councillor BruceStrachan from PrinceGeorge, who will chair thecommittee - he is also amember of the UBCM Ex-ecutive; Bob Dalziel, As-sistant Deputy Minister,Environmental Steward-ship Division, Ministry ofWater, Land and Air Pro-tection; David Narver, ad-visor to governments and

member of the B.C. Wild-life Federation and otherorganizations; Bob Peart,Executive Director of theCanadian Parks and Wil-derness Society; and AidanVining a professor in busi-ness policy and publicpolicy on the Faculty ofBusiness Administration,Simon Fraser University.

The panel is expectedto have developed optionson how to improve the on-going delivery of park, fishand wildlife recreation op-portunities and a consul-tation model by July 1,2002. It will undertake tar-geted consultations withkey stakeholders and ac-cept written submissionsfrom the public over thesummer, and will submita set of draft recommen-dations to the Minister ofWater, Land and Air Pro-tection by September 13,2002. Further consultationon the draft recommenda-tions will be undertakenand a final report preparedby November 29, 2002.

The province has intro-duced the followingchanges into the environ-mental assessment process:• Proponents will be able todetermine their own terms ofreference for review in con-sultation with the Environ-mental Assessment Office;• Customization of envi-ronmental assessment pro-cedures on a project-by-project basis;• Consultation procedureswill be determined by the En-vironmental Assessment Of-fice on a project-by-projectbasis;• Project Committees willnot be established for eachnew project under review –as currently happens;• Proponents will have theability to request a concur-rent review of all provincialgovernment approvals re-quired for the project to beundertaken.

The Environmental

Assessment Office willhave the ability to deter-mine the policy processand whether or not an en-vironmental assessment isrequired for a project – i.e.,waive environmental as-sessments for projects thatare inappropriately cap-tured by the regulations.

The Minister will beable to determine whethera project can go ahead andwhat permits will be re-quired.

The role of the Envi-ronmental AssessmentOffice will be to work withthe line ministries to de-termine what the perform-ance standards are for theproject proposed.

The regulations underthe legislation will be sim-plified, although thethreshold levels for projectreviews will likely be re-tained. The number ofregulations will be re-duced.

Provincial EnvironmentalAssessment

The provincial government has introduced newlegislation governing the environmentalassessment process in the province (Bill 38-Environmental Assessment Act). The goal of thenew legislation is to introduce more streamlinedand flexible environmental assessment proceduresfor major projects. There will be greater discretionabout the type of projects that may be subject toan environmental assessment review versus apermit review.

For further information see web site: www.wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/

main/newsrel/fisc0203/may/nr114.htm

The Ministry of Water,Land and Air Protectionin accordance with itsservice plan to improveand expand the product-reuse-recycling businessapproach has hired a con-sultant to undertake a re-view of the stewardshipprograms it regulates. Thereport on stewardshippolicy (The Sucha MoreReport) is entitled “Stew-ardship Options: A Re-view of Service DeliveryModels” and is availableon the internet at: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/epda/ips/steward-ship

The report outlines a‘plan, do and check’ frame-work which has beenadopted by the ministry asthe basis for managing andoperating stewardship pro-grams. This process con-tains the following assess-ment criteria:• Plan – confirm strategicdirection and alignment;stewardship priorities; strat-egies to meet targets.• Do – principles, assess-ment of costs, benefits andrisks; identification of fund-ing options (revenue sourcesand funding model).• Check – performance man-agement, ongoing monitor-ing and reporting.

New ProductStewardship Framework

The framework isbased on the followingproduct stewardship prin-ciples:

Producer/User Pay –responsibility is shifted toproducers and consumers;no shift to other levels ofgovernment.Level Playing Field – allbrand-owners treated eq-uitably; all consumershave equitable access tofacilities; reduce systemicbars to new participants.Performance-based – regu-latory clarity; flexibility;minimum government in-volvement; tailored to spe-cific products; consistentwith pollution preventionhierarchy; encouragescontinued innovation.Transparent and Account-able – development proc-ess (open/involvesstakeholders); industryaccountable to govern-ment and consumers.

The ministry intends toundertake a review of the6 stewardship programsit regulates based on thisnew strategic framework:• Scrap Tires (1991)• Lead-Acid Batteries (1991)• Used Oil (1992)• Post Consumer Paint(1994)• Residuals (1996/97)• Beverage Containers

(1970-Litter Act; 1998-cur-rent regulation)

The ministry has iden-tified the following prior-ity areas for review in the

short term (used oil, con-sumer paint and residuals)and in the medium term(lead acid batteries, scraptires).


The provincial government has recently introduced

amendments to the WasteManagement Act (Bill 32)clarifying when a site hasbeen determined to be acontaminated site underthe legislation. The legis-lative changes have alsointroduced amendmentsto limit the liability of minesite owners for contami-nation, essentially elimi-nating the former ownerof the mine from any li-ability for ‘historical’ con-tamination.

The Ministry of Water,Land and Air Protectionhas indicated that furtherchanges will be made tothe contaminated sitesregulatory process. Theministry is concernedabout the ongoing admin-istrative costs associatedwith the current contami-nated sites program and islooking at measures thatwould reduce these costsand reduce its role.

The Ministry of Water,Land and Air Protectionestablished a four mem-ber panel to review thecontaminated sites regu-lation on June 4, 2002. The

panel is made up ofMargaret Eriksson, law-yer; Dennis Konasewich,environmental consultant,Peter Lloyd, chartered ac-countant; and John Sager,Manager, Toxics and Spe-cial Waste, and Pesticideswith the Ministry of Wa-ter, Land and Air Protec-tion. The Panel is lookingfor input from the publicon the contaminated sitesissue by July 19, 2002 andare expected to provide afinal report to the Minis-ter by September 3, 2002.

The recommendationsfrom the panel are to beused to develop a newpolicy framework for con-taminated site regulationsin the province and to in-form subsequent legisla-tive changes required forthe Spring 2003 sitting ofthe legislature. The gov-ernment’s intent is “thecreation of an administra-tively effective and effi-cient contaminated sitesregime that is perform-ance based, less time con-suming and reduces di-rect government adminis-tration and oversight toonly those sites that pose ahigh risk to the environ-

Contaminated Sites ment and human health.”Local government has

two major issues related tocontaminated sites review.The first issue is that theliability and the costs foroff-site contamination,management and clean upof contaminated sites is nottransferred to local com-munities. The second is-sue is that the sites arecleaned up by the pollutersto the point that they can beused for other purposes inthe community.

There is the potentialthat the legislative/regu-latory changes being con-sidered by the provincecould minimize the liabil-ity of the polluter and re-duce the incentives toclean-up the site. Localgovernment and some in-dustry sectors could befaced with potential liabil-ity problems of contami-nated sites and off-sitepollution in the future.

UBCM representativesrecently met with theChair of the review com-mittee to convey our pre-vious positions and inter-ests. We have also circu-lated the committee termsof reference to all mem-bers. The matter will bereviewed by the UBCMEnvironment Committeeat this mid-July meeting.

