2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 23, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Second Reading of Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43) (continued)

M. Karagianis

D. Chudnovsky

C. Puchmayr

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report

No. 3, 2007-2008, A Review of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion

Project: Governance and Risk Management

[ Page 8813 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: I call continued second reading debate of

Bill 43.

Second Reading of Bills

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

M. Karagianis: It's a great pleasure to stand here in the

House today and respond to Bill 43. First, I'd like to just clarify some

information here that I've seen has gone into the public domain. I see that the

minister has issued a press release claiming that this bill is being

reintroduced as Bill 43 because time ran out before it could be considered

before the Legislature under its previous title of Bill 36.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

I'm actually surprised that a cabinet minister would make such an

error, because in fact, many of the bills that were presented in the spring are

being debated here in this legislative session, in the last few days. The

Legislature was not prorogued, so I am unclear as to what the rationale was both

for the rewriting of a bill as a new bill — 36 replaced by 43 — and for the fact

that a cabinet minister would make such an erroneous claim to the public.

That puzzles me greatly. Perhaps it'll be one of the many things

we explore in the coming days as we move through the second reading and into

committee stage of this bill.

It's very interesting, Madam Speaker, because one of the things I

learned from nine years in local government is that often legislation — complex

matters that are presented in the public domain — is not always as it appears.

Often, when you pick them up and look at them from other perspectives — look at

other aspects, look at the history, look at the details of a bill — you'll find

that they present themselves in a much different light than what you might

originally have anticipated.

[1005]

I would like to look at the remarks made by the Minister of

Transportation in presenting this bill at second reading in the House yesterday

and maybe pick up many of the points he discussed and examine them a bit more

closely, maybe look at them from other angles, maybe put more information into

each of those pieces of the bill and have a closer look at what it actually

means to see if what was presented on the surface is what is in reality the

essence of the bill and its actual implementation.

The minister, in moving this bill yesterday, initiated his

comments discussing the review panel that was put in place to look at

TransLink's governance. It was very interesting that the minister talked about

the numerous submissions — 120 written submissions — and 30 meetings that took

place with stakeholders. Because this is the genesis of this bill, I think it's

interesting for us to take a little closer look at that.

In fact, the opposition has been asking for some time for some

openness and accountability and a release of those submissions so that we can

see what it was that stakeholders in the public said that has actually caused

the government to make such a significant move in taking apart TransLink's

original governance model and replacing it with what this bill is putting

forward.

I would like to talk about how difficult it's been for us to get

some clarity on what the genesis of this review disclosed, because it's been a

long and arduous process trying to get some clarity on what those submissions

were that propelled the review and were the basis of this bill being created. In

fact, back in March of 2007 the previous critic, the member for

Vancouver-Kensington, questioned the Minister of Transportation on the

submissions to TransLink.

During the discourse of estimates debate, the member asked the

minister if he could please provide the submissions that were made to TransLink

as part of this review process. The Transportation Minister said: "I'm advised

by staff that these reports are being put together in a compendium that will be

released as previously committed."

Upon further questioning by the member about when the report would

be released, when these submissions might be released, the minister said: "They

will be released in the coming weeks." Well, of course, the member for

Vancouver-Kensington is quite tenacious and continued to say: "Coming weeks? All

weeks are coming, hon. Chair. Can we have some idea which week we might expect

these?" And the minister replied: "The commitment I'll give the member is that

they will get out just as soon as we can get them out."

Well, of course, you know, there were still further efforts by the

former critic to get clarity on that, and none was forthcoming. So in April of

2007 the opposition submitted the first FOI to the Ministry of Transportation

looking for these submissions, looking for the minister to actually release the

promised documents. Nothing occurred at that point.

On April 16, several weeks later, a letter was sent to the

minister's office, reminding him of the outstanding answers from the estimates

debates and again requesting the documents. Nothing happened.

On July 6 — a few months had gone by — a second FOI was submitted

by the opposition to the Minister of Transportation. Phone calls were made.

Further attempts were made during that FOI process to obtain the documents.

Still, nothing was forthcoming.

[ Page 8814 ]

October 2007. So we started in March, and we're now in October. At

this point, there was no choice for the opposition but to contact the Office of

the Information and Privacy Commissioner and try and get some kind of clarity on

whether or not we would be able to get these documents.

[1010]

On October 22, just several days ago, the bill was introduced, and

interestingly enough, the Ministry of Transportation informed the opposition

that the records that we have been inquiring after since March 26, 2007, would

in fact be released on October 29. Well, we're in the process of debating the

bill now, and by the time we get the submissions, the very genesis of the review

that has brought us to a new and profound legislative change around the

governance of TransLink are unavailable to us until after the debate.

Unfortunately, that's just not acceptable.

If the government is so completely confident of the review process

that gave birth to this bill, why indeed has it been impossible to look at the

documentation that led to this? Those will be questions we'll definitely be

asking throughout the course of debate and as we move into committee stage.

These issues are of great concern to the opposition.

I will say that although we have been unable to obtain these

submissions and that it's unclear what the body of the recommendation was that

came out of those submissions — what they said, what the details were — we do

know from a number of local government submissions that were made that most of

them favoured an entirely different model than what we see before us here.

In fact, locally elected officials throughout the lower mainland

have professed their continued support for elected representation at the

TransLink board. However, the government has chosen to ignore that. Again,

because we can't see those submissions, we have no idea whatsoever what the

superior influence was coming out of those submissions that have led to this

legislative change.

However, the minister went on to explain that the "…current

governance structure is no longer effective as it stands, that its financing is

not sustainable in the long term and that planning processes need substantial

improvement." Again, it's unclear to us how the minister has reached this

conclusion, whether this is an interministerial understanding that he's come to

or whether this is the result of government policy or government re-examination.

Or has it come out of this review process that occurred?

However, the minister goes on to say that the TransLink service

region at this point needs…. He says that one-year board terms, as currently

provided for, are not conducive to effective planning, that they make it

difficult for all board members to gain an understanding of TransLink's complex

operations and that the general public has no clue who their representative is

on TransLink.

Again, this seems to be a very compelling argument as to why the

government is making such a significant change in this. They feel that it's

difficult for the current board members to gain an understanding of TransLink's

complex operations. Well, I would have to say that this is completely audacious.

Is the minister telling us that duly elected local government

officials, who run their communities and run them effectively — many have been

elected repeatedly because of their capacity to speak to their constituency and

to run the municipality in a way that the constituents support and favour, and

many of these municipalities are running multi-multi-million-dollar budgets —

that somehow these elected local government officials cannot understand

TransLink's complex operation? Well, I would consider that to be absolutely

nonsensical. How in the world could you rationalize the fact that elected

officials who can run multi-million-dollar municipalities successfully and be

elected year after year somehow cannot grasp the complexities of TransLink's

operations?

I would have to say that what we need to do, in fact, is let's

take a closer look at what the Premier has said about local government, because

although the minister professes that local government is not capable, somehow,

of grasping the complexities of TransLink, not capable of running this

organization effectively, that speaks contrarily to what the Premier himself has

said over the past about local government.

[1015]

Let me just read to you a few quotes from the Premier. This was in

Hansard back in the 1990s when the Community Charter was first

established, which gave autonomy and recognized the authority of local

government and their ability to have autonomy and to make their own decisions

and recognize their authority. The Premier said that the Community Charter

"eliminates unnecessary provincial interference in local decision-making."

Well, isn't it interesting that the Premier thought back in the

1990s that municipal elected officials had the capacity to make their own

decisions, look after the business of their own communities, without provincial

interference. Things have changed a lot since then in the province of British

Columbia, haven't they?

Further on the Premier says: "We will, in fact, by the time the

Community Charter has been completed, allow municipalities to make their own

choices, as opposed to the province trying to impose what is a politically

convenient choice for the province on a local municipality."

Well, isn't that interesting. In fact, that is a much more recent

quote from the Premier. It's very fascinating to me that we have the minister

saying that locally elected municipal authority has not got the capacity to

understand TransLink's complex operations.

Honestly, Madam Chair, I'd consider that to be ridiculously

insulting to mayors and councillors, many of whom have served in office longer

than members in this House yet somehow can't grasp the complexities of

TransLink's operations.

At the same time that the Premier has been telling municipalities,

"You have the right to authority over your own affairs. You, in fact, have that

autonomy. I have confidence in your ability to do that by the creation of the

Community Charter," the actions of government are going in completely the wrong

direction.

