2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th 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)

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014 (continued)

G. Heyman

Hon. P. Fassbender

C. Trevena

S. Hamilton

K. Corrigan

M. Hunt

H. Bains

J. Thornthwaite

S. Robinson

R. Sultan

S. Simpson

Hon. T. Stone

Bill 23 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act

Hon. T. Stone

G. Heyman

Hon. P. Fassbender

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment (continued)

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. M. Polak

G. Holman

A. Weaver

L. Popham

K. Conroy

[ Page 2943 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continued second reading of Bill 22.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Fairview. My apologies, Member.

Government House Leader.

Hon. T. Stone: We might want to let the rest of the world know what the other House is doing.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Environment.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview, please continue.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH

COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

G. Heyman: It's always a pleasure to sit behind our leader and be welcomed before my remarks. I was delivering my remarks on this bill prior to the adjournment of the House before noon and didn't quite get to the end of my remarks, so perhaps I should summarize.

I see some promise in this bill. I see some significant movement toward moving away from the bad decision in 2007 by then Transport Minister Kevin Falcon that removed governance and policy-making at TransLink from the elected and accountable representatives of the people of Metro Vancouver. I believe that was a mistake.

[1335]

A governance review that was commissioned by the Mayors Council — but reviewed at some length the governance principles across all kinds of public and private agencies, not just in Canada or B.C. but across the world — demonstrated clearly where the different levels of policy-making, management of the implementation of policies and actual operational carrying-out of the policies should lie.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

It clearly indicated that at the policy-making level, that is not a level that should be populated exclusively by managers, certainly not by managers who are unaccountable, as expert as they may be, managers who are not elected, managers who meet in private, managers whose activities are not transparent and, most importantly, who are not also charged with the responsibility for other planning to which transit must be intimately related. That would be economic development. That would be all forms of regional development and planning. In fact, what we have seen is transit in the Lower Mainland not keep pace with the livable region plan, which is Metro Vancouver's regional plan.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

This bill, Bill 22, introduced by the minister, tacitly acknowledges that, although it does set off a rather odd hybrid form, where many of the duties of the board are transferred to the Mayors Council, yet the board continues to exist.

The test for us on this side of the House will be, during committee stage, what we can discover about the meaning of some of the changes, whether they in fact give true decision-making powers on planning and priority to the elected officials in the region or whether there are still residual conflicts that exist between the Mayors Council and the board.

Let me add that it will be very, very important, I believe, to ensure that we don't, in fact, have a conflict that results from a duplication. I've said that the Mayors Council now appears to be a hybrid form of board, yet we still have a board. How will those interactions be effectively managed so we don't waste resources, we don't waste money, we don't have confusion about where policy-making lies and we also don't have confusion about what it takes to implement the policies that are developed by the Mayors Council — the strategic planning and the investment strategy?

Let me focus now for a moment or two on what I think is one of the most significant glaring omissions in this bill. Everybody, I think, understands that you can do all the strategic planning you want. You can set all the strategic priorities that you want. But if you're not in a position to oversee the development of the budget that actually implements those priorities, implements that strategic plan, does it in the form of priority order that you have already established as a matter of policy for TransLink, then it effectively doesn't matter. Or as some people say, those who control the purse strings control the policy.

What is missing from this bill is control over the annual operating budget of TransLink being placed in the hands of the people whose responsibility it is to develop the strategic plan, both the long-term and the shorter-term strategic plans, and set the priorities for TransLink.

Now, I will note — and I look forward to exploring this in committee stage…. In a February 6 letter that was sent to the mayors by the Minister of Transportation, a letter which covered a number of details about the referendum,

[ Page 2944 ]

laid out the minister's vision of how things should proceed and then went on to talk about governance, virtually every item identified by the minister in the letter has shown up in this bill, with the exception of one thing.

Let me preface that one thing by saying I still believe, I believe strongly, and the mayors believe, that without the ability to set and approve the operating budget of TransLink, there is a disconnect between the planning and priority-setting process which has been granted them and ensuring that it actually proceeds in the way in which they envision.

[1340]

It is too easy, far too easy, for a board with budget-making authority, divorced from the people who set the planning and policy priorities, to, in effect, substitute something else simply by the way in which they allocate money.

The minister's letter said…. And I intend to explore this more fully in estimates with the minister. I look forward to his explanation, but this is, in fact, a glaring absence from the bill. The minister said: "TransLink's board will be expected to prepare budgets, oversee operations and implement plans consistent with Mayors Council–approved strategies and plans." That seems to me to be pretty clear, with the exception that it's one thing to expect somebody to do something. It is quite another to require them to do it. I think we all know examples where we have high expectations for friends or family but they don't deliver.