SmartGrowth BC

Smart Growth BC isoffering a SmallC o m m u n i t i e s

Workshop free of chargefor citizens, communitygroups and decision mak-ers who want to see smartgrowth principles andpractices incorporated intoofficial planning docu-ments and implemented atthe local level. The work-shops are interactive anduse the knowledge of localparticipants to addressland-use, growth, sprawland development-relatedissues. The Workshops arereadily adjusted to suit thegeneral circumstances ofthe host community. TheSmall Communities Work-shop provides ideas andstrategies for promotingsmart growth planningmethods to developer' sand local government, andteaches communities howto manage growth chal-lenges in an inclusive andpositive way.

Smart Growth is offer-ing these workshops tonon-metropolitan, com-munity-based organiza-tions, including local gov-ernments across BC, espe-cially those regions thathave been and continue toexperience rapid growthand development. Moreinformation is available atwww.smartgrowth.bc.caor contact the CommunityRelations Coordinator,Bernard LaRochelle at604.915.5234, [email protected].

The list of products to beincluded in the programwere identified as follows:• Personal computers;• Monitors;• Laptop computers;• Peripherals (printers,scanners, keyboards,etc.)• Telephones• Cell phones and• Fax machines.

The development of anindustry product steward-ship plan to deal with IT/Telecom equipment is aconcept that should be sup-ported by local governmentas some of this equipmentcontains toxic metals thatcould create contaminationproblems at landfill sites inthe future.

The program proposedby the industry, however,does not ensure the re-quired industry responsi-bility for the operation ofthe program and the costsof operating it from a localgovernment perspective.The report in outlining theindustry stewardship pro-gram determines that aspart of its “shared respon-sibility” for the wastestream that municipalitiesshould absorb the collec-tion costs and transporta-tion costs of taking the ITand telecom equipment to

logical consolidation cen-tres and the industry costof the program would beto transport the consoli-dated equipment to certi-fied material processors.

The report also sug-gests that local govern-ment should be responsi-ble for developing the in-frastructure for collectingused IT/Telcom equip-ment – establishing mu-nicipal drop-off locations,collection of the equip-ment from local residentsetc.

The industry proposalillustrates the need to en-sure that clear principlesand clear rules are in placefor undertaking steward-ship programs. There is aneed to ensure that indus-try understands that whenundertaking a steward-ship program it is respon-sible for the full costs ofoperating and managingthe program. The role oflocal government is to fa-cilitate the processthrough its regulatorypowers if required and toparticipate in the industrystewardship programwhere there is a clearlydefined business case fordoing so and where all itscosts are covered.

IT/Telecom Stewardship Program

A report entitled “Industry Roadmap – Overviewof a National Action Program for Management ofEnd of Life IT and Telecom Equipment in Canada”prepared for the Information TechnologyAssociation of Canada to foster discussion on thedevelopment of a national program for IT andTelecom equipment in Canada.

the number of bars or liquorestablishments in any givenarea.8. Clubs Retain Privilegesand Restrictions (NoChanges)

The Justice and Protec-tive Services Committeemet with the Minister ofPublic Safety and Solici-tor General in May to dis-cuss the changes that theprovince was considering.The Minister confirmedthat the province intendedto change provincial liq-uor policy and shift thefocus to public safety is-sues - serving minors; in-toxication –over serving ofliquor; overcrowding; andillegal liquor sales.

The Committee in itsdiscussions focused onfour key issues of localgovernment concern:• transition policy – need toensure that a mechanism is

in place so that local govern-ment bylaws which referencethe existing liquor policy willcontinue to be effective;• dual restaurant/bar licens-ing - requested that the prov-ince not go forward with thisproposal as it would likelycreate enforcement problemsin local communities;• extended operating hours– requested that the regula-tion provide for a flexibleprocess which would allowthe hours of operation to berolled back if the operation ofthe licensed establishmentwas creating problems in theneighbourhood or requiredextensive police resources toimplement and that it allowextended hours of operationon a seasonal basis or in cer-tain areas of the community.• compliance and enforce-ment – need for increasedmeasures to ensure compli-ance and enforcement.

The Committeepointed out that local gov-ernment had two majorconcerns regarding theproposed changes to pro-

vincial liquor policy. Thefirst concern is the impactthat these policy changescould have on local neigh-bourhoods. The secondconcern is the added po-lice resources that may berequired to address liquorrelated problems thatmight arise as a result ofextended hours of opera-tion and the number andtype of establishmentsserving liquor.

The Minister sup-ported the need for in-creased measures to en-sure compliance and en-forcement and the needfor the police to be pro-active when enforcing liq-uor policy. There werediscussions around theimplementation of aticketing process and finestructure to ensure futurecompliance to the liquorregulations and the poten-tial sharing of the fine rev-enue with local govern-ment to cover the costs ofpolice enforcement of liq-uor policy.

New Liquor Policy



CULEASE is a registered trademark owned by Credit Union Central of Canada, used under license.

Convention

2002 UBCM ConventionRegistration Available

Registration packages for the 99th UBCM Convention(Sept. 23–27) in Whistler were mailed to members andothers in late June. Take advantage of “incentive”rates until August 23.

Convention “bulletins” will be circulated from Julyto October to give members up-to-date details on someof the individual components of this year’s event.

Accommodations should be booked immediately.A list of hotels holding room blocks for UBCM can befound on the website: wwwcivicnet.gov.bc.ca/ubcm/convention-2002. In consideration of other delegates,please release any unused rooms as soon as possible.

1961 Vernon 7911971 Esquimalt 1,3281981 Vancouver 1,5821991 Victoria 1,8361999 Vancouver 1,6942000 Victoria 1,9112001 Vancouver 1,715

The ongoing administration and policy determinationof the UBCM is governed by a 19-person ExecutiveBoard that is elected and appointed at the Annual Con-vention.

There are ELEVEN elected positions:PresidentFirst Vice-PresidentSecond Vice-PresidentThird Vice-PresidentDirector at Large (5 positions)Small Community RepresentativeElectoral Area Representative

There are SEVEN appointed positions:Immediate Past PresidentVancouver RepresentativeGVRD RepresentativeArea Association Representatives -AVICC, AKBM, OMMA, NCMA and LMMA

Nominating Committee– is appointed under provisionsof the UBCM bylaws and is composed of the ImmediatePast President and representatives of the five Area Asso-ciations.

The Nominating Committee is responsible for over-seeing the nomination and election process.

The Nominating Process

June

The Nominating Committee has circulated a Call forNomination notice that contained the following infor-mation:• positions open for nomination• process for nomination• qualifications for office• role of Nominating Committee• closing date for nominations (prior to Convention)• general duties of an Executive memberIt included instructions on how to access additionalinformation on UBCM Executive responsibilities andhow, preferably, to submit a nomination.

July 31

Nominations close - all candidates must have their docu-mentation submitted.Following that deadline, the Nominating Committeewill review the credentials and prepare its report. It isnot the role of the Nominating Committee to recom-mend any one nomination. The Committee ensuresnominations are complete and are according to policiesand procedures.