[ Page 8815 ]

Now we have a minister who says these municipal leaders can't even grasp the

complexity of TransLink's complex operations. Absolute nonsense, Madam Chair.

Absolute nonsense. Completely unacceptable.

I'm surprised that we haven't seen mayors and councillors rise up

against this bill en masse and say: "This is an insult to our ability to not

only run our own communities but to run a regional transportation authority."

Completely nonsensical.

It's very interesting, as well, when we talk about local

government's role here. Let's look back and see exactly what picture has been

painted over time by the minister himself, the minister responsible for

Transportation. Let's look at what he has to say about municipal mayors and

councillors, duly elected, running multi-million-dollar municipalities. Let's

see what the minister thinks of their capacities.

We have the minister back on the Voice of B.C. in 2006: "Do

we have the kind of minds on there that really understand how to oversee and

manage a large organization? Are municipal politicians the best people to be

overseeing a large, complex multi-billion-dollar operation? Those are the kinds

of questions that I think the governance will have to go out and have a

discussion about."

This is absolutely the height of absurdity to me, the fact that

the minister would sit there and say: "Do these municipal politicians have the

capacity to oversee large, complex, multi-billion-dollar operations?" Well, what

is a municipality if it is not that? What is the municipality of Burnaby if it

is not a multi-billion-dollar and complex organization, far more complex than

TransLink or a transportation authority?

Yet the minister has the audacity to basically just dismiss

municipal authority and say: "You know what? None of you have the capacity to

absorb the complexities of TransLink. You can run a municipality, but you cannot

run TransLink, because my God, it is just too complex for you. It cannot be

compared in any way to a multi-billion-dollar municipality and all the decisions

you make there."

[1020]

Let's look again at what the minister had to say further on, where

he talks to the Globe and Mail : "What often prevails at TransLink

meetings is a circus atmosphere and a whole bunch of silliness." Well, isn't

that insulting to a group of duly elected representatives from local government

— long-serving mayors, long-serving councillors who run a multi-billion-dollar

organization in their own municipal communities? The minister has the arrogance

and the audacity to consider them a circus with a bunch of silliness.

Let's go on further in the Globe and Mail . "I've always

thought the governance structure was doomed to failure. There's got to be a

better way." Apparently, the minister has a vision. He has begun to paint a

picture here that is so diminutive to municipal authority that it is shocking.

It is shocking that a minister of the Crown could get away with insulting

municipalities, mayors and councillors in that way and that nobody would take

him up on it. Well, I'm here to say: we're going to take you up on that,

Minister.

Let's go on to look at what else the minister has to say. "I've

always been very public, particularly after the whole RAV line–Canada line

debate that went on. There was too much of an emphasis on what I call

parochialism, or people focusing on issues that were maybe very specific to

their own particular municipal backyard, and much less of an ability to look at

the broader regional and larger public interest."

Again, I would say this is categoric nonsense as well. What else

would a municipality sitting in a regional governance body do but represent its

own municipality? So for the minister to somehow make this an issue whereby the

governance model needs to be ripped up, thrown out and superseded by something

new is complete nonsense. It defies the reason that you have regional municipal

participation in these kinds of bodies. It's so that you can bring all of the

various needs and representation from communities to that table to share.

It happens all across this province and has for a long time. That

is the whole purpose behind regional district creation and creating regional

authorities over transportation. So the minister seems to be defying the very

democratic basis for these kinds of organizations to be in place.

Again, we see the minister in the Georgia Straight . "Right

after the sort of circus atmosphere around the whole Canada line three-vote

debate, I made it very clear that I didn't believe the public had confidence in

TransLink governance as it was currently structured and that I would be doing a

review."

Well, isn't it interesting that the minister himself continues to

paint a picture of a circus, of some kind of dysfunctionality. In fact, the

Canada line debate — and I won't get into that here, but certainly it may come

up during the committee stage — is something that this government drove through

TransLink. They overrode TransLink's long-term plan, their strategic plan and

said: "No, we're taking that off the table. Never mind what you want. We're

going to jam the Canada line through." And: "Oh, excuse me, now you are having a

debate about it, and I'm not happy about that."

All of this is completely unacceptable. For the minister to say:

"TransLink doesn't work. I'm going to replace the governance…." What I see here

is a very, very clumsy attempt by the minister and government to steamroll over

local government's authority, steamroll over their own right to manage their

regional transportation authority and instead put in something that I consider

to be a much more profoundly changed and perhaps very Machiavellian model that's

come in place here.

But I want to go back to the other comments here that the minister

made in that particular part of his speech that the public generally has no clue

who the representative is on TransLink. Well, I consider that to be just an

absurd reason. Is that the reason? Is that the impetus? Did that come out of the

review — 120 submissions? Municipal authorities coming and presenting to the

minister, and this is what he came up with?

"We have to change this governance model because you know what?

The public doesn't know who their representative is." Well, that is just absurd.

Again, that

[ Page 8816 ]

seems to me to be an excuse that has no bearing whatsoever on the kind of

model this government has produced, because there's no rationale to me

whatsoever in that comment that says: "Well, by gum, the new board will be so

highly profiled, the public will know them like they are celebrities — right?

They will know that."

[1025]

The public, of course, apparently doesn't know who their own mayor

and councillors are who sit on TransLink, but somehow they are going to now

recognize a new model as being much more highly recognized. So….

Interjections.

M. Karagianis: Madam Speaker, I do have the floor, do I

not?

Deputy Speaker: Members, order. Order. Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

When I read further into the minister's comments here in his

opening statement on this second reading….

Let's look a little bit more closely, then, at the next statement

that the minister makes further down. "The expenditure side of TransLink plans

are often fully developed while the sources of revenue that would be necessary

to fund these plans are usually not identified beyond the immediate short-term

requirements. In fact, under the current plan, TransLink will be running a $200

million deficit by 2012…."

It's very interesting to me that the minister somehow has no

responsibility in that. That is happening in some other altered universe and has

no relationship whatsoever to the actions of this government and this minister.

Let's look at where the fundamental problem exists, and that is lack of funding.

When the minister talked here earlier about parochialism, that he

has seen this battle of parochialism, it's because too many municipalities and

authorities are fighting over too few dollars. The minister refuses to actually

recognize his

part in that.

It speaks to my earlier comments about when you look at something

on the surface of it as presented by the government and just tip it sideways and

look at the back end of it and say: oh wait, the historical context of this is

that this has been underfunded and now is being steamrolled over.

There's again a bit of a theme starting to play out here. We have

a minister running around saying what a circus and a dysfunctional organization

it is, while underfunding it so that municipalities were all trying to fight

over far too few dollars.

At the same time, their strategic plan is put to the side, and the

government comes and says: "You're going to build the Canada line. And you know

what? You're going to build it our way, and it's going to function."

Let's look at the success of that. We'll talk about that many

times, I'm sure, in the coming days — the tremendous success of the Canada line

as it has gone over budget and over time and has shut down businesses every

single day in the Cambie corridor. This is from a business-centric government.

Again, the complete dichotomy here — it's laughable, if it wasn't

so serious. If it were not so serious, it would be a joke. But it's not, because

what we're seeing here, in fact, is a profound shift. It's not only in the way

TransLink is being operated, but there are a number of pieces of this which I

will talk about, as we move through this bill, which are extremely disturbing to

me, extremely disturbing, and should be to all residents throughout the lower

mainland — and, certainly, to local government — for its implications.

Let's go back to the minister's comments here, where the minister

says: "The current TransLink model is no longer effective, and the government

has a duty to update the TransLink governance."

Shall I go back here to the comments that the Premier made about

the Community Charter allowing municipalities to make their own choices as

opposed to the government trying to impose choices on them? In fact, this says

the very opposite. This says: "We are going to impose on municipalities. We are

going to impose a model as we see it, a vision as we see it only, and steamroll

past any pretence of democratic representation here."

Let's talk a little bit further about the minister's comments

here. "Bill 43 addresses and implements most of the review panel

recommendations." I guess we'll just have to guess that that is true because we

don't know. We have no idea — right? The submissions that I have read, the ones

that were public, certainly point us in a completely different direction.

However, the minister goes on to say "a new governance structure

with balanced, sustainable funding measures that will provide a solid

foundation…." It's very interesting that the minister talks about the whole

concept here of sustainable funding measures, because that is another piece of

this.