I think that we need to require very clearly, in the absence of handing budget-making authority back to the Mayors Council, which I still believe should be done, and I still believe should be incorporated in the bill, which, of course will beg the question at that point about why exactly we have the second board with not much to do…. This explicit commitment to the mayors on February 6 is absent in any form whatsoever from the bill. It's a glaring omission, and it needs to be fixed.

With that, I look forward to continuing dialogue with the Minister of Transportation at committee stage. I think I have spent quite some time talking about all of the reasons why the change in governance in 2007 was a bad idea, why I believe it was a change in governance implemented by the Transportation Minister of the day for all of the wrong reasons.

It was a change in governance implemented by the Transportation Minister of the day, Kevin Falcon, without regard to all of the commonly held beliefs and knowledge about what works for effective governance, what is best practice for effective governance and what has worked in other jurisdictions. It has created needless conflict with locally elected politicians, needless conflict with the mayors. It has set up a bad dynamic with the Mayors Council.

All of this has been to the detriment of British Columbia's economy, the Lower Mainland region's economy and the people of the Lower Mainland who desire and who have the right to travel on roads that are freer from congestion, far freer from congestion than they currently are, which means that those people who can travel by transit do because it's affordable, accessible and available and that those people who have no other choice but to use roads find that the roads are not plugged and choked with people driving who could otherwise be just as happy on public transit.

This minister, I will grant you, has met some of the commitments he has made to the mayors. He has taken a step away from the bad governance model that was introduced in 2007. He is doing it, I will say, in a bit of a hybrid way, not in a way that I think we on this side of the House would choose to do. Nonetheless, he has given, in this bill, significant planning and priority decision-making to the mayors, where it belongs. That is worthy of notice, and I do take note of that.

Having said that, I think there are some flaws in the bill. We will be carefully evaluating the position we will take on this side of the House as a result of questions that I will ask of the minister and others will ask of the minister during committee stage.

As I have said, the question of budgeting is absolutely key. I don't think anyone who has run a business, anyone who has been involved in municipal governance, anyone who has been involved in this House or politics at the provincial level, anyone, even, who has worked for a non-profit society would believe that separating approval and input — significant, meaningful input — of a budget from the priority-setting process actually works. If you can't implement what your priorities are, your priorities effectively are devoid of meaning.

With that, I will take my seat and turn further speeches over to other members of the House.

[1345]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to stand in this House and speak about this piece of legislation for a number of reasons. The first is that I spent a good 12 years of my life working on transportation issues in Metro Vancouver as a locally elected official, and I served in the capacity of vice-chair and chair of the Mayors Council. I sat on many committees over those years talking about transportation.

As I rise today, I do so because, having given a lot of my own personal time without remuneration…. I did that because the region is absolutely critical to the province, to our economy, and transportation is one of the key arteries that lets the flow of economic growth happen.

I find myself a little bit perplexed that the member for Vancouver-Fairview spent most of the time living in the past and talking about what happened in 2007. There have been four subsequent Ministers of Transportation since that time, and there has been significant work done bringing us to the place we are today, where the minister has brought a piece of legislation that reflects the will of

[ Page 2945 ]

the region, that reflects the priorities of the region, that reflects where we see transportation going in the future and how we can work with local governments to achieve those goals.

The member opposite also talked a lot about TransLink. The reality is TransLink isn't just moving people; it's also moving goods and services. It isn't just about more rapid transit; it's about the major road network. It's about all of the pieces that make a truly integrated transportation system, which the region has not only a significant investment in but has a significant stake in the outcomes as to how that works.

It's easy to criticize a former member of this House and a minister for trying to do something innovative, to break the logjam of disconnect that existed at the time, to change a leadership structure that was not working to the interest of the region, that was very narrow-minded at times and very parochial but that needed to re-evaluate the goals of the region, the goals of a transportation system across the spectrum.

I think to be critical of that and be critical of someone's attempt to try something new and innovative just really reflects the narrow-mindedness in terms of policy that I do see across the way and without an ability to understand the complexity of transportation.

The speaker opposite talked about a report. Pulling things selectively out of a report misses some key elements. Ken Cameron's report that he referred to made a couple of other points that I think are really important to be read into the record of this House.

The first was: "The scope and mandate of TransLink — including not only transit but roads, cycling, goods movement and transportation demand management — are still seen as state of the art internationally." So TransLink and its programs are viewed by the rest of the world as being state of the art as reflected in this report.