Mid-August

The Nominating Committee report will be distributedto all UBCM members which will include:• names of members and positions• photo (to size set by Nominating Committee Chair)• biographical information. The maximum lengthof such information shall be 300 words. If the infor-mation provided is in excess, the Nominating Com-mittee Chair shall return it once for editing; if it stilldoes not meet the maximum the Nominating Com-mittee Chair shall edit as required.

For further information on the nomination and electionprocess contact the Chair, UBCM Nominating Committee

Nomination Procedures for the UBCM Executive

sider all the feedback overthe summer and deter-mine what needs to bedone to finalize its reportto government.

Turning to anothertopic I want to say howpleased I was to have beenable to attend all the AreaAssociations meetings thisyear. It was a truly invig-orating process that in-stilled in me the value ofUBCM to provide a com-mon voice but the need tobe ever aware of the re-gional variances and spe-cial concerns. I was alsoinvited to the Local Gov-ernment ManagementAssociation – and it is im-portant to keep those link-ages open.

Finally, registrationpackages have beenmailed for the conferencein Whistler, September 24-27 th. Visit our web-sitenow and throughout thesummer for updates on theprogram. The Premier iscoming, the Cabinet willbe there and an excitingprogram is being devel-oped. This is my specialinvitation for you to at-tend. I look forward to see-ing you at the 2002 UBCMConvention.


McKelvey ScholarshipFund Growth

To mark the retirement of UBCM Executive Director Jeff McKelvey in 1985, the UBCM establisheda scholarship fund in his name. Jeanne McKelvey,

who was Jeff’s wife and also a UBCM Life Memberbased on her 30 years’ employment service, passedaway in September 2000. Jeanne left a bequest of $16,258to be added to the scholarship fund. This will increasethe valuable funding that can be made available toenhance local government employee training.

In the year ending June 2002 there will have been 16scholarships totaling $6, 450 awarded. The Jeff McKelveyscholarship fund balance now stands at $100,796. UBCMadministers the funds but the Board of Examiners han-dles the applications and the award selections.

Clarification of Timefor BC GovernmentReception atConvention

The time for the BC Gov-ernment Reception at the2002 UBCM Conventionis correctly listed withinthe registration programbut not correctly listed onthe back cover. To con-firm the reception will be:

Wednesday,September 25th,5:00 - 7:00 p.m.Westin Hotel


AboriginalUpdates

COMMUNITY TO COMMUNITYFORUM PROGRAM

Regional Program

T he UBCM Aboriginal Affairs Committee ispleased to announce that Community to Community Forum funding is still available through

UBCM. Already this year we have approved morethan a dozen applications for funding received fromlocal governments and First Nations around B.C. Boththe federal Department of Indian Affairs and North-ern Development and B.C.’s Ministry of Community,Aboriginal and Women’s Services have generouslycontributed funding to this program.

A Community to Community Forum is an eventbringing together local government and First Nationcommunity leaders for the purpose of encouragingdialogue and understanding on issues of mutual inter-est and areas of common responsibility. Creatingopportunities for dialogue is vitally important forimproving the effectiveness of current relationshipsand strengthening the foundations for future post-treaty relationships.

A copy of the Information Kit on Regional Commu-nity to Community Forums is available on our website(www.civicnet.gov.bc.ca). This kit provides guidancefor getting regional Community to Community Fo-rums off the ground in your region. Specifically, thekit provides:1. Answers to questions about why and how local governmentsand First Nations communities may wish to organize a RegionalCommunity to Community Forum;2. Information on how to plan and organize an event;3. Guidance on how to apply to UBCM for funding, including asample application and budget. Events must be held in 2002.

This is an exciting opportunity and we invite you torespond by organizing an event in your area. For moreinformation contact: Alison McNeil at UBCM (604-270-8226) or by e-mail [email protected].

Province-Wide Event

The province-wide Community to Community Fo-rum jointly organized by UBCM and the First NationsSummit had to be postponed due to an unforeseenscheduling conflict. The event is being rescheduledfor March 2003 when the maximum number of ourmembers and their members would be able to attend.The First Nations Summit has emphasized the impor-tance of having this event as a key component of their2001 Protocol Agreement with UBCM.

UBCM’s Aboriginal Af-fairs Committee has re-viewed this report in de-tail and will be providinga response to the threePrincipals (see end of thisarticle).

A large part of the re-port focuses on the idea ofbuilding treaties incre-mentally and discusses thebenefits, implementationactions, and related issuesof predictability and gov-ernance. This approach isseen as addressing manyof the problems the BCTCidentified with the currentcomprehensive treaty ne-gotiation process, includ-ing:• Expensive and lengthy interms of producing results• No stability for partiesand third parties providedon the ground during proc-ess;• No improvement of so-cial and economic conditionsfor First Nations duringprocess; and• Leading to growing frus-tration and reduced supportfor treaty process.

Incremental TreatyMaking

The solution the threePrincipals (BC, Canada,FNS) have committed todiversifying their ap-proach to treaty makingby opening it up to a vari-ety of incremental meas-ures that will produce re-sults in the short term. Thiswill occur while the par-ties progress towardscomprehensive agree-ments, which remains thelonger term goal. Adopt-ing an incremental ap-proach to achieving a fi-nal treaty will not be im-posed on tables and theydo have the choice of re-maining with the currentprocess. The idea of “in-cremental treaty making”is still being developed asa concept and in essence,represents a commitmentby the parties to be inno-vative and to strive for re-sults on the ground.

The report identifies anumber of benefits to us-ing an incremental ap-

proach. Processefficiencies are one of thebenefits and include“greater flexibility of tim-ing and sequencing of ar-rangements and agree-ments and testing arrange-ments before they arelocked into a final agree-ment”. Incremental ap-proaches may permit allparties to be more flexiblein approaching their man-dates since they will oftenbe time-limited, trial ar-rangements.

Another benefit of us-ing this approach is im-proved relationships thatmay result from greatersocial and economic sta-bility achieved sooner inthe process and experiencegained from implement-ing agreements on theground. The report alsosays that relationshipsmay be improved throughan incremental approachby enhancing relationsbetween First Nations andlocal governments andbusiness interests.

The report lists the fol-lowing subjects for incre-mental arrangements or

agreements:• Land and resources – pro-tection, acquisition, FirstNation access, First Nationinvolvement in managementand planning.• Governance arrange-ments (e.g. needs to imple-ment the land and resourcesagreements).• Fiscal arrangements.• Economic developmentinitiatives.

The concept of “timeouts”, where treaty nego-tiations are placed on holdand a First Nation focuseson its other priorities, issupported. Importantly,the concern of losing allmomentum including keyhuman and support re-sources to negotiations israised in this context.