[1030]

Aside from the lack of democratic representation here, the

sustainable funding measures, as the government has defined them, are very

insidious. We will talk more about those as we move both through the committee

stage and through this debate on the bill.

I'd like to, then, move on to further comments. The minister lays

out the whole rationale for this legislation. It says here several paragraphs

further on: "The transportation region extends far beyond the GVRD boundaries,

and planning within a new regional structure must reflect that reality."

I think this is a very important point as well, because some of

the points that the minister has discussed here and some of the legislative

language that has been embedded in this legislation points at a much larger

event to unfold in the future. In fact, in some ways I would say that this

legislation is the tip of an iceberg that we have yet to really grapple with. We

have yet to conceive of its potential and the implications as time goes on.

I'll be asking a lot of questions of the minister as we get into

the committee stage. I can see that some of the

[ Page 8817 ]

powers that this board is going to be given — to acquire land, to expand into

areas without agreements…. These are all very questionable.

When we look at the implications here of the fact that this board

is going to be able to extend its powers far beyond these boundaries, we need to

really closely examine what that means. What are the actual details in that?

What are the implications in that? If this is a board that can acquire land and

expand into other areas without agreements, what does that say around not only

the autonomy of local government in the lower mainland but elsewhere?

This is a board that is being given an enormous amount of power.

You know what. Often in these bills, as we know, when you read them clause by

clause and line by line, many things become evident that did not appear on the

surface of the bill. Very insidious implications here. I think that this

particular aspect of the board's responsibilities needs much closer scrutiny

than we have seen up to this point.

I want to move on to further comments here because we will be

asking about those things as time goes on. So let's talk about the references

here to the mayors council, because this is the placebo that's being offered to

municipalities.

The mayors council on regional transportation will be created and

will appoint the authority's board and approve the authority's strategic plans

involving new taxation measures, transit fare increases and new borrowing. In

fact, let's look at the mayors council.

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker?

M. Karagianis: I am.

Let's look a little bit here at this mayors council. This is a

council that is stripped of all authority. This is a council that has only

vestigial democratic oversight, at the very best. It is, as I said earlier, a

placebo. In fact, this mayors council is put in place to rubber-stamp the

recommendations given to it by the board. It has no authority at the front end

of these decisions.

We're looking at huge scope in powers that this board has around

setting in place the long-term plan — the 30-year and the ten-year plan. The

mayors council has only the most superficial of roles here. They're not creating

the strategic plan. They're not responsible for many of the legislative

responsibilities and powers that this board has given.

In fact, in many references throughout this document, they have to

accept what the board tells them. They are going to be given a recommendation by

the board: "Take it or leave it. Oh, you don't like it? Well, too bad. We're

going to do it anyway."

That is at the heart of the language within the details of this

bill. You have to ask yourself: if the legislation spells out the role that the

council will play and the overarching powers that the board has to overrule any

responsibility that the mayors council has, what is the purpose of this?

[1035]

Again, it is to try and downplay the fact that municipal

government has been elbowed out of the way. It's going to be steamrolled over,

all their responsibilities stripped away by this board, which has the ability to

purchase land, to tax — all kinds of very interesting responsibilities that

should lie with the responsibility of mayors and councils.

But no. We're going to have a board that takes that completely

away from mayors and councils. The details will be debated in committee stage,

I'm sure, with the minister, while he tries to convince us it's not so and that,

in fact, the superficial role that the mayors council will play….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Minister.

I'm sorry, Member. I am cautioning the minister. Continue.

M. Karagianis: Thank you. The superficial role that the

mayors council will play — I'll be very fascinated to hear the minister try and

justify that for us. I'm sure that'll be a very interesting part of our debate

in committee, as we go through the legislation line by line.

It's interesting that the minister says, at one point in his

speech: "This is not an indictment, I would say, of the current board or

members…." Let me just go back, because I really do want to read again into the

record the minister's comments about the current board members.

Let's see. Shall we pick out the part where the meetings are a

"circus atmosphere" and "a whole bunch of silliness"? Shall we pick out the part

where the minister says: "The governance structure was doomed to failure"? Shall

we pick out the part here where he says, right after the circus sort of

atmosphere around the Canada line debate…?

The minister is actually going to say to us, and think we are

going to believe him, that this is not an indictment of the current board? The

current board of democratically elected representatives that's being thrown into

some facade of a council and overruled by a business board is somehow…. This is

not an indictment. Sure, we accept that, Minister. Sure, why not?

We go on to the minister's comments shortly after that, where he

says that there is little question that the public confidence in the existing

model has been severely tested. I believe it's actually the government who has

lost confidence in this model, and they are severely testing the confidence of

both the public and local governments.

You have to say to yourself: why? Why now do we have the

provincial government demonstrating in every action, in every bit of language,

in everything they say about TransLink, their utter lack of confidence and

putting forward a new and very profoundly changed representative board that will

make decisions for TransLink?

I would have to say that perhaps the province is simply seeking to

consolidate its control over the region's transportation system in order to

eliminate barriers to its own policy priorities. We'll talk a little bit more

about that, as well, as we go through this debate.

[ Page 8818 ]

I believe that that is a significant part of this move away from a

democratically elected board running the transportation authority of the lower

mainland and what we are moving into, which is a board that will carry out a

number of policies that this government is very well known for and has been very

public about. We'll talk about that shortly as well.

The minister goes on to say: "There will be the creation of a new

professional board of directors that will have the appropriate expertise to

provide effective governance." Again, we have the minister not accepting that

mayors and councillors who run multi-million-dollar municipalities and have for

many years — very complex organizations….

No. They are going to be put out because a professional board

somehow has more expertise. Not, mind you, transit or transportation expertise.

Not expertise in public policy around transportation and climate change. Not the

kind of expertise you would think we would need — with a number of

municipalities on the brink of huge changes in how transportation will be

conducted in the future because of climate change and with this government's own

demands on greenhouse gas reductions and a number of other very significant

policy overlays.

[1040]

No. What we are getting is a board that is handpicked by

government. What does this board represent? It represents business interests —

right? So we have the board of trade, the Gateway Council, chartered accountants

and, of course, a nominee from the Minister of Transportation himself.

Nowhere in there do I see anyone that brings social policy

expertise, transportation expertise, climate change expertise — none of the very

significant pieces of policy overlay and a lens that needs to be put on all

transportation planning and strategies in the future. Do I see that there? No.

You've got to go back to my earlier comments, Madam Speaker, about

the authority this board is going to be given to purchase land, to tax, to make

long-term strategic decisions that the taxpayer will pay for but that the

taxpayer has no representation or access to. Instead, we will have a board.

Frankly, the chartered accountants — their hands are all over

this. The funding formulas here are so complex that they had to have come out of

the chartered accountants. If it's not a make-work project for chartered

accountants, I don't know what is.

I bet you I read it 12 times before I understood the very

insidious nature of what is being given as far as powers to this board. I

actually couldn't believe it, so I read it a couple more times, thinking that

they cannot be serious.

It is very evident to me that we are seeing a profound shift in

how the transportation decisions for the next 30 years and beyond will be made

in the lower mainland. In fact, given the scope of powers that are going to be

extended beyond that, this is going to be broader than the lower mainland — a

business-centric organization that is going to be bottom line–driven and, let's

be frank, not triple bottom line–driven where the social and environmental

concerns will be of equal value.

We are going to have a business-centric organization running one

of the largest and most significant transportation strategies that will set the

stage for the lower mainland for decades to come — and beyond the lower

mainland. Nowhere in there do we have elected representation or all of the other

policy considerations that we believe should be in there.

A very interesting comment made just shortly after that by the

minister in his opening remarks, where he says: "I am pleased to let the House

know that this panel's work is well underway." Well, isn't that interesting? Are

we not at second reading of a bill here? Yet we have a minister who has already

put in place the panel that is a recommendation out of this. We're not even into

the first hour of debate on this, and the minister has already put the panel

together.

We know that in many ways, this legislation merely legitimizes

activities that the minister very arrogantly self-declared publicly months ago,

which he was going to continue and fulfil before the legislation was even

brought into this House. I consider that to be particularly offensive. This is a

minister of the Crown who has no confidence even in the ability of the

legislative process, because he's just going to go ahead and put in place a

panel to handpick this business-centric board without any kind of legislative

authority to do so.

Some Hon. Members: Shame. Shame.