[1350]

The second comment is, "TransLink's funding sources are enviable in the eyes of many others because they are diverse and appropriate," in what they reflect in terms of user-pay principles, and that is fundamental. I heard as an elected mayor and I heard from my constituents that they agree: a user-pay principle is something that they support.

The third point that's in the report that was not quoted is: "The achievements of the present structure, in the form of development of an urban transportation system, are considerable and a source of justifiable pride." So to say that the work that was done — the activities of the Mayors Council, the board and TransLink management — has been a waste and has not achieved anything is absolutely incorrect.

As a matter of fact, I believe that we are well served in Metro Vancouver by a system that now needs to move to the next level. When the current minister was put in, one of the mandates that he had was to find a way to work with the local mayors, to find legislation that would meet the goals of the region and the province and to work together to do that.

When we talk about structure, there is a suggestion that the board that was put into place was unelected, unaccountable and had no relevance to the system. That is absolutely and patently incorrect as well. I was there at the beginning of the implementation of the new structure, and I had colleagues from the Mayors Council who sat around the table, who actually left a lot of the meetings because they said: "I don't like this structure. I'm not prepared to work with it, and therefore, I won't participate."

They were able to do that because we do operate in a democracy. But then to criticize the structure that you're not even willing to try and work with and to say it's unaccountable and unelected is not appropriate. Members opposite should be aware that the board is selected by the Mayors Council, is voted on by the Mayors Council.

Indeed, one of the members opposite has a close relationship with someone who chose every time not to sit in on the selection, sat in while the criteria were being discussed but then got up and walked out and said: "I will not vote for the board because I don't want to be held accountable for that decision."

Well, I respect that individual's right to make that decision. I said that publicly at the time. But it was clear to me that there was no willingness to even try and make the structure work. You know what? I could give you a litany of issues around that, disagreements that were held at the Mayors Council. I want to focus on the future. I want to focus, as the minister has done, on solutions, not problems.

One of the realities that I've learned in my life…. And I heard a comment, anecdotally, that I have no credentials and no credibility to stand here. Well, I can tell you that the amount of time I spent in local government looking for solutions, not focusing on problems, absolutely gives me the moral right to stand here and speak about something that I am very passionate about, that I put a lot of my own effort into, along with many others.

And I'm not patting myself on the back. There were many mayors around that table who worked very hard to find solutions, and there were others who didn't want to find the solutions. That's democracy. But now let's talk about the future. What does this bill really hold?

[1355]

Well, first of all, it builds on a system that is meeting the needs of the region, that does have many challenges ahead of it but is recognized around the world as being functional and being one of the places where people come from around the world to look at how it's run, to look at the governance structure and to look at why we've been able to achieve what we have.

That said, the minister introduced a bill that reflected a lot of discussion, a lot of back and forth. And I will say in this House that the ministers that have served this

[ Page 2946 ]

province over the last number of years since 2007 all have been committed to finding solutions — not fighting with the regional government but looking to how we get to a solution.

One of the major steps was when a memorandum of understanding was signed with the region. There were two communities that voted against the memorandum of understanding, and they voted against that because of the very thing that I said at the beginning — not looking for solutions but focusing on an unwillingness to cooperate with government to move forward in a positive way.

That memorandum of understanding forms the foundation of the changes that the minister has brought in, and it forms the attitude of this government that we are going to work with the region. To stand in the House, as the member opposite did, and say that it misses some of the key principles and that there is a suggestion here that there isn't going to be direct input, consultation and work with the region and the elected officials to develop the long-term plans, the strategies and the funding envelopes is absolutely incorrect.

We see in this legislation a mechanism where the Mayors Council, as elected officials, clearly will articulate the vision for the region, what the transportation priorities are. They will be responsible with TransLink management to engage the public in that dialogue and to say to the public: "What is your vision? Here is what we believe you have told us. Do you agree with that?" I think that is a very appropriate process for TransLink, the Mayors Council and the board to work on in order to be able to achieve that long-term goal.

Also, when we talk about the governance and the mayors…. There is some criticism already about this legislation that's come from certain quarters. It is that the mayors still don't have the final approval.

Well, the new structure requires that the Mayors Council can choose not, as they did in the past, to have two seats at the board table when those plans, based on the vision, based on the input, based on public consultation, are brought forward within a funding envelope that we will hear about in another, subsequent bill. The opportunity for the Mayors Council to have direct input on the day-to-day operations at the board table is absolutely fundamental to this governance change, and it gives the mayors a direct seat.

