Stikine MLA and Municipal Affairs Minister Nathan Cullen had a busy Tuesday afternoon at the BC Legislature, that as legislation that the Minister is steering through the legislature came up for discussion on Tuesday Orders of business.
As we outlined in April, the proposed amendments to the Municipal Act make for a number of changes, including an ability for municipal government to take action on elected officials who have run afoul of the law.
That was one topic of interest for the Minster and Liberal opposition members as they launched the debate as part of a Committee of the Whole portion short after 4 PM of Tuesday's afternoon session.
The Liberal Questions and comments for the most part came from MLA Dan Ashton from Penticton
The process of removal of elected officials provided for an exchange of opinion and commentary related to the impact such legislation could have on municipal and regional governments and how the province views themes of covering off on legal fees.
Towards that the Minister observed the following:
It would be an extension of whatever bylaw and decision the council had made as to the scenario and how recompense, or not, would be handled. So it's far outside of the scope of this particular act. We don't consider that. That is town by town and then, in this case, circumstance by circumstance.
If the town had chosen to cover some sort of aspect of legal fees, and then there was some change and the person was found guilty, etc., that would be between council and that individual and council's lawyers. So it's not something that the province deals with under this act certainly.
How municipalities would move forward upon removal of an official also made for some questions for Mr. Cullen who outlined one scenario that could be the template for municipal action.
If somebody is found guilty and removed, we require a by-election — with the exception, of course, being that if we're within a year of a general election, a council may choose not to hold a by-election, because there is expense incurred. In the scenario my friend is talking about, either the quorum that has been decided would maintain until the general election or, if there is appointees to make up the decision-making body on behalf of those citizens, they would maintain until the general election.
The council, although, may choose to go to by-election, even if it's within that year window.
It's so circumstantial, of course. It depends. Community to community, it depends on the nature of what's happened. But we wanted to empower communities and let them exist under normal rules outside of this one unfortunate event of someone being sentenced.
Also of some note from the discussion is the Minister's reply to a question from Tom Shypitka MLA for Kootenay East who spoke to the topic of the closure of the Attorney General for Local government's office and work.
Again, the conditions upon which the AGLG was created, by a previous government some 10 years ago, I want to say, 11 years ago….
One of the conditions of the audits was that those records would be collected, but the records would never be FOIable. Once the AGLG's office was shut down, we didn't want to create a circumstance in which later, now, someone could do an FOI request of records which were collected by the AGLG's office on condition of that those records would not be FOIable.
That is the current state of things. Essentially, this amendment maintains the status quo. If we were to not move this amendment, it could change the status quo in what I would argue is a wrong way, based on the commitment that we, as a province, again, under previous governments…. It doesn't really matter. But this was a commitment we made to municipalities when the AGLG's office was created and when it was performing its duties to do those performance audits but under a condition that those audits would never be FOIable. We don't want to inadvertently change that promise.
I personally think that would be a bad-faith act towards those municipalities, because we collected those records under that condition, through the AGLG's office. We simply want to maintain the status quo.
This was more of a housekeeping amendment.
To his specific question about the FOI committee, this was not in connection or recommendation one way or the other. This was simply a housekeeping piece and maintaining the status quo.
The closure of the AGLG office is a theme that has been off the radar for the most part since the Government shut down its operations one year ago.
Locally, the office of the AGLG conducted a planned performance audit for the community of Port Edward back in 2014.
As we outlined in February of 2017, the review provided for a number of suggestions for the District. That full report can be reviewed here.
The AGLG's office never made it as far as a review of Prince Rupert, you can review some of the other communities that the AGLG office examined from its now dusty archive page.
A number of other elements of the amendments to the act were reviewed during the two and a half hours of debate, you can explore them further from the Legislature Hansard minutes here, or through the Chamber Video for Tuesday. In both instances, the full discussion starts just after 4PM
You can follow the progress of the Act, known as Bill 20 from the Legislature information page.
More notes on items of note from the Legislature can be explored here.
Cross posted from the North Coast Review.
No comments:
Post a Comment