M. Karagianis: It is shameful.

Very interestingly, as we read on in here: "With respect to

TransLink funding arrangements, Bill 43 provides for a new, sustainable funding

framework…. It will enable the authority to increase the fuel tax rate…." And

the minister was very clever in presenting this the way he did. It will allow

the authority to increase the fuel tax rate in order to raise funding.

[1045]

Let's have a really close look at this piece of the legislative

bill because, in fact, there are a couple of very significant pieces of this.

Number one, certainly the board is going to be given authority to raise funding,

to increase taxes — and, yes, the fuel tax.

Again I go back to this very complex piece of funding legislation

as written by, obviously, the chartered accountants, because only they could

understand its complexities. It's not simply written, not straightforward so

that the public can see it.

In fact, this board cannot put a fuel tax in place until they have

done two other things first: (1) raise property taxes and (2) raise fares. And

then they can put the fuel tax on.

Oh, wait. That was missing. That piece was missing from the

minister's introduction. What a surprise. You have to read every line of this

legislation in order to understand that. In reality, that's how it's going to

play out.

We're going to talk a little bit more about the fact that this

board is being given the authority to raise property taxes, raise fares and then

raise fuel taxes — and no elected representation.

[ Page 8819 ]

I'm going to talk a little bit more about that, because I'll tell

you that my years in local government have taught me that that in itself is the

most unacceptable aspect of this bill — taxation without representation. That is

the very fundament of the democratic process on this continent, in this country,

and this bill takes that away. But let's go on.

Later in the minister's opening remarks…. This bill provides the

authority with "more flexibility in how the distribution of property tax burden

is distributed between property classes." Let's look at this a little bit

closer. Those people who've been in municipal government will recognize this

very clearly.

First, we have a board that can tax property tax — that can

actually define the level of property tax. These are not elected officials.

These are not mayors or councillors. This is an appointed board of business

representatives that now has the authority to tax. Not only that, they are going

to be given the authority to redistribute classes of taxation.

Anybody in local government will know that the ongoing debate

every single year when you send out property tax notices, when you determine

your budget as a municipality, is how you are going to tax your private

residents and how you're going to tax business. It's no secret at all that the

longstanding pressure and debate at the municipal level is the business

community saying: "We are being overburdened by taxation."

In fact, municipalities always have to balance out their mill

rate. "What are we going to tax business versus the private land owner in order

to meet our funding needs here in the community?"

Now we have a board of business representatives that have never

been elected, which will be able to redistribute property class when it comes to

taxation. What does this say? Well, businesses had a longstanding initiative to

try and reduce the burden on their classifications. So here we have it.

The government has handed this board the right to reclassify

business properties and change the tax load so that they can tax property taxes

in the lower mainland and can change the tax burden off of business. And to

where? Well, onto private property tax.

This is an unbelievable piece of legislative business. This is an

audacious move on the part of government to put power in the hands of a

non-elected organization to actually impose taxation without representation.

I think this should concern every single taxpayer in the lower

mainland and beyond, including business. I think business should be just as

concerned about this. When you have non-elected representatives tampering with

the taxation classes, able to tax without any kind of accountability or

representation, the voters can't even say: "We don't want it." The voters cannot

even say: "We're going to vote you out if you change this tax burden and put it

on us."

[1050]

This government thinks this is just fine. There are no qualms

about this. This is buried in the heart of this legislation, and if

municipalities were more aware of it, I expect there would be a bigger outcry.

It sets a precedent that I think is going to be a huge determinant in the future

on a number of aspects in the lower mainland and beyond. Throughout this

document we see…. I think the minister later talks about how this board's going

to extend its authority out to Pemberton and Hope.

This is a board of business representatives who are now capable of

shifting tax classifications and fulfilling what business could not do through

the front door with municipalities, by doing it through the back door and simply

altering the playing field and tipping it at will.

I would think business, and small business in particular, should

be just as concerned about this because, at the end of the day, there is only so

much taxation you can pull out of a person's pocketbook. This will fall back on

business at some point, because the system will begin to collapse under this.

We're going to be asking lots of questions as we move through the committee

stage on this.

Let me talk a little bit more about the minister's comments on the

30-year plan. This will be part of the vision, the ten-year strategic plan.

"There will be a review of the authority's proposed strategic plans by the

commissioner, who will advise the mayors council on the reasonableness of the

projects, parameters and assumptions that will form the basis of these plans.

There will be consideration and approval by the mayors council of any plans or

options that entail new revenue measures or borrowing." Very interesting.

You have to actually read the legislation to understand that the

30-year plan and the ten-year plan will be set by the board arbitrarily. "Take

it or leave it, mayors council." They just simply are going to be given a rubber

stamp — right?

"It's not your business what the 30-year or ten-year plan is,

mayors council. But you know what. If we make any changes along the way, if we

amend it in some way, then you'll be given an okay." The mayors council cannot

create the 30-year plan, but they will be asked, then, to comment on or endorse

amendments along the way.

It doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to know that if you

have no authority over creating the 30-year plan, what good is it to have the

ability to ratify or deny the actual amendments as they come along? Again, it

speaks very highly to the superficial role that this mayors council is playing

in all of this.

The minister then went on to say that TransLink's development of a

30-year, long-term strategy…. In parallel with that, the province will also be

developing a long-term vision for the transportation system between Pemberton

and Hope. Here is the minister referring to the scope of this board's

responsibility — now not even confined to the GVRD. Now we have a board that is

beginning to spread its authority out beyond the GVRD.

Interestingly enough, throughout the legislation here there were a

couple of references to the board's ability to expand into areas without

agreements. Apparently they're going to be able to start leveraging their

authority over other communities without any kind of written agreement. Now,

when has that been allowed?

Here we have a board that is being given permission to override

municipalities, and not in the GVRD

[ Page 8820 ]

alone. We are looking further afield than that. Interestingly enough, there

will be some other questions coming out of this around land acquisition that I

am going to also want to ask lots of questions on. It's very interesting.

We read a little bit further here in the minister's comments, and

here we get to another very interesting aspect of authority that this new board

— this business board, this non-elected, non-democratically-run board — is now

also being given the authority to do land banking in anticipation of potential

future requirements, and authority with powers comparable to those enjoyed by

municipalities in the province with respect to major transportation projects.

Let's just look at this a little bit more closely.

[1055]

This non-elected board of business leaders who now have the

capacity to set in place a 30-year plan; tax property owners; reduce taxation on

business, if they see fit; raise fares; and if that doesn't raise enough money,

then they can go to gas tax. They are being given authority to move into other

areas beyond the GVRD, and they can actually do some land banking.

What does land banking actually mean? Well, it could mean a number

of things. Could it mean speculation? Yes, it could. And these questions will

definitely be asked of the minister during the course of our debate.

What is land banking? That is, acquiring land around hubs? You bet

— around hubs. There's definitely a comment here about encouraging density and

development around transit hubs. That is absolutely a very clear and supportable

theory that urban developers have been putting forward for years. We'll talk a

little bit more about that. It goes completely in the face of some actions this

government has taken.

Let's talk about this land banking. This is a business

organization that could start banking and purchasing land around hubs and then

release that when? We know the government has a penchant now for all public

lands, all Crown lands, all divestiture of lands, having to be at market value.

Well, can one imagine now that a business-run, non-elected board of directors is

now able to land-bank?

They are able to cherry-pick where they purchase land and then

release it to municipalities or developers. And let's see: who are the biggest

funders of the Liberal Party? Well, developers. Do we think that they might be

one of the first to get a pre-emptive look at where land banking is going to be

released, and then they can go in and capitalize on that?

You're right. Absolutely, that is exactly the kind of potential

speculation that could go on here. That is not an appropriate role for a

public-policy-setting organization that is creating transportation strategies

for the whole lower mainland and beyond.

Very interestingly, one of the things I hark back to is that the

minister has even threatened one community now with expropriation if they don't

comply with some of his wishes around the Gateway plan.

An Hon. Member: Which one?

M. Karagianis: The community of Burnaby has been very

outspoken about the minister's threat to expropriate. Where does that come into

the land banking? Can you expropriate to land-bank? Who knows — right?

I mean, this is legislation without an ethical backbone, so why

would we not expect that almost anything could happen?

One of the other things here which is also equally disturbing is

that this authority has powers comparable to a municipality. A non-elected group

of business representatives who have the power to tax, who have the power to

grab land, who have the power to do almost anything without accountability to

the public now is being given powers comparable to municipalities.