Now, when I was chair of the Mayors Council and a previous minister brought in a change to legislation to allow for two seats from the Mayors Council, the Mayors Council chose not to fill those seats. I was opposed to that decision at the time. I said: "What is the problem with having the chair and the vice-chair sitting at the board table when those decisions are made so that they can come back to the Mayors Council and report to the mayors on the discussions and the essence of where things were being decided so that the Mayors Council could be fully in the loop?"

Do you know the comment that I was given back at that time? "Well, there is a conflict of interest in the mayors having representatives sitting at the board table." I had trouble getting my head around that, because it seemed to me the link between the board and the Mayors Council should be absolutely seamless, robust, ongoing.

[1400]

The argument was made that: "Well, we won't be paid if we sit at that table." Indeed, the minister responded to that and said that absolutely, there would be remuneration. But I remember there were a number of mayors who were willing to go to the board meetings without remuneration simply to do the very thing that the legislation did, and that was to ensure the communication.

I think what's important in all of this is not what was wrong but now what is going to be right. And what are those key principles? Well, the board is maintained to provide that professional input.

One of the other keys with the mayors selecting it…. I don't know if members of this House are aware of this, but the reality is that the Mayors Council, with professional input, developed a matrix of skill sets that the mayors felt should be on the professional board. They wanted transit riders. They did want accountants. They did want to have IT professionals. They wanted the cross-section of professional expertise that could provide valuable input to TransLink management and to the Mayors Council.

The problem was that the relationship between the Mayors Council and the board that they appointed was virtually nonexistent. That was a travesty, because it did not allow for that building of relationship to keep our focus on the vision for the region and how we were going to achieve that.

The suggestion is that the previous governance structure took away accountability. It didn't take it away. It just was never followed through on by all of the parties to make sure that they had the kind of communication and the relationship to ensure that the vision for the region was met.

I want to thank the Minister of Transportation and his team within the ministry for the work that they've done to take all of those issues and to look at them in the cold light of day, to say: how can we develop a governance structure that is going to ensure a seamless transition from vision to action plans to funding envelopes and to delivery of an integrated transportation system? I believe that this legislation has each one of those ingredients inherent in it, and it will deliver that because it recognizes the role of regional planning and it recognizes the need for provincial input.

The minister is now going to have two representatives from the province at the board table, along with the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council and the other members appointed by the Mayors Council to that board. If you look at that and you look at the rest of the world, it is probably the best system that we could possibly have,

[ Page 2947 ]

and it will ensure that decisions made are done in light of the vision, the action plans, the funding envelopes and delivery of an integrated transportation system.

I noted that the member for Vancouver-Fairview also had a couple of quotes, which I have here and would like to quote: "I am concerned that without significant input into the operating budget, the annual operating budget or decision-making power over the operating budget — or something in regulation that links the decisions the board makes about the operating budget to the ten-year strategic plan — we have a potential problem."

I can assure the member, having read the legislation, having sat at the table and recognizing what the minister is going to do in terms of regulations as this moves forward, that that absolutely will not be an issue, because all of the linkages are there.

Another quote I'd like to read: "The Minister of Transportation continues to shirk his responsibility to work collaboratively with regional mayors on funding options for the clearly identified needs in Metro Vancouver's transportation system."

[1405]

Well, you know what? This minister and previous ministers have put in hours after hours to work with the mayors. I believe that the relationship that exists today, with a few exceptions, is a healthy one. It's one of collaboration and communication. It's one that is reflected in this change in legislation that recognizes the role of the local elected officials. But it also recognizes that if the region wants more responsibility, along with that comes the accountability.

What is critical as we move forward — for the taxpayers of Metro Vancouver and the province, because Metro Vancouver isn't a bubble that exists in isolation from the rest of the province — is that the accountability has to be there for every dollar that's invested in transportation. There is only one taxpayer. There is only one taxpayer that funds the future of TransLink and transportation throughout the province.

This minister and this legislation says to the mayors in the local communities that if you want the responsibility, then you have to be willing to take the accountability for those decisions and not blame someone else if it doesn't go the way that you think it should. You will be making the decisions on the vision. You will be given input into the priorities and the funding envelopes and the decisions on how those dollars are being spent, and you will be accountable for those to the electorates that elect you as local mayors and councillors in the region of Metro Vancouver.

I think this legislation reflects, truly, many years of hard work and a commitment by this government to an integrated sustainable transportation plan. It is a reflection of this government's recognition of the role of local governments and how we need to work together in partnership, in collaboration and with a view to the future. That is going to ensure the strong economy that we have in this province and that we're going to continue to build on.