With respect to the or-ganization of the treatynegotiations within theGovernments of Canadaand BC the report com-ments: “The amount ofhuman and financial re-sources and the manner inwhich governments de-

IMPROVING THE TREATY PROCESS – REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

The Tripartite Working Group Report “Improving the Treaty Process” was released in May 2002and provides a welcome discussion of future directions for the beleaguered BC treaty process, (thefull report is available on the BC Treaty Commission [BCTC] website: www.bctreaty.net). Thereport was developed by senior officials from the governments of Canada and BC and the FirstNations Summit (FNS) and builds on the recommendations for treaty process change made by theBC Treaty Commission in their 2001 report “Looking Back, Looking Forward”.


The First Nations LandManagement Act(FNLMA) is federal

legislation that providesparticipating Indian Bands(currently 5 in BC) withbroader powers to managetheir Indian Reserve lands.UBCM has had alongstanding interest inthis initiative due to theimplications for local gov-ernments, particularly withrespect to coordinatingland use and servicing.

On March 20, 2002, thefederal Minister of IndianAffairs and Northern De-velopment (DIAND), theHon. Robert Nault, an-nounced plans to expandapplication of the Act byadding 30 First Nations

every two years.On May 21, 2002,

UBCM and provincialTreaty Negotiations Officestaff met with DIAND rep-resentatives to discussplans for expansion of theAct and we learned that:• The timeline for addi-tional First Nations usingthis legislation is about 2years – nothing is going tohappen immediately.• The federal governmentis supportive of First Nationsdeveloping formalized rela-tionships with stakeholderson and off reserve, as part ofthis initiative; and• There is much more work

EXPANSION OF LAND MANAGEMENTPOWERS ON INDIAN RESERVES


14 UBCM NEWS JUNE 2002 MORE ABORIGINIAL UPDATES

iHost is a cost-effective, user-friendly,web-based service that helps local

governments manage CouncilInformation such as bylaws, minutes,

reports, and manuals.

Benefits of iHost■ Easy to use and maintain

■ No software to install

■ No training required

■ No IT support needed

■ Powerful full text retrievalsearch capabilities

■ No limit to the volume ofinformation

■ No need to convert documents

■ Documents can be accessedby internal and external userswith a web browser

iCompass Technologies Presents: iHost

[email protected] www.ihostez.com

iCompass Technologies Inc.Your Information Navigator

ploy those resources arenot, in themselves, a reli-able measure of that com-mitment”.

Intensifying “highlevel” talks among theparties on key mandateissues including cer-tainty, fiscal relations,governance, land statusare recommended. Basedon experience to date, tobe effective in these talks,each party will need clearinstructions, and appro-priate and timely accessto constituents and deci-sion makers.

Managing Offers,Ratification &FundingImplications

The report addresses thefact that the Governmentsof BC and Canada ac-knowledge that whilepublic offers were impor-tant for general informa-tion sharing, they placed astrain on the negotiatingtables. It then notes thatan incremental approachto treaty making may de-fuse some of the concernsabout offers during theagreement-in-principleprocess. This alone doesnot resolve the issue ofhow and when to commu-nicate with the public atkey points in the process.So the report goes on tosuggest as an option thatthe parties jointly deter-mine the timing and man-ner in which they will pro-vide one another and the

public with informationregarding their positions.It also states there is a“need for the parties toreview their OpennessProtocols to determine ifchanges are required topromote a more produc-tive process.”

An incremental ap-proach to treaty makingwill mean that a greaternumber of agreements,both constitutionally pro-tected and non-constitu-tionally protected, willneed to be ratified and dis-cusses some of the optionsfor new methods for rati-fication for each party.

With respect to fund-ing implications of an in-cremental approach, clar-ity about the relationshipbetween benefits pro-vided under incrementalapproaches and the com-prehensive treaty man-date will be essential. Anumber of considerationsfor the adjustment of ne-gotiation support fundingarrangements are dis-cussed and the progressbeing made by the Finan-cial Issues TripartiteWorking Group is sup-ported.

Next Steps andWorkplan

Four next steps are rec-ommended, one of whichhas been accomplishedwith the endorsement ofthis report by the Princi-pals. Staff are currentlydeveloping workplans toidentify options that couldbe used by individual ta-bles. A general workplanis included with this re-port, but provides little

information. UBCM an-ticipates receiving moredetails on implementationof the report recommen-dations at the upcomingProvince-wide AdvisoryGroup meeting (formerlyTNAC) to be held in July.

Summary of UBCMResponse to theReport

UBCM has conducted adetailed review of the re-port and will be provid-ing feedback to the threePrincipals. The followingis a summary of our pri-mary recommendations.

Develop Effectiveand EfficientConsultationMechanisms

The goal of producingmore tangible results in ashorter length of timemeans that consultationwith local governmentand others needs to be ef-fectively defined and ex-ecuted at high level talksand individual tables. Noamount of efficiencies canmake up for insufficientgovernment funding ofthe process.

Make Solutions to“On The Ground”Issues a Priority

Issues raised by local gov-ernments in the treatyprocess are often key tohow agreements and ar-rangements with FirstNations will play out “on

the ground” – these needto be a major focus if incre-mental steps are to be suc-cessfully achieved.

Make LocalGovernmentRelationships a‘Milestone’

“Process efficiencies” suchas milestones can ensureresults are produced. Re-lationship building withlocal government and de-velopment of consultationplans are two recommen-dations for process mile-stones.

Provide PublicInformation Earlyand Often

Communication with thepublic about the treatyprocess generally and in-dividual negotiations hasbeen a key priority for lo-cal governments from thebeginning. Changes to thetreaty process need to rec-ognize the importance ofan informed public to thesuccess of any treaty ne-gotiation.

Provide Next Stepsand WorkplanDetails Quickly

Those affected and in-volved need to know howthe treaty process will pro-ceed. This informationwill also assist in craftinga new agreement with theprovince on local govern-ment participation intreaty making.

Treaty Process


to be done by First Nationsand the federal governmentin the process of providingnew land management pow-ers to First Nations.

There has been consid-erable amount of interestin the FNLMA expressedby Indian Bands. How-ever, the number of FirstNations added in this 2year period will be lim-ited to 30 across Canadaand of those, 10 from BC.This is in addition to thefive BC First Nations cur-rently participating:Lheidli T’enneh (the onlyone in BC with an ap-proved Land Code)Westbank, N’Quatqua,Squamish and MusqueamFirst Nations.

Choosing the 30 FirstNations to be added to theFNLMA will occur on a“first come, first served”basis. First Nations mustcomplete a number ofsteps and obtain consentfrom their communities.The list of 30 will be final-ized by the end of Septem-ber 2002. From there, theywill have 2 years to de-velop their Land Codes.First Nations would there-fore not be using theFNLMA until September2004.

At the meeting, UBCMstaff emphasized the im-portance of coordinatingland use and servicing be-tween First Nations whoeventually use this legis-lation and their neigh-bouring local govern-ments. One of the processmilestones for First Na-tions in the two years spentdeveloping their LandCodes could be evidencethat they are developingthis relationship (e.g.signed protocol or othercoordination mechanismsand commitments). Pro-vincial government repre-sentatives at the meetingsupported this direction.They also explained someof the implications thisinitiative has for treatynegotiations in BC.