To what extent? What constraints will be put on them? Well, we

don't know. We will be asking those questions at committee stage, but for sure,

this is a Pandora's box — that a business organization is being given unilateral

authority comparable to municipalities with taxation capacity, with no

constraints or boundaries about where they can move their authority into and no

democratic representation. None whatsoever.

Government seems to not even be concerned about this. That is the

height of arrogance to me. Municipal authority here is….

S. Simpson: This government embraces it.

M. Karagianis: The government embraces it, says one of my

colleagues here, and that's true. The government is actually enthusiastically

promoting this model as better than democratically elected representation. So we

can see exactly where this is taking us.

[1100]

I will go back to my comments earlier. Is this in some way moving

us into a position where the government can fulfil some policy directive of

their own without any interference by municipalities? You bet it is.

The government doesn't want to sit and debate this with us eye to

eye, I can see.

Let's talk a little bit now about some more comments that the

minister made in his introduction. "The new funding framework will provide

TransLink with access to sufficient revenues so that they can proceed with a

fully funded Evergreen line project and re-establish, for the first time in

decades…express bus service." I really would hope the minister would want to

engage me in this discussion, because I know he's talked about some of this

publicly. I'm looking forward to debating this with him in the House.

Let's go back to the Evergreen line. The ultimate twist of fate on

this is that the Evergreen line would have been built and running, effectively

moving commuters right now, if this government had not interfered in the

planning of TransLink, if they had not stepped in and demanded that TransLink

drop its Evergreen project in favour of the government's pet project, the Canada

line.

I know the minister does not want to talk about the Canada line.

What's happened with the Canada line? It's a P3 that is now so far off

schedule

and is causing such grief to business owners in its construction that it

[ Page 8821 ]

has become a huge political issue for this government. Yet it was their

choice. It was their choice that they move the Evergreen line off of TransLink's

planning table and instead transplanted it with their own Canada line, with

their own criteria.

For the minister to say here that now, suddenly, we've had a

revelation — that we're going to proceed with the Evergreen and that we're going

to find a way to fully fund it…. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a

moment. But we allude here to the fact that this will re-establish the agenda

here for, we know, the government's great pet project, the Gateway project.

It was very interesting to listen to the minister's comments about

how he is fascinated by the evolving nature of the opposition position on

Gateway. Let's be very clear. We have a position on Gateway that says a number

of things. Number one, our position says that we want to see congestion relief

for commuters now. Not seven years from now — now. We want to see expansion put

in place that will begin to relieve congestion for the next seven years, not in

seven years.

In fact, the minister has announced that 20 buses — count them, 20

fast buses — will be put on the bridge in 2013, seven years from now. This is

our solution. The opposition is saying: "You know what? We need not 20 buses; we

need hundreds of buses. And we need them now, over the next seven years."

If the minister wants to get into a debate…. I'm happy to debate

him. I'm very happy to debate the minister about this aspect of TransLink and

the Gateway project and the steps that they are now putting in place around the

powers of this board and its authority over projects leading into the future.

We'll talk a little bit more about that.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

We know this government has a penchant for P3s. The Premier

himself has said that nothing over $20 million will be built in this province

that has not had a public-private partnership overlay. We can actually expect

that many of the plans that this board is now talking about — the Evergreen

line, everything in the future — will have that particular component on it.

[1105]

For that, oddly, the members on the other side of the House seem

inordinately proud. They are cheering what clearly is a whole series of events

that are moving our transportation strategies, our transportation

infrastructure, in a new and profound way in the future. The government seems

either to be unaware of it…. We can't assume that they are that naïve, but their

pride in some aspects of this are highly questionable, I must say.

Let's also talk about something else that the minister alluded to

in his opening remarks. Of course, one of the other overarching themes we know

from government here is the new epiphany on climate change. The minister says

here that the province and the region will pursue air quality and greenhouse gas

emission objectives as part of their mandate. I'm going to have great interest

in hearing what the minister's comments are in committee about what exactly this

government has put in place in the way of budget for this climate change goal,

because what we've seen so far is nothing.

A huge climate change initiative. TransLink is now going to be

expected to somehow incorporate this greenhouse gas reduction into a plan that

has no plan for buses, has no plan for public transit for at least seven years.

Comments in this House made by other members have said no buses until the bridge

is built. How foolish is that? Yet we're going to try and meet these climate

change objectives, and there is no budget.

The TransLink budget that has been set was set before the Premier

declared climate change as his next pet project. In fact, there is nothing in

their budget, but I guess we'll see, in this regime of taxation without

representation, whether or not part of this will go towards climate change.

Frankly, their own Gateway plan is sort of the antithesis of a

green plan — right? — the antithesis of a climate change action plan when it

does not involve any transit expansion until past 2013. We know that that

transit expansion is needed right now, and if we are going to meet any kind of

climate change goals, false or otherwise, from the Premier, we have got to put

steps in place right now for commuter options, and that is transit, transit,

transit.

It's very interesting to me that we don't see anything in the

budget. We do not see anywhere in here any kind of comprehensive plan.

I think the minister very recently even said, very interestingly,

that one of the reasons that transit expansion is waiting until 2013 is because

we can't put buses across the Port Mann Bridge. The minister says we can't put

buses across the bridge because of congestion. Well, that must mean we can't put

buses across any bridge in the lower mainland, because they are all subject to

congestion.

I would say that the biggest myth ever perpetrated by this

government is that somehow those buses are not on the bridge because of

congestion. That's absurd. If you didn't have buses because of congestion, they

wouldn't run anywhere in the lower mainland. In fact, you could put buses on

there tomorrow.

The reason that buses are not running across the Port Mann Bridge

today is because part of good planning…. You know what? This government even

talks about creating transit hubs, building density around that, having

integration of your bus system with your existing SkyTrain. Why there are no

buses on the Port Mann Bridge is because the hub is at the Scott Road station.

We could put buses back on this bridge tomorrow. If the government

had a will, they could do exactly what was done in the Deas tunnel. This was the

argument around the Deas tunnel, and it is true. The Deas tunnel had two lanes

of traffic going in and out during congested parts of the commuter rush hour,

and buses were stuck for hours and hours in that congestion.

Do you know what the simple solution was, Madam Chair? A

queue-jumper lane. The buses scooted to the front through the tunnel. Once that

was done in the

[ Page 8822 ]

late '90s — boom — it worked like a dream. Transit ridership went up. Buses

functioned in and out of the Deas tunnel. If they can function in and out of the

Deas tunnel, for goodness' sake, they can surely be put on the Port Mann Bridge.

[1110]

So while the members say, "We can't put buses anywhere until

2013," we say hogwash, Madam Chair. Hogwash. We can put transit in place right

now. We don't have to wait seven years. If this TransLink board — this

all-visionary, non-elected-representative business board — has real vision,

that's exactly what they will do. If they are concerned about triple bottom line

and if they are concerned about social policy, they will mandate that as one of

their first acts. Let's put queue-jumper lanes onto the Port Mann and get

bridges running right now, not seven years from now.

It's very interesting that the minister then went on to say in his

comments that the plan for raising funds — the plan that this new, non-elected,

non-representative, taxation-without-representation board is going to take on —

is comparable to what's actually happening in great cities around the world.

Well, I'm going to tell you right now, Madam Chair, that great

cities around the world are seriously investing in public transportation — have

been, will continue to be. Many cities are tearing up blacktop in favour of

public transportation. Are we doing that? No, we are not doing that.

That is happening south of the border. It is happening all over

the world. The World Bank transportation strategy for urban cities has dictated

that the only way we will move forward in a climate change world, the only way

we will move more people and fewer cars, is by massive investment in public

transportation and transit.

Will we talk about how this government is old school in their

approach? It's about blacktop first and buses later — much, much later; only 20

buses. We could use 500 at least in Surrey, but we're only going to get 20.

Nonetheless, the minister likes to think we're following the great cities of the

world.

Well, I would have to say that if we're going to follow the great

cities of the world, the first thing we should do is go back to a board that is

in charge of transportation infrastructure expansion for the next 30 years,

which has no elected representation, has broad-reaching powers of property

taxation and appears to have no boundaries that will constrain it.