As I said at the beginning, transportation is at the heart of every part of our economic framework. It is goods movement. It is moving people. It's about education — so students can get to schools by the transportation options. It is at the heart of health care for seniors — so that they can get to their doctor appointments and their other medical appointments and move around when they are not able to drive themselves.

If we have the kind of transportation system that the vision has shown we want, then we're going to be able to see people move throughout the region without congestion because we will take cars off the road. We will allow trucks and goods movement, and we will do that in a transportation system that meets the needs both of our economy and of every one of our citizens.

I'm looking forward to the ongoing debate on this bill. I can tell you that the work that has been done, the years of challenges that we face…. I think we have a golden opportunity to move ahead in a positive way and to see a transportation system that is funded and sustainable — and that the buck stops where it should. That is with the decision-makers who are going to be charged with the responsibility to make those inputs and then, finally, to make the decisions that need to be made.

C. Trevena: I stand to take my place in debate on Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act. I do so following the Minister of Education, who has acknowledged he was on the Mayors Council. He was talking about the fact that we were perhaps a bit gloomy about what has happened in the past. I have to ask the minister: if things were going so well, why change it?

I think one of the things we have to recognize is that things haven't been going well. There was a big mistake in 2007.

[1410]

Then–Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon brought in… He separated this whole concept of democracy — just took out democracy. I stood up in this place in 2007 when the then minister, Mr. Falcon, introduced the bill. People wondered why I, as a representative from the North Island, would stand up and criticize this. I have some of my constituents who may be able to afford the ferry ride to get to the Lower Mainland occasionally, but it's not a big issue.

What is a big issue is the fact that we have elected representatives, who are elected to do a job on behalf of their communities and their constituents. We have the Mayors Council, who are elected to represent their communities. As part of that, we all acknowledge — I hope we all acknowledge in this House — the importance of transportation, the importance of public transit, the im-

[ Page 2948 ]

portance of our highways and the importance of getting people and goods moving freely.

Part of that is that we have people who are elected in our communities, who have a voice, who should continue having a voice. So in 2007 we got this…. Basically, the democratically elected representatives lost control over TransLink. It was put into a non-elected board, an appointed board, where there might be, as the minister says, two members who could sit on this. But it wasn't democratic.

We want to see democracy brought back into the system. We hope that this bill will do this. We are wanting to explore the bill. I mean, the minister has the opportunity in cabinet briefings to get all the details about the nuances of how this bill is going to work. We aren't afforded that luxury. We're going to have to find out through committee stage, the next stage of this bill, after we've all put our voice to it, just how this bill will work.

Will it bring back democracy to the TransLink governance? Will it ensure that the Mayors Council, the people who were elected by the people in the Lower Mainland…? Will it give them the voice necessary to do their job, which is to ensure the free movement of people and goods through their communities? That we have mayors who have a vision for how they want the Lower Mainland to develop, as a very livable place?

We are portrayed as one of the greenest provinces and greenest conurbations, metropolises in North America, if not the world. But how are we going to achieve that if we cannot ensure that that vision, that livable cities vision, the ideas that mayors and councils are embodying, is enacted?

The minister sat on the Mayors Council and says that what's going to happen now is that the mayors will be able to articulate their vision. I do think that that is being a bit denigrating to the mayors. They do have a vision already. They can articulate their vision. Unless we are very careful, it's fingers crossed that the TransLink board will ensure that that vision is enacted upon.

As my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview, the critic for TransLink…. And we do have a critic specifically for TransLink, because we acknowledge how very important this is for the whole of the economy of B.C. We're very aware that TransLink and the movement of people and goods in the Lower Mainland is vital for economic stability, economic prosperity, environmental good and social good. So we have somebody who is dedicated there.

As my colleague said, what we seem to have here, and we do need to explore it in the committee stage, is a hybrid structure. We have the Mayors Council that may have more influence, may have more involvement in the board than we have had in the past. We can't guarantee that.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think that we have to acknowledge that for the last seven years there has been a discord. I think people would be really wrong to just ignore that and assume everything had been going on normally. There has been great discourse. I think that is partly responsible to the Minister of Transportation of the day who brought this in, in 2007, Kevin Falcon, who was effectively at war with the system and wanted to ensure that the mayors lost their voice.

The mayors are elected by people in their communities, and they represent the concern of their communities. They represent the concerns of their communities across the board. The reason they run for elected office, whether it's as a councillor or a mayor….

[1415]

We've been talking about municipal elections for the last few days. The reason people actually run for this is because they want to represent the people. They have a vision for their communities. They have a vision. It may seem quite mundane for a lot of people, but they have a vision for how they want to see their communities develop through their transportation policies, through their housing policies, through their parks policies across the board. This is part of the whole meal deal of being a locally elected person.