DIAND representa-tives advised that nextsteps planned include aninformation session onFNLM for provincial gov-ernments and local gov-ernment organizationsfrom across Canada andthe development of track-ing mechanisms andhandbook.


BC Gasproposedoperatingagreement

The May UBCM Executive meetinggave the go ahead

to develop a joint re-sponse to the proposedBC Gas Operating Agree-ment. This includedmaking arrangementsfor the necessary re -sources (including legalcounsel), funding thiswork on a user pay basis,and forming a smal lworking group of localgovernment officials(elected and staff ) towork with UBCM to di-rect the work and de-velop a “response ofvalue to all affected com-munities.” The end prod-uct will be a submissionwhich will be broughtforward to the full com-mittee for endorsation,and subsequent use indiscussions with BC Gas.

In February, after thedecision by the BC Utili-ties Commission that ad-vised BC Gas it wouldnot consider the applica-tion of a standard oper-ating agreement, Presi-dent Cunningham wroteto the 46 municipalities,asking their direction onwhether you continuedto want UBCM to play acoordinating role in thisprocess.

21 Communities re-sponded, 15 positively.

Work has begun bystarting an analysis onthe proposed agreement;• which provisions are

favourable to munici-palities and which arenot;

• items that weren’t in-cluded from the exist-ing agreement; and

• items which have notbeen considered in ei-ther document.

From this a discussionpaper will be preparedwhich will be circulatedto participants for yourfeedback. As well, a sur-vey of the status of theBC Gas Agreements inbeing undertaken.

TreatyReferendum

ResultsPage 19


Courses andResources

The above question is of-ten raised in workshops onmeeting procedures.Given that this proceduralissue often confuses electedofficials and senior munici-pal staff, it is bound to beeven more puzzling for theparties affected by the “ap-proval in principle” (likecontractors and develop-ers) and for the generalpublic. In this article I willattempt to shed some lighton this issue, reduce theconfusion and uncertainty,and offer common-sensealternatives.

The problem

From time to time a Coun-cil wants to express a fa-vourable position on a pro-posed course of action, butis not ready to finalize thecommitment to it. A mo-tion “to approve the projectin principle” is then madeand adopted. On the posi-

tive side, this approachseems to achieve the de-sired outcome, namely giv-ing a tentative “green light”for the project.

However, this ap-proach leaves several un-answered questions, suchas the following:• What exactly has Coun-cil decided? Is it a “go” or a“no go”?• What are municipal staffand outside contractors sup-posed to do about a projectthat was approved “in prin-ciple”? What must they doto have the words “in princi-ple” removed and therebyhave Council’s commitmentfinalized?• Might the vague “ap-proval in principle” create aperception of a commitmentto proceed?• If, based on this percep-tion, contractors went ahead,hired staff and purchasedequipment, would they be ina position to take actionagainst the municipality if

“APPROVAL INPRINCIPLE…”Just what does it mean?

“Just what does it mean when a Council passes amotion to approve something `in principle’? Doesit mean the proposed action is approved or not?”

Council decides not to final-ize the commitment?

Undoubtedly, an inno-cent motion to approvesomething “in principle”can lead to confusion, un-certainty, and disputes, andmay even create a liabilityfor the municipality. Toavoid such problems, youneed absolute and explicitclarity as to what precisecommitment is given.

The solution

To avoid the problems as-sociated by the vague “ap-proval in principle,” youmust clarify the exactmeaning of any resolutionto be adopted by Council.This means that motionswill require more work towrite. Taking “the lazyroute” out and relying onpeople to be “logical andreasonable” when inter-preting what Councilmeant is not acceptable (In

reality, many people in-terpret confusing motionsto suit their own needs).

Let us look at three ex-amples.

Example 1Research needed priorto final commitment

Suppose Council is in-trigued by an arts project,which is proposed to bepursued in partnershipwith the private sector.However, Council needsanswers to some key ques-tions before giving the fi-nal OK. Instead of a reso-lution to approve theproject “in principle,” amore appropriate resolu-tion may be as follows:

“Resolved,A. That the Council of______ go on record as giv-ing its overall endorse-ment to the initiatives pro-posed in the Arts report,and that Council is inter-ested in examining the fea-

sibility of these proposedinitiatives further;B. That Council is consid-ering formalizing a com-mitment to become a part-ner in these initiatives, butwill not finalize its deci-sion on such a commit-ment until after it has con-sidered the answers to thequestions in section C ofthis resolution; andC. That staff be directed toresearch and provideanalysis and answers tothe following questions onor before Council’s March31st 2005 meeting:

1. __________;.2. __________; and3.___________”

Example 2:Project plans must bemodified

Suppose a developer ismaking a re-zoning appli-cation that looks sensibleand positive. However,Council identifies a few

areas of concern and wantsthe plans modified beforeconsidering them further.To avoid a perceived com-mitment to the develop-ment, the following reso-lution should replace the“approval in principle”:

“Resolved,A.That it is Council’sopinion that the proposedre-zoning outlined in______ has elementswhich seem sensible andpositive for the commu-nity, and that a real effortis evident in the proposalto balance the need forgrowth with the need touphold community, envi-ronmental and social val-ues;B. That, notwithstandingits positive impressionswith the proposal, Coun-cil is prepared to considerit further only after adjust-ments to the plans are



made, to address the fol-lowing deficiencies andconcerns:

1. _______ ;2. _______ ; and3. _______.

Example 3:Taking one step at atime

Suppose Councilwants to proceed with aproject gradually (onephase at a time), and makesubsequent commitmentsonly after examining theoutcomes of prior steps. Itwants to reserve the rightto back out mid-way if theproject proves to be coun-ter-productive.

Here again, instead ofthe confusing “approval inprinciple”, try a more spe-cific, clear and unambigu-ous resolution, such as:

“Resolved, That theMayor be authorized tosign the computer pur-

chase agreement on behalfof the municipality, butonly if the contractor ac-cepts the following modi-fications to the plans:1. Stage 1 will start byMarch 1, 2002 and be con-cluded by August 31, 2002;2. After stage 1, City staffwill evaluate the projectand recommend to Coun-cil how to proceed with it;3. If Council chooses notto proceed with stages 2and 3, the contractor willbe paid compensation inthe amount of _____”.

In closing

“Approval in principle”,though well intended, of-ten leaves too much to theinterpretation. As a re-sult, it can cause confu-sion, uncertainty and dis-putes, and may even cre-ate risk for the municipal-ity. It is best to specifyprecisely what Councilwants to do and spell itout in the resolution. Thisapproach may require

Approval in Principle


more time, but it is thesafe and responsible wayto go. So don’t settle for arushed and casual way offraming motions. If youare asking yourself: “Whatexactly does it mean?”there is a good chancemany others are asking thesame question. The com-munity deserves clear-headed, conscientious andconfident leadership.