And the government is going: "Gung-ho. Gangway. Let's just move as

fast as we can. In fact, let's not even wait for the legislation. Let's get this

process happening right now. We don't need legislation. Why do we need pesky

legislation and debate before we move on with a business agenda?"

D. Chudnovsky: Democracy is a pain.

M. Karagianis: Democracy is a pain — a big pain.

It's very interesting that the minister alludes to a small group

of individuals who will launch criticism on this plan. Well, I would have to say

it's a lot more than a small group of individuals. Taxpayers across the lower

mainland and beyond should be greatly alarmed. I know they are alarmed. There is

a great deal of concern about the shift in this TransLink board away from

elected representation to a business-centric board that is only representative

of business interests that the government has approved.

It's very interesting. The minister finds it interesting that we

somehow are ignoring the widespread public dissatisfaction with the current

system. Well, I would say that most of the dissatisfaction with the current

system has been borne by the minister's comments and by this government's push

to profoundly change the representation and basic governance of this

transportation authority.

Very interesting — the minister's kind of closing comments here:

"The amendments that are contained in Bill 43 will restore public confidence and

accountability in TransLink." Well, that couldn't be a further stretch if it had

been written on an elastic band. Frankly, there is no accountability whatsoever

for this board. They got a rubber-stamp committee in the mayors council that

they've stripped of all authority, all responsibility.

The board of directors will put in place a business-centric plan

that will not be about public policy, will not be about triple bottom line, will

not be about climate change, will not be about autonomy of local government over

their own right to taxation. The minister has got the audacity to say that this

is going to restore accountability and confidence. I don't believe anything

could be further from the truth.

[1115]

"They will provide TransLink with the revenue stream necessary to

achieve its strategic goals." Well, you bet they will, because they have the

capacity now to tax without accountability and without constraint. Property tax,

business classes can be changed. Fares will most certainly be raised in a time

when we should be making transit more affordable, more effective and more

efficient to get people out of their cars — to give them alternatives if we are

going to meet greenhouse gas emissions — if we are going to actually offer a

quality of life for commuters that doesn't involve two hours in traffic

congestion, breathing in smog, away from their families.

If we don't make moves that allow us more effective goods

movement, because goods are also trapped in this congestion….

The revenue stream. Of course, you know, this TransLink board is

going to have a revenue stream with unlimited powers.

Then the minister goes on to say that they will achieve the

"strategic goals and help achieve provincial and regional environmental

objectives while at the same time giving residents of the south coast a transit

system they can be proud of." A transit system they can be proud of. This is a

government that's not going to put any buses in place for seven years. How could

that be a transit system to be proud of?

I would say that the province's fix on all of this — their review

that said TransLink was so broken that it could not be repaired…. Their fix,

their partnership

[ Page 8823 ]

with local communities, has come down to steamrolling over TransLink and

reorganizing it based on a business model that cannot and will not take into

consideration the social policy perspective in transit planning and that will

have this insidious ability to tax at will and to override local government

autonomy.

With the overlay of the Premier's and, frankly, the government's

fervour for P3 partnerships, we are going to see most of this done — if at all —

under private hands, much like the private building of the Port Mann twin. That

will be in private hands forever. The tolls will go to private pockets. There

will be no money put back into infrastructure.

There will be no endeavour to reduce the number of automobiles

going across that bridge, because the private partner will want more cars, not

less. We will continue to see that clash of culture, that clash of needs here.

At a time when we need to be reducing the number of cars on the road and

offering real options for people, we will see an initiative that does the very

opposite.

The government has actually proudly brought forward this bill for

us to examine, and we will examine it line by line. But I think this is taking

us into a future that we should be extremely cautious of. The overarching

implications of how this board is being created, how it can operate, how it can

manage and where it can move in the future should be of concern to every single

person in British Columbia.

I know that my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington has had a

proprietorial involvement in this as the previous critic. I know he will also

have some extremely intelligent, thoughtful, provocative and real comments to

make on this.

I am looking forward to debating many of these issues with the

minister at committee stage, line by line. Frankly, we will fight this line by

line as long as we possibly can in this House, because this cannot be allowed to

happen. This is a travesty here in British Columbia.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm speaking today in opposition to Bill 43,

and I'm doing so for the following reasons.

I am speaking in opposition to the bill because it is an intrusion

into municipal autonomy. I am speaking in opposition to the bill because it

undermines local democracy. I am speaking in opposition to the bill because it

will result in dramatic increases in local property taxes and dramatic increases

in transit fares. I am speaking in opposition to this bill because it will not

provide the resources necessary to create the public transit improvements which

are so necessary in the lower mainland.

[1120]

Let me begin by exploring what I think is the first and most

important question. That question is: why is it that this minister and this

government have chosen to bring forward this bill in the first place? It's

important for us to have a sense of the motivation for the bill.

The minister has told us on numerous occasions that the reason for

this bill, the motivation, is that TransLink is a circus. It's dysfunctional;

it's parochial. He has repeated those accusations on numerous occasions,

including yesterday when he introduced the bill.

Now, we know this minister, and we know that he takes any

opportunity he can get to insult locally elected municipal politicians, so we

shouldn't be surprised. That's consistent with this government's approach.

We have had piece after piece of legislation introduced in this

House over the last couple of years that stripped power, autonomy and control

from locally elected municipal and regional politicians and placed that power

and control in the hands of the provincial government or the corporate sector.

So this bill is consistent with the government's undermining in every way of

local, municipal politicians and locally, democratically elected municipal

leaders. This is just another example.

But, no, that's not what the minister says. The minister says the

reason for the bill and the reason for the legislation is that TransLink is a

circus, that it's dysfunctional and that it's parochial. The minister told us

yesterday, as he has told us on numerous occasions over the last number of

years…. He gave us evidence of that circus, that parochialism, that dysfunction,

and what was his evidence? Well, he talked about the RAV line. He said that you

only have to look at the debate over the RAV line to understand that TransLink

is a circus.

Let's think back — shall we, Madam Speaker? — to when the RAV line

was being debated. Some municipal politicians had the gall to participate in a

debate on the RAV line. Some municipal politicians in the lower mainland had the

temerity to hold differing points of view about the RAV line. The lower mainland

politicians had the nerve to want to follow the lower mainland transportation

plan, and they articulated that. What a nerve.

Some municipal politicians, in short, had the chutzpah to disagree

with the Minister of Transportation. That's what he calls a circus. That's a

circus; that's dysfunctional; that's parochial. That's why we get this bill here

today. That's why we're debating Bill 43 — because this minister doesn't like it

when somebody has the nerve to disagree with him once in a while.

Now, as it turns out, he got what he wanted. There was bullying;

there was threatening; there was manipulation. And eventually, he got his vote

in TransLink and at the GVRD to agree with the RAV. It's important to think back

about these things and to remember what the deal was, what the manipulation was,

what the threatening was, what the bullying was.

[1125]

Eventually, the municipal politicians in the lower mainland agreed

to the RAV line on the condition, which was put forward by this government, that

northeast rapid transit to the Tri-Cities would be done parallel with the RAV

line. That was the deal. That sure turned out the way we expected — didn't it?

That sure turned out.

On the one hand, the municipal politicians who this minister

bullied and cajoled and threatened and manipulated finally agreed with the RAV

line on the condition that northeast rapid transit would be done at the same

time. It never was.

But the transportation minister got a scare. People — elected

municipal politicians, the politicians who are closest to the people — might

disagree with him once

[ Page 8824 ]

in a while. They might have another point of view. They might see things

differently, and that was very, very scary for our Minister of Transportation.

The notion that democracy requires discussion, debate, compromise

and cooperation — all of that — between different levels of government wasn't

his idea of a good time. This minister didn't like the fact that municipal

politicians might have a different point of view and might want to debate it,

might want to compromise, might want to have a discussion and might want some

cooperation from this minister — not a good idea, as far as this Minister of

Transportation is concerned.

You know, the minister is not a big fan of democracy. He travelled

to China, and he had a look at the way they do things over there. This is what

this Minister of Transportation had to say about the Chinese process. He says:

"No one there ever questions the need to build infrastructure like this. Now,

granted, China has a bit of a different governance structure, but in many ways

it's the ideal governance structure." That's this Minister of Transportation,

who brings us this bill which stamps on the process of democracy.