So to take that responsibility and that ability to be involved in the specific decision-making over TransLink was, really, a blow to the mayors. What we are hoping, what we really do hope, is that this bill will ensure that there is more ability going back to the mayors. But what is troubling is that if they get, really, the opportunity to either put their vision forward to still have it ignored or that they put their vision forward not knowing that the TransLink board will ensure that there is the money available or it will be enacted.

It's very interesting that the minister has…. He's, I think, had a difficult time with his own Premier over this. There has been back and forth over a number of issues, and we're going to be discussing, in the next bill, a specific one. But he wrote to the TransLink board back in February and committed to them that in this session there would be a piece of legislation. We actually have two pieces of legislation in front of us. He did commit to the board that there would be this piece of legislation.

The concern that I think is being voiced on this side of the House is that we want to make sure that that democratic voice is heard and that democratic voice is actually acted upon. It's not just a voice going to an appointed board and saying, "This is what we'd really like. Please, will you do it?" but: "This is what we really like. We're going to do it." It's as simple as that.

The fact that we have the Mayors Council, the board…. As I say, I'm not going to go over what my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview expressed about this, about the concerns about the potential confusion of governance. But the fact is that we want to make sure that if we're going

[ Page 2949 ]

to have this, it has teeth.

I think the telling part of it is in the letter from the minister to the TransLink mayors back on February 6 — so just a week before we came back into the Legislature — saying that "TransLink's board will be expected to prepare budgets, oversee operations and implement plans consistent with the Mayors Council–approved strategies and plans." That sounds great. But it is the "expected to."

The word that is very powerful and people use with caution — but lawyers are very aware of it, and people who love grammar are also aware of it — is the word "shall." Shall gives suasion. Shall says that the TransLink board will do it. This is going to happen. "Expected to" is like, "Well, we really want you to do this, and we would expect you to do this, but if you don't" — what is it, a rap on the knuckles, no decisions?

I think that this is a bit of a concern because there is a legacy, despite the Minister of Education's effusiveness, of caution between the Mayors Council and the ministry on this. They knocked out once in 2007, and they're treating this with some caution.

What would be ideal is that the transportation system in the Lower Mainland, as the transportation systems in other communities, is locally controlled. We have the mayors who are elected to represent the wishes, ideals and thoughts of their constituents. If their constituents don't like them, they can be voted out. Every three, or maybe now four, years that can happen. But they are democratically responsible.

A board is not responsible, is not democratically accountable. So I do think that this is the underlying concern, that we still have this hybrid. We acknowledge that the new legislation has the…. The three-year base plan and the seven-year outlook are replaced by a ten-year investment plan, which is going to be approved by the Mayors Council.

[1420]

I'm not sure whether it's going to be reviewed every year or how regularly. Let's hope that we can find this out in the committee stage. I think we're approaching this bill not in a confrontational manner, as was expressed by the Minister of Education, but we want to actually look at this, explore it, see what went wrong in the past, learn from history, learn from the government's own mistakes of seven years ago and see how we can make sure that this is the best possible piece of legislation. We're very concerned about that, so these are some of the things that we'll be asking about.

This legislation also ensures that approval of the 30-year regional transportation strategy is transferred to the Mayors Council from the board. Now, that's very good — a 30-year vision coming back to democratically elected people. Good idea. You have a strategy, a long view, as you see your communities develop. I think we've got to be cognizant that communities are developing very differently these days than they were 30 years ago. We're living in an era…. Two things in B.C. — one is exponential growth in the Lower Mainland of population but also of climate change.

People are looking at how we are going to be approaching all our community living, whether it's housing, whether it's transportation. Any part of our community development is going to have the awareness that we have climate change. Transportation is central to this, so a 30-year vision, having that scrutiny, is very, very important, and having two people who are responsible to an electorate, not to those who are appointed.

The bill also allows for the responsibility for executive compensation transferred to the Mayors Council from the board. I don't know whether this is possibly a bitter pill or it's going to be a good thing. Again, this is going to be analyzed when we get to committee stage. I'm sure that some mayors think that this might be very good.

Some mayors are going to be very cautious about this, left with some of the nasty stuff, where if this bill doesn't work properly, the mayors are left with all the tough stuff, and the board still has the control. That's not going to make anybody happy. So let's see. Let's work through this bill and see how we can make sure it works for the mayors as well as the governance structure.