Eli Mina M.Sc., P.R.P. is aRegistered Parliamentarian,professional meeting chair-man, seminar leader, andbook author. He specializesin chairing contentious meet-ings, demystifying and hu-manizing the rules of order,and leading interactive train-ing programs. Eli can bereached at (604) 730-0377,or by e-mail [email protected].

Eli is the author of threebooks on meetings, rules oforder, and shared decisionmaking. For details on Eli’sbooks and work visitwww.elimina.com.

COURTENAY’S NEWpublic library is so

visually appealing that cir-culation has jumped dra-matically since openingday.

“The new library is, ina word, stunning,” said theB.C. Library Association’sexecutive directorMichael Burris . “Thebuilding echoes Courte-nay’s past and the use ofwood is a tribute to thosewho worked to make theproject a reality.”

Head librarian Eliza-beth Johnson agrees, re-porting that circulation isup an average of 35 percent monthly since thenew building opened.

The new library is a12,854 square foot build-ing featuring heavy ex-posed timbers and trusses,wood-framed windows,and the master stroke, awood-shingled exterior.

Using wood in Courte-nay’s library was a natu-ral. The old CourtenayCreamery used to sit onthis spot, the corner ofDuncan Avenue and 6th

Street. An early school satnext door. To capture thethreads of history in thenew building, libraryplanners borrowed ideasheavily from old photosof the wood-built cream-ery and school.

“The architect tooksome of the vernacular ofthat time – roof shapes,materials and extensiveuse of wood. Wood fitwith our downtown’s her-

itage look,” said TrudyRotgans, city planner.

Courtenay’s vibrantdowntown core is an in-triguing array of shopsthat create a vintage ambi-ance with the library set-ting the biggest footprintin the core. It is designedwith three roof structures,a flat middle roof connect-ing side-peaked roofs,forming a collection ofsmaller shapes rather thanone huge shape. The li-brary not only adjusts tohistory but to thestreetscape.

Wood use picks up eco-nomic threads also. As isthe story throughout theprovince, the region’seconomy relies on forestproducts. ChristineLintott , associate withPaul Merrick Architects inVictoria, who designed theproject, said, “Wood is abig part of the language ofarchitecture on the westcoast.”

Merrick group archi-tect Jim Kerr explained thelibrary’s use of wood al-lowed extensive spanswith the trusses. The re-sult is a more open lookwith fewer columns.Wood both satisfied build-ing code requirements forstructural integrity, andoffered economic and aes-thetic advantages.

Rotgans said, “Rightfrom the beginning we feltthe use of wood fit withour downtown perfectly.It lends an updated his-torical theme, with lots of

interesting spaces.”The library opened in

December, 2001, and peo-ple are struck as they walkthough the doors. The en-try is double story. Opentrusses arch overhead.Light spills in through theskylights. There is attrac-

tive millwork around thecirculation-informationdesk.

Built by Perma Con-struction, the library is twoand a half times larger thanthe old one, and has roomon the property to expandto 17,000 square feet. Con-

struction costs came in at$1.85 million, with overallproject costs at $2.5 mil-lion, including a parkinglot. It features expandedbook stacks, reading andstudy areas, a coffeelounge with fireplace, achildren’s area, a multi-purpose room and wash-rooms.

Courtenay owns thebuilding and leases it tothe library. The project gota kick-start when the cityreceived a $15,000 cashaward and $5,000 in tech-nical assistance from B.C.Communities Build withWood, a one-time programoffered by Wood WORKS!,a Canadian Wood Councilinitiative. ■

Courtenay’s library a “stunning” use of wood

The Consultation Paperaddresses a number of top-ics of long-standing con-cern including:• Limitation periods.• Joint and several liability.

The Task Force alsosees advantages in com-menting on:a) Non delegable duty -where the principal is heldliable for acts of contrac-torsb) Vicarious liability –holding employers liablefor acts of their employees

The response that willtake into account the manyresolutions endorsed atprevious conventions. Itwill be based on previouspolicy on limitation peri-ods and joint & several li-

ability. Plus the submis-sion will be supplementedby members input on ad-ditional suggestions andhow local governmentshave been impacted by thecurrent legislation.

The Consultation Pa-per asks for responses byJune15th, a deadline whichwe are now advised hasbeen extended to October1, 2002. In view of the ex-tended time UBCM sug-gested in a memo issuedafter the last Executivemeeting, that local govern-ments might considerwaiting for the UBCM/MIA Joint Task Force’sreport before respondingdirectly.

The Task Force has be-

gun its work. It has metwith officials from theMinistry on May 30 th toshare points of view andgather more informationon the scope of the poten-tial for changes. A draftwill be circulated to mem-bers for comment and con-sideration. The final sub-mission will be consideredat Convention for ratifica-tion in September.

This is a very impor-tant issue for local gov-ernment. The Task Forceis concerned about timing.It looks like the earliest fornew legislation would bethe spring of 2003. UBCMmembers are all going tohave to work very hard tomake that happen.

UBCM to Respond to Discussion Paperon Civil Liability

On April 16, 2002 the Honourable Geoff Plant, Attorney General,released a Consultation Paper and questionnaire on Civil Liability.The UBCM/MIA Joint Task Force will be preparing a response.


such as parking tickets.This model gives local gov-ernments more authorityto deal with local issues andto avoid the expensivetime-consuming courtprocesses associated withdisputing bylaw ticketsthrough the court system.The two main features ofthe proposal are:• A simple “front-end” proc-ess for initiating enforcement;• A local government forumto hear disputes.

The proposed model isintended to create a sim-ple, fair, cost-effective sys-tem for dealing with mi-nor bylaw infractions. Themodel would meet thisgoal by:• eliminating the require-ment for personal service;• establishing a dispute reso-lution forum dedicated tohearing bylaw matters;• allowing the forum to makedecisions in a simple cost-effective manner – adjudica-tor hearing the individualconcern of the local citizenand making a decision;• avoiding unnecessary at-tendance of witnesses;• eliminating the need to hirecounsel;• ensuring the timely reso-lution of disputes.

The new communityforum would replace theProvincial Court as thevenue for resolving dis-putes of minor bylawbreaches. Under the pro-posal the Provincial Courtwould only hear disputesarising from serious by-law offences where signifi-cant fines or imprison-ment are contemplated.Local governments wouldbe expected individuallyor in groups to establish aforum and to pay for itsoperation to handle dis-putes of minor bylawbreaches, such as parking,dog licensing, minor zon-ing matters and other is-sues that currently incur arelatively small fine.

The nature of the fo-rum that would need tobe established to deal withminor bylaw matters andthe maximum size of thebylaw fines that local gov-ernment could manageunder this new model arestill under discussion.

The discussion paperis intended to solicit inputon the proposal prior tomaking legislativechanges and is availableon the internet at: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legis-lation/bylaw.htm

The Ministry of Attor-ney General will acceptfeedback on the proposedlocal government bylawforum process until July30, 2002.