He went on to say: "China really has the ultimate governance

structure. The Chinese don't have the labour or environmental restrictions we

do. It's not like they have to do community consultations. They just say, 'We're

building a bridge,' and they move everybody out of there and get going within

two weeks. Could you imagine if we could build like that?" That's this Minister

of Transportation, and he's not kidding. That's exactly the way he wants to do

things, and that's what this bill is about.

This bill is about a minister and a government who are put out by

democracy. It's a pain. It's really kind of icky. "Community consultation — they

don't have to do that in China. Why should we have to do it here? Let's find

ways to avoid that community consultation. Let's find ways to avoid that

democracy. Let's find ways to avoid that transparency. Let's do it the way they

do it in China. Let's do Bill 43."

I want to get back to the RAV line for a minute. The minister used

what he called the circus around the RAV line as his justification for bringing

this bill before us and for these radical, anti-democratic changes. There is, of

course, a dysfunctional aspect of the RAV line. The dysfunctional aspect of the

RAV line is this government's response to the chaos on Cambie Street and in

other areas where the RAV line is being built. The minister says: "That's not

us. That's not me. Don't blame me; I'm not responsible."

[1130]

Anyway, he said in estimates — and it was extraordinary — that it

was the merchants' fault. Can you believe it? On the chaos on Cambie Street and

the companies going under and the businesses being closed, this Minister of

Transportation says: "No, no, that's those merchants. It's the business cycle.

You know, maybe they aren't very good business people. It's their fault."

It's not enough to insult local government officials. It's not

enough to insult the mayors and the councillors who have been elected by the

people of the lower mainland and across the province. That's not enough. He's

got to insult the merchants on Cambie Street as well.

Madam Speaker, just a little piece of advice for the Minister of

Transportation: it would be a good idea if he had a little chat with the

Minister of Finance. I understand they have meetings; there are cabinet

meetings. It would be a good idea for the Minister of Transportation to have a

chat with the Minister of Finance, because the Minister of Finance has the good

sense to avoid blaming the victims, avoid blaming the merchants on Cambie

Street. She blames TransLink.

"Not us. We didn't have anything to do with it. Not this

government." The Minister of Transportation blames the merchants. The Minister

of Finance blames TransLink. Well, they should get their stories straight. It

would be a good idea if they got their stories straight. It's a bit

dysfunctional. It's a bit of a circus when ministers don't have their stories

straight.

Where they agree with one another is that while the Minister of

Transportation blames the merchants and the Minister of Finance blames

TransLink…. One thing they agree on is: "It's sure not this government's fault.

This government has no responsibility for the problems." A bit of a circus,

wouldn't you say?

Of course they're responsible. Of course the government is

responsible. They, this government, will be responsible when the ridiculous

ridership estimates for the RAV line, for the Canada line, are shown to be

incorrect and when the people of the lower mainland have to pay year after year

after year for the false promises of ridership on the RAV line.

The minister didn't like the democracy of TransLink, didn't like

the fact that people had the gall to discuss and debate the issues, didn't like

the fact that from time to time people disagreed with him about transportation

policy — didn't like any of that. He wanted to have a Chinese process — snap

your fingers and do the project. So he named a panel to give him advice about

the future of TransLink.

Let's be very clear. The minister was very clear when he was

asked. When I asked him in this House, "What's the public process going to be

for input to that panel that's going to give you advice about TransLink? " the

minister said: "No, no, no. This isn't a public process. No, no, no. This isn't

a public inquiry. This is advice from this panel that I chose, to me." It's a

kind of tautological process.

The public weren't to be involved. But a strange thing happened on

the way to the report. What happened was that some people actually found out

about the panel and actually went and gave their opinions and their suggestions.

Those people were municipalities and business people and community folks and

workers. All kinds of folks came and gave suggestions to the panel about the way

things might be better with lower mainland transportation governance.

[1135]

All of these groups made submissions, and thereby hangs the tale,

because the submissions seem to have disappeared — poof! They seem to be gone.

What

[ Page 8825 ]

happened to those submissions? What happened to the opinions that people

brought to the panel that was looking at TransLink governance?

At the time of the panel I was the official opposition critic for

Transportation. When the minister announced the panel, I got up in this House

and said: "Minister, are you going to make these submissions public so people

can know what members of the community had to say about TransLink governance?"

He said: "Oh yeah. Don't worry about that."

"After the report comes out," he said…. "After the report is

brought to me, we'll make those public." It was a long time ago that the report

came out — way, way back last winter and spring.

We were waiting for the submissions. We were waiting to have a

look at the submissions that people made about what the future of TransLink

should be. In fact, I got an opportunity, and my colleague from

Esquimalt-Metchosin referenced that earlier today.

In March I asked the minister…. March — that's a long time ago.

It's almost a year ago now. I asked the minister: "Where are the submissions?"

He said: "Don't worry. We'll have them for you. We're working on it."

You've got to think about what this work is. What is this work?

People brought submissions to the panel, the panel looked at them, and he's

working on them. The work would require him, or somebody, to go to a Xerox

machine and make a copy and bring it. That's the work we're talking about.

In March he said: "We're working on it. You'll get it soon." Then

in April or in early May, I think it was, in estimates in this House, I asked

again: "Minister, when are we going to get a look at these submissions?" He

said: "Oh, it'll be in the coming weeks." I reminded the minister that every

week is coming. Every week in the future is a coming week, so maybe he should be

a bit more precise about when we're going to get a look at these submissions

that people, in good faith, brought to the panel to talk about the future of

TransLink.

He said: "We're working on it. Soon as we can." Then nothing

happened. I went to the ministerial assistant of the Minister of Transportation.

I said: "You promised us these submissions. Where are they?" He said: "Leave it

to me. I'm working on it."

Then I saw him again. I ran into the minister. You know how it is

in the House. Members here will know that once in a while you run into another

member in the hallway. I ran into the minister, and he promised me again. This

is May — at least six months ago, more than six months ago.

He was going to personally get them for me. You know the minister.

He had that kind of aw-shucks grin on his face. You know how the minister gets.

He patted me on the back as if we were kind of co-conspirators in the game of

politics — right? He patted me on the back and said: "Don't worry about it. I'll

have them for you soon. We'll have them for you."

We put in FOI requests, and we've continued to phone. It's a year

later, and we haven't got the submissions. You know why we don't have the

submissions, Madam Speaker? Because nobody asked for what's in Bill 43. That

wasn't the advice of any submission, including from the business community,

transportation experts, municipalities, workers' groups, advocates and community

people. Nobody asked for what's in Bill 43.

The minister, of course, doesn't want us to see that. That's why

there has been an enormous delay in this difficult task of providing to us the

submissions that 120 groups made to the panel. It's a complicated business —

going to the Xerox machine and making a copy.

By the way, the minister, in his submission on the bill yesterday,

talked about the official opposition wanting to leave things the way they are.

"The official opposition wants to leave things the way they are." Never let the

facts get in the way of an insult — not this minister. He hasn't had a good day

unless he has insulted somebody.

[1140]

We all have had frustrations with TransLink over the last number

of years, and they've made some errors. I certainly have been assertive in

pointing at some of those errors. It's all there in the submission that the

official opposition made to the TransLink review panel. The minister should know

that, but that would require him to look at the submission, and the submission

that the official opposition made is hidden somewhere with the rest of the

submissions that they can't find. I don't know. Maybe it's in a back room

somewhere or maybe in a warehouse. This government has lost a lot of things in

warehouses over the years. Maybe it's under the bed. I don't know where it is.

Clearly, the minister hasn't had a chance to look at the

opposition submission, which made concrete suggestions about ways to improve

TransLink governance. We were and are prepared, and we have talked with

municipal politicians about it, heard their point of view, haven't insulted them

and have called for ways in which we could make TransLink work much better. But

the minister hasn't seen it because....

L. Krog: It's under the booster seats.

D. Chudnovsky: Right. Maybe it's in the back of the office

behind the booster seats. Who knows? Who knows where the submissions are? They

can't find them, and they certainly don't want anybody else to know what they

say.

The minister also says that TransLink has been parochial. It's

really important that we take seriously this notion that TransLink is parochial,

because it's absolutely untrue. TransLink, made up of all the elected

representatives — municipal politicians, representatives of all of the

municipalities in the lower mainland — had created and was following a plan for

transportation in the lower mainland that included rapid transit to the

northeast sector as its number one priority, which wouldn't have any impact at

all on many of those municipalities. Yet they had come to a consensus on what

the transportation plan should be.