They're also saying that the bill will take on the commissioner's responsibility, including the approval of fare increases, the authority over the sale of major assets and the oversight of TransLink's complaints and customer satisfaction survey process. That's a lot of responsibility for the Mayors Council. I think it is important, but that's important if they have control. If they are charged with setting the fares and selling assets and dealing with all the customer satisfaction but don't actually have authority…. It's one of these questions like: why are you handing us this bitter pill? Why do we have to do your dirty work for you?

This, again, is going to be something that really needs to be analyzed. I think it also hinges on the next bill, which I believe is the next bill on the order paper, Bill 23, the authority funding referenda act, which looks at new ways of funding local transportation in the Lower Mainland, funding for TransLink and finding ways of ensuring that funding.

I think that some of the mayors are going to be looking to see what comes out of that before feeling too eager about this.

This is a bill that is really, as they say, a long time coming. Since 2007 we needed to get a democratic system back into Lower Mainland transportation. I think that mayors acknowledge that it allows input into planning now. Most of them acknowledge that it isn't perfect, but there is also concern from a number of the mayors about the fact that they don't have control over the annual budgets. I think that this is going to be one of the sticking points.

[1425]

[ Page 2950 ]

I mean, we have the Mayors Council chair, who is the North Vancouver district mayor, Richard Walton, saying just last month: "I can't represent the fact we're all happy, because I think, still, the large issues we want to address have not been addressed" — very concerned about the budget.

Others saying that while it's consistent with the letter…. I quote the Richmond mayor, Malcolm Brodie: "If we're not overseeing the budget, how can we ensure the vision is being carried out?" As I said earlier on: here's our vision, fingers crossed that the board will approve it even though the mayors are left with dealing with the whole difficult thing of compensation, fare increases, and so on.

Again, we've had the mayor of Coquitlam saying that it hasn't always followed that what we decide, even on the core budget and the supplementary budgets, is presented to the Mayors Council. Again, concerns there.

Concerns also from the Port Coquitlam mayor, who says it's not what we wanted. Because what we wanted was complete control, which is what happened before.

There is also concern from the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, who dismisses it as "all spin."

I think that on this side of the House we want to make sure that we get the right legislation. We think that the mayors, as the elected representatives — they have a council, they come together, and they're working on behalf of their communities — should be the ones who are responsible for this planning.

We shouldn't be looking necessarily at a hybrid structure. But if you're going to have the hybrid structure, make it work for all the parties. That's what we're hoping we will find during the committee stage: how it's going to work, how it's going to fall into place, what the minister's vision for this is and whether it meshes with a vision of some of the mayors.

Or is it just: "My predecessor, Kevin Falcon, made a mistake, and I'm going down this way because I'm trying to fix it a bit but not all the way, because I haven't got the authority. My Premier doesn't want to give me the authority, so this is just a little bit." So we need to clarify that.

What we're doing in this place we should be doing with seriousness. We should be looking at things seriously, because it is hard to fix them, and a lot of people's lives really depend on them. I mean, when we're talking about TransLink, we're talking about economy, social issues, environmental issues.

We are talking about serious issues that really need to have serious discussion, serious debate and serious policy — not a policy that's done out of bitterness or that comes out of whim or expedience but a policy that is really working for the best interests of all the people living in the Lower Mainland, all the people living in the TransLink area — and people outside of there who rely on that area operating effectively and efficiently.

That is the area through which most of the goods that we produce in our province — whether it is coal or whether it's lumber…. Whatever it is, the resources are shipped through the Lower Mainland, so it is necessary for all of us that this happens right, that we get the best governance model for that area, for TransLink, so that our roads are operating well and the transportation system is operating well and so that our economy and our social structure and our environment can be sustained and can go forward with the fewest problems.

I think that we should acknowledge that this comes out of a major mistake back in 2007. It is an attempt to try and fix that mistake. Let's hope it is an attempt that works.

We will have many, many questions during the committee stage of this bill, to ensure that we get some of those answers. With that, I take my place in debate and look forward to hearing from others who are participating.

[1430]

S. Hamilton: I'm pleased to stand up and speak in support of Bill 22. I'm going to find it very difficult to come up here and speak on the heels of the eloquent words that were espoused by the Minister of Education. They did resonate with me, and I hope they resonated with every member in this House, because he was there. He was in the trenches. He saw the problems. He saw the dysfunction.

He acknowledged the fact, as has being acknowledged on the other side of the House, that there are things that need fixing. That's what we're doing. We're responding to the needs of the mayors in Metro Vancouver and, as such, looking at ways to improve TransLink governance, of course.