New Court ReformsContinued from page 18

Parts 1/9 –Principles/GovernmentRelations

Gary Paget from the Min-istry provided the contextfor Charter Council mem-ber Don Avison’s com-ments. That commentarynoted among other pointsthat the relationship be-tween local and provin-cial government under theCharter is more horizon-tal than vertical in nature;that the Charter stressesresolution of disputes

through negotiationrather than litigation tothe maximum extent pos-sible. Based on the viewthat one can’t legislategood relationships onlycreate a framework, heoutlined the rationale forthe extent of legislationproposed for mandatoryconsultation and to reflectthe provincial govern-ment’s commitment to nooffloading. One of the is-sues the Council was look-ing for feedback on wasthe extent that existing or-ganizations are relied onfor intergovernmental re-lations, or whether to cre-ate a new body by agree-ment or a new institutionin legislation.

Part 8 – Legal

Legislative Counsel for theCommunity Charterproject, Janet Erasmus, out-lined what was new andwhat was preserved in theLocal Government Act. Herpresentation was followedby another member of theAttorney General’s staff,Nils Jensen, who an-nounced the release of adiscussion paper on “by-law courts” during his pres-entation. Charter Councilmember Mayor HelenSparkes focused on UBCMinterests in building inspec-tion liability (which isn’t inthe Charter) and UBCM ef-forts with MIA to have itaddressed as part of theAttorney General’s reviewof civil liability (see articles

on page 18).

Transition andImplementation

The substantive part of theconference concludedwith a presentation byGary Paget on transitionand implementation.UBCM Past President JimAbram, a Charter Councilmember, took special in-terest in the transition re-garding regional districtsand the relationship be-tween the Local Govern-ment Act and the Commu-nity Charter.

Final Sessions

The conference concluded

with Richard Taylor pro-viding a preliminary sum-mary of results based on asample of 100 of the del-egate workbooks. Thiswas possible through ahuge effort by UBCM andMCAWS staff to compilethe results (see more onpage 5). After reaction onthe responses from theMinistry panel, MinisterNebbeling and PresidentCunningham made finalremarks. The Ministerconcluded that he felt thatthe conference confirmedthe basic directions andthat there was a need for“tweaking” the Charter.President Cunninghamadvised that the UBCMExecutive has agreed toprepare a policy paper forconsideration at the Sep-tember convention.



JusticeCOURTHOUSECLOSURES

The Ministry of Attorney General and the Pro-vincial Judiciary have reached an understanding on the administration of the court system in

the province. The Judiciary has recognized that theministry must operate within certain financial con-straints and may have to close a number of courtfacilities around the province or implement circuitcourts. The ministry has recognized that it mustconsult with the judiciary about alternative facilitiesthat might be utilized in the event that court houses areclosed.

The outcome of this agreement is that local govern-ments are being requested to share facilities and providefinancial contributions to maintain the court room facili-ties in their communities. The ministry has identified 12communities as priorities for the establishment of circuitcourts in consultation with the provincial court judiciary– Castlegar, Chetwynd, Creston, Fernie, Grand Forks,Invermere, Kitimat, Lillooet, Merritt, Revelstoke,Squamish and Vanderhoof. In addition, it is in discus-sion with Hope about maintaining the operation of thecourt facilities in that community and has reached anagreement with 100 Mile House on establishing a circuitcourt in that community.

These communities were identified as having apriority for circuit courts because of their location anddistance from other provincial court facilities. Each ofthese communities are being asked to pay for theprivilege of ensuring that their citizens have timelyaccess to the justice system in the province.

The actions of the Ministry of Attorney Generalposes a dilemma for local government as in agreeing tothe ministry proposal is it opening a pandora's box.Will the outcome of this decision mean that localgovernment will be "boxed into" directly subsidizingother services currently provided by the provincialgovernment? This is a question that the UBCM Execu-tive has raised and debated. The Executive recognizesthe dilemma. The net cost to accept the provincialcompromise position may be less but it is an addedcost to local taxpayers and secondly, it sets a prec-edent. Will other Ministries say - well we can just cutservice, threaten the community and then the localgovernment will step into make up the costs of acompromise position.

The Solicitor Generalin a meeting withthe UBCM Presi-

dent in late April con-firmed that the provincialgovernment is committedto making changes to po-lice cost policy so that allcommunities pay some-thing towards the cost ofpolicing. He indicated thatthe government had beenmade aware of the inequi-ties in the current systemby a number of local gov-

ernments and that theprovince was prepared toaddress them.

The Minister did, how-ever, indicate that no newprovisions would be putin place before 2004. Healso recognized that somemitigation measuresmight be needed given thelimited fiscal capacity ofvery small communitiesand the current economicsituation in some commu-nities.

The Ministry of PublicSafety and Solicitor Gen-eral is preparing a detailedsubmission on the differ-ent options cabinet mightconsider to require allcommunities to pay forpolicing costs. The cabi-net submission outliningthese options is expectedto go forward sometimein July.

Further informationwill be made availableonce cabinet has made a

decision on what optionsit is willing to consider.The UBCM is organizinga consultation session onpolicing costs at theUBCM convention on theafternoon of Monday Sep-tember 23, 2002.

Updates on this issuecan be found on Civicnethome page.

Conference Registra-tion - you can registernow for this pre-conven-tion session.

The Ministry of PublicSafety and Solicitor Gen-eral has indicated that itintends to introduce fiscalaccountability into themanagement and opera-tion of the Keep of Pris-oner Program, by estab-lishing province widestandards.

The Keep of PrisonersProgram (KOP) is the pro-gram under which theprovince pays local com-munities and police forholding certain categoriesof prisoners. The ministryhas identified its targetsfor changing the programas follows:• Reduce costs for the KOPby 50% over two years – re-duce budget from $5.2 millionto $2.6 million by 2003-04;• Establish an hourly or perdiem reimbursement rate forall provincial prisoners;• Enter into written agree-ments for the operation ofeach jail facility to ensureaccountability – own forcemunicipality or RCMP ‘E’Division.

The ministry over thenext year will be attempt-ing to collect detailed in-formation on the numberof prisoners in each police

lock-up to determine thefuture rate at which pris-oner costs will be covered.The new provincial pro-gram is not intended tocover the actual costs of theKeep of Prisoner Programin each community, whichappears to vary widelyboth in the billing of theprogram and the manage-ment costs of the facilitiesaround the province, butprovide a standard rate ofreimbursement based onthe provincial budget allo-cation. The impact of thisnew policy on local gov-ernment is not clear at thistime, however, it couldmean that in some com-munities the indicated costof the police lock-up maynot be covered.

The Minister also indi-cated that the ministry in-tends to undertake initia-tives to reduce the numberof prisoners in local policelockups through the useof video court appear-ances, revised prisonertransport schedules, in-creased hours of admis-sion at regional correc-tional centres and newprovincial capacity tohouse female prisoners.