It was this government that intervened in that consensus view as

to what the strategy for transportation in the lower mainland should be. It was

this government that intervened with the RAV line.

[ Page 8826 ]

What's in the bill? The key aspect of this bill is the creation of

something called a professional board. That professional board will have all of

the key decision-making power when it comes to transportation policy in the

lower mainland. That unelected, unaccountable, professional board will have all

the key power.

The minister said yesterday about that board: "They have

expertise" — and he went on to say — "in finance, legal, accounting and human

resources. They will be conversant and capable of overseeing a large, complex

organization." Imagine that. Expertise. Who does he think works for TransLink

now — idiots?

Let's look at his list: expertise in finance, legal, accounting

and human resources. The people of the lower mainland pay professionals good

money to do exactly those things, and you know what, Madam Speaker? Those are

people who do a tremendous job for the folks of the lower mainland and work

very, very hard. Who does he think the local municipal politicians are in the

lower mainland — idiots? Finance, legal, accounting and human resources — they

have all of that expertise, and they've been using it.

I guess he thought before he said this that he'd already taken

care of the requisite insult for yesterday, or maybe one wasn't enough. Who

knows?

[1145]

In every case, the unelected, unaccountable corporate board will

make the key decisions in the new authority, and that's the way he wants it.

This minister wants a compliant, corporate, business-oriented board that will

agree with his road-based strategy for transportation in the lower mainland.

This is the only jurisdiction in the world whose strategy for

climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to build roads. It's the

only jurisdiction in the world whose strategy for climate change is to build

roads and highways. To accomplish that goal, he's created a bureaucratic circus.

Let's see if I've got it right. TransLink, according to the

minister, will be run by the provincial government; a council of mayors; an

unelected and unaccountable professional board; a commissioner; a CEO, chosen by

the unelected and unaccountable board; and a staff. They will function within

the ambit of provincial policy, the GVRD growth management plan and, presumably,

the growth management plans of the non-GVRD municipalities that join the new

TransLink.

It will take into account the province's 30-year vision, the

mayor's ten-year strategic plan — which can be overruled by the unelected,

unaccountable board — and the unelected board's three-year operational plan.

Now, that's efficiency, wouldn't you say? That's efficiency. That's the plan

that this minister brings to us.

I want to talk about funding for just a minute. In a letter to

Mayor Brodie, the chair of TransLink, the minister said: "The new funding

initiative will mitigate the need for property tax and fare increases well into

the future." Where's George Orwell when we really need him?

This is doublespeak of the highest order. In fact, this new plan

is not going to mitigate the need for property tax increases and fare increases.

It requires increases in property taxes and fares. There is the possibility of

three cents more per litre in the gas tax, but that is there if and only if

property taxes and fares are raised. Now, there's a brilliant strategy for

expanding public transit in the lower mainland: dramatically increase property

taxes, and dramatically increase the fares.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This bill is dysfunctional. This bill is a circus. This bill

undermines democracy. This bill undermines local autonomy. This bill will mean

increased property taxes and increased fares. This bill will not provide the

necessary resources to expand the public transit that the people of the lower

mainland need.

This bill should not be passed. This bill will be opposed. We will

vote against it. We will fight against it. We will argue against it. It is not

in the interests of the people of the lower mainland. I oppose it.

C. Puchmayr: I, too, rise in opposition to this bill. The

main concerns that we have — and you're certainly going to continue to hear them

— are the fact that we are taking democracy out of transportation planning. Not

only are we taking democracy out, we're also taking out a lot of concerns for

the environment. We're taking stakeholders that have interests in ridership, in

usership, in cycling, out of the equation of transit planning. We're replacing

them with an unelected, undemocratic board that will have interests that could

be in conflict with what the needs of the region are.

[1150]

In our city in New Westminster we've had quite a considerable

issue with transportation. If I can just focus on the new governance with how it

may affect my community.

The new governance will not address the fact that we have 300,000

cars a day running through New Westminster, a city of 62,000 people, and yet New

Westminster has the second-highest transit ridership in the GVRD because we have

stations, we have transportation, and we have transportation initiatives.

When you look at this board that is made up of people from the

board of trade, it's made up of accountants, of people from the ministry, from

the government, it doesn't affect the fact that the environment right now is at

risk with the types of transportation planning that are going on.

For instance, if New Westminster has concerns about the increase

in traffic in New Westminster, the board that is going to be governing those

interests, as opposed to having a say in the municipality, on a region, and

using those planners and using the planners that facilitate a decent growth in

transit…. They will now be looking at it more as dollars and cents, as opposed

to what's good for the community or what the social impacts in the community

are.

Dollars and cents, of course, meaning…. For instance, the new bill

allows for tolling. It allows for

[ Page 8827 ]

increased tolling that the board can put in place. The increased tolling will

now have significant effects on our municipalities because the tolling will

actually create diversions of traffic that could have very adverse impacts on

certain municipalities.

My community is in the absolute dead centre of the GVRD. It is the

hub. It's not the spoke; it is the hub. Massey stadium in New Westminster is the

dead centre of the GVRD. Traffic moves, greatly, with what happens in other

areas. For instance, if you have a toll on one bridge, people that don't want to

pay the toll will try to take another route and go through our city.

So when you have accountants that are looking at the impacts of

traffic or the impacts of the governance of this board, they may very well have

different interests. Goods movements, for instance…. An accountant may select

that more cars should go through New Westminster so that goods can move in a

different area.

There is no consultation in our community. There is no way that we

can actually get up and say that this is going to have very negative and adverse

effects to our community. Right now we have a Front Street project where the

city of New Westminster actually undertook more traffic in New Westminster.

What we did was…. We understood that there was a need for goods

movement. We sat down with the old board. We suggested that we would allow the

North Fraser perimeter road to be built. There was the widening of Front Street.

But we did so with some negotiations.

We said that we needed some work done on the bridgehead of the

Queensborough Bridge. We needed some mitigation done to communities to alleviate

some of the potential rat-running that might be created. We needed an overpass

on Howe Street. We were able to sit down at a table and negotiate a package

which also included a different structure for the South Fraser perimeter road.

That no longer exists. That model will no longer exist. We will

not have a say. We will not be able to negotiate or mitigate the impacts that

are now going to be driven strictly by an accountant, a board that has

accountants, a board that has the board of trade on it — which really has no

respect for the impacts of transportation in our community.

If you go into our community, shortly after the North Fraser

perimeter road project was completed…. Those 300,000 cars that go through there

Monday to Friday at some times are absolutely gridlocked. It's gridlock. People

in my community don't even get in their car to go shopping during rush hour,

because it has a negative impact.

This new governance could actually direct more flow into the

community, and not only my community. I'm giving my community as an example,

because it's a real example that you can actually go and look at today and say:

"Wow, this is what could happen to most communities." This is what could happen

to most communities in Burnaby, in Coquitlam, in Vancouver and eventually in

Surrey and in the rest of the Fraser Valley where there are transportation

networks.

[1155]

In New Westminster, if you go in there today and see the traffic

and the volume of traffic that is going through there, you will certainly see

the effects that poor traffic planning will have. If we're seeing the effects of

what we thought was reasonable traffic planning, you can imagine when there is

absolutely no consideration or no consultation for the impacts of the traffic.

Now, if you look at the new governance board and the people that

sit on the board…. I think some of the stakeholders are people that ride

transit. People that take buses are great resource people to talk to, to see how

we can get more people riding buses, how we can get more people on transit,

where the transit needs are for people to travel on transit.

Environmentalists. What's wrong with having a panel where people

can sit there and talk about the environment? Is an accountant going to really

have a social conscience for the environment when the accountant is trying to

bottom-line something or is trying to maximize the profits of, let's say,

twinning a bridge? The accountant says: "Well, gee. A private-public

partnership…. The private partner is going to need to maximize revenues from

this in order to make a lot of money on this bridge." So you have conflicting

interests between putting transit across, putting ALRT across and putting cars

across.

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

C. Puchmayr: Let me finish on this, and then I'll note the

hour.

The accountant will certainly come to the table and make a

calculation that will maximize profits, which means more single-occupancy

vehicles on that bridge, which means more money for the toll, which means more

money for the person that is running that project, which means more toxic gases

going out into the Fraser Valley.

C. Puchmayr moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the

Auditor General's 2007-2008 report 3, A Review of the Vancouver Convention

Centre Expansion Project: Governance and Risk Management.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175