Keep of Prisoners

The legislation establishesnew rules of evidence fortraffic and bylaw ticketsto speed up the resolutionof these matters, such as:• Allow oral or written tes-timony or any record or thingthat the court considers rel-evant to the issue and cred-ible and trustworthy;• Authorize prosecution byvideo conference or tel-ephone;• Authorize a report/certifi-

cate signed by the enforce-ment officer setting out theevidence of the alleged offenceas evidence, either in paperor electronic form• Authorize disputes of fineamounts and requests fortime to pay to be made anddetermined in writing.

The changes in therules of evidence willmake it much easier forlocal government to ad-minister bylaw infractions

and operate its own sys-tem for dealing with by-law matters in the future.

The legislation alsooutlines those issueswhich must be consideredby a provincial courtjudge, such as:• Matters related to con-tempt of court;• Matters related to inter-pretation of the constitution;• Matters that involve de-termination of aboriginal or

treaty rights or claims;• Matters arising under theCanadian Charter of Rightsand Freedoms;• Trial of a person chargedwith an offence for which, onconviction, the person is li-able to be sentenced to a termof imprisonment.

The clarification ofwhat issues must be dealtwith by a provincial courtjudge will make it easierto determine which issuescan be dealt with locallyand which must be takento a provincial court judgeto be dealt with.

The discussion paperreleased by the AttorneyGeneral proposes a newmodel to resolve bylaw dis-putes by establishing localgovernment bylaw forumsto deal with minor matters

New Court Reforms Introduced: LocalGovernment Bylaw Forums Proposed

The province has passed new legislation (Bill 46-Attorney General StatutesAmendment Act) concerning the rules of evidence and the jurisdiction ofprovincial court judges. The Attorney General also released a discussionpaper entitled “Local Government Bylaw Forum” on June 20, 2002 outlininga new process for resolving minor bylaw disputes.



Municipal FinanceAuthority of BC

ON MAY 31, 2002 THE MINISTRY OF CAWSreleased a circular regarding the future of its

sewer and water assistance/grant program for pre-1983 debt. Earlier this year the ministry had ap-proached the MFA about the feasibility of removingthis liability from the provincial books and therebyeliminating the application process associated withthe program. The ministry inquired if the provincecould make this possible by forwarding to the MFAone lump-sum payment, and then have the MFAapportion that payment to each participating mem-ber.

After various discussions, the MFA and the minis-try came to an agreement in principle whereby theministry would forward to the MFA the present value(i.e. what the MFA could invest the monies at) of thefuture grant obligations and the MFA would con-tinue to fund members under the grant programaccording to the level of payments made for thecalendar year 2001. Original discussions focused onthe actual paydown of the applicable debt; however,since a significant number of these pre-1983 debtissues expire within three years, the MFA elected notto reduce individual debt levels but to make pay-ments to the participating borrowers on a semi-an-

nual basis. Administratively (i.e. less cost to changethe software), it was felt best to leave the billingprocess untouched and simply continue to reimbursethe participants in a manner similar to that of theministry, excluding the grant application process.Individual paydown of debt could then become thedecision of the individual members. Paydown ofdebt, previously, was not possible because the prov-ince would not reimburse the local government. Withthe monies in MFA hands, early debt retirement isnow possible.

Payments to members will be made in the middleof July 2002 and January 2003 and will cover thebilling periods for Jan. 1st to June 30 th and July 1 st toDec. 31st respectively. Each payment will be equal inmagnitude and should equate, on an annual basis, tothe amount received in 2001. These payments willcontinue until the earlier expiration of the bylaw orthe latest stop-payment date, as determined by theMFA.

It is hoped by both the MFA and the ministry thatthis “payout” will benefit individual regional dis-tricts and municipalities by providing them withmore flexibility regarding debt payout decisions,while eliminating the need to apply annually forsewer and water assistance grants. Participants maynow elect to payout sewer or water debt and stillreceive their full share of the continuing annual grantamount.

THE 2001 USERS OF THE MFA’S POOLEDInvestment Funds once again shared in a $250,000

dividend, distributed on June 12, 2002, bringing thetotal dividends since 1992 to $2.3 million. The MFAwould like to thank all of the Fund’s users for theirsupport and hope the product continues to meet theirneeds.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE PLAN-ning on borrowing in the Fall of 2002 may want to

give some thought to “locking-in” their borrowingcosts now.

There is no charge to “lock-in” now, and current 10-year rates = 5.98%, and 20-year rates = 6.36%. TheBank’s profit (1 to 2 one-hundredths of 1%) is built intothe rates quoted above.

These “lock-ins” are useful for projects with tightbudgets, or where members expect rates to increasebetween now and Fall 2002.

The “lock-ins” can be done during any businessday and the rates for 10 or 20 years will be higher orlower than today’s rates. ■

The questions were:

1. Private property should not be expropriated for treatysettlements.

2. The terms and conditions of leases and licences should berespected; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption ofcommercial interests should be ensured.

3. Hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crownland should be ensured for all British Columbians.

4. Parks and protected areas should be maintained for theuse and benefit of all British Columbians.

5. Province-wide standards of resource management andenvironmental protection should continue to apply.

6. Aboriginal self-government should have the characteris-tics of local government, with powers delegated from Canadaand British Columbia.

7. Treaties should include mechanisms for harmonizingland use planning between Aboriginal governments andneighbouring local governments.

8. The existing tax exemptions for Aboriginal people shouldbe phased out.

Treaty ReferendumThe Chief Electoral Officerreported the results of thereferendum to the Speakerof the House on July 3,2002 upon completion ofthe ballot count, as re-quired by Section 16 of theTreaty Negotiations Ref-erendum Regulation. Theresults for each of the 8questions were reported,along with the breakdownby electoral district foreach question.

Elections BC has notedthat they will also be pre-paring a full report on thereferendum, including acomprehensive review ofthe process, detailed re-sults, and the cost of thereferendum. The Premierstated the results showpublic commitment to thetreaty process. The prov-ince has indicated thatduring the next 30 days,they intend to meet withFirst Nations leaders, thefederal government andthird parties to discuss theresults and ways to maketreaty negotiations moreeffective.

Elections BC mailed outover 2 million referendumpackages to registered vot-ers between April 2 andApril 12, 2002 and the dead-

line for mail-in returns wasMay 15, 2002. About 36percent of registered vot-ers completed the referen-dum forms.

The overall result wasthat for each question, themajority of validly castvotes were in favour of thequestion stated. (See sidebars for wording of eachquestion and summary ofresults).

Question 6 on a del-egated style of govern-ment received second low-est support (87 percent).Interestingly, the lowestsupport comes from twourban ridings (VictoriaBeacon Hill (73 percent)and Oak Bay (79 percent)and many of the core Van-couver ridings (ranging72-80 percent).

Question 7 on harmo-nizing land use was fifthranked in terms of overallsupport (92 percent). Here,the regional variations arenot as marked but stilllower in two Victoriaridings mentioned above(80/85 percent respec-tively) and softer in theVancouver core ridings.Support was very strong inplaces like Chilliwack andPrince George.

A full summary of results can be viewed on the Elections BC website at www.elections.bc.ca/index.html.


FINN ING(full page)

client FTP'd directly to Broadway