We are listening, and that really is what this bill comes down to and what it's all about. The acknowledgment that there were problems, that there are problems, is basically at the centre of our decision-making. That's what is pushing this bill through, and I'm glad I am able to support it. The role of government is to govern, and we're showing real leadership that considers the best interests of British Columbians.

When Metro Vancouver mayors asked for more say on TransLink, we listened. This bill gives local governments more control over the future of their transit system. The Mayors Council has asked government for more say over how investments are made in transit and how planning is done for the region. We responded with amendments to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.

The changes allow the Mayors Council to approve TransLink's long-term strategies, including a 30-year regional transportation strategy. That's important, because it gives control to the people who will make the most use of transit in their communities.

The Mayors Council assumes responsibilities that have been the responsibilities of TransLink commissioners, who operate, essentially, outside the democratic process.

[ Page 2951 ]

Again, both sides of the House have acknowledged that fact, and we're moving to change that.

Under this legislation, the Mayors Council will approve fare increases, decide the sale of major assets and oversee TransLink's complaints and customer satisfaction survey process. That's a direct connection between how service is delivered and the people who will be paying for the bulk of that service.

The Mayors Council will also oversee how much TransLink executives and board directors are paid. Our government will add two provincial appointees to the board, though the size of the board will be unchanged, to improve communications between TransLink and the Mayors Council and this province.

As I said, our government recognizes the value of municipalities. Many of us in this House began our political careers at the municipal level, myself included. We know how important it is to have a provincial government that's willing to listen and to respond. This legislation is a great example of how we're building those relationships.

We're taking local government seriously and working with the cities and towns of this province to better represent the people of British Columbia. Having a functional relationship with other levels of government allows us to achieve what voters want, what our constituents are asking from us. After all, the goals are the same, even if we have different roles to play in how we get there. Whether you're a politician or represent a provincial or federal riding, all of us want a secure society.

We want a strong economy and a bright future for our kids, and I'm pleased to be able to play a role in that at the provincial level now.

Our government has been able to set the stage for future investment. We balanced the budget for the second time. That fiscal restraint is what the people of British Columbia expect from their government at any level.

When the people of British Columbia chose us last May to lead this province, one of the promises we made was to give taxpayers a say on how their money is spent on transit. We're following through with that promise, and we're doing so in a way that works for local governments.

We promised to reimburse local governments for the cost of that referendum, and this legislation keeps that promise. We're also keeping our commitment to allow the Mayors Council to have direct input into the wording of any referendum. And when the mayors asked for more time to hold a referendum, we agreed to work with them.

If the people of Metro Vancouver are being asked to pay for new taxes or fees on top of those that local government and TransLink already collect, then taxpayers must have a say. We're listening, and we are proud to have the mayors of Metro Vancouver on our side.

K. Corrigan: Well, it's been really interesting to hear lectures about democracy and accountability from the other side of the House when we have a fundamentally undemocratic board, essentially picked from the business friends of the Liberals. It's been that way since the beginning, and nothing has changed over the last several years.

[1435]

I'd like to say that what we have here with this bill, with these changes, is essentially providing some areas of control to the mayors, all the crappy stuff — getting to raise fares, getting to decide what the compensation is for the board members that are unelected and unaccountable, all those things — but no control over the one thing that maybe makes a difference.

I wonder how this provincial government, how the Liberal government on the other side, would feel if they were told: "Look, you can do a ten-year plan, as long as it meets our goals." Part of the catch here is that the ten-year plan has to fit within the government's approved economic plans and strategic plans, so there's no real control. There's less there in this strategic planning.

How would this government feel if they were suddenly told by another level of government: "Oh, by the way, you get to do this, this and this, but you don't get to set the budget every year"?

It's outrageous. If you don't have control of the funds, if you don't have control of the everyday planning of the system, which is what they used to have, there is no democracy whatsoever. It doesn't matter how much you move the deck chairs on the Titanic around. It's all smoke and mirrors. There is no democracy in this process, there has been no democracy, and there continues to be no democracy. Until this government figures that out and does something about it — it has no intention — there will not be peace with the local mayors.

I was very interested to hear…. It's so interesting to see that we have people who were formerly in local government sitting on the other side, including the Minister of Education. Mind you, the Minister of Education wasn't exactly necessarily looking out for the interests of the region. The Minister of Education had other aspirations, which he has now played out by coming here and working with the government that he's in.

Hon. P. Fassbender: That's so cruel.

K. Corrigan: No, it's kind.

It's funny to talk about…. We're going to be talking in the other bill about a referendum. Every single mayor in the Lower Mainland on the Mayors Council, every single mayor said: "We don't want a referendum." And yippee. What are they getting now? It's like being told: "Lookit. You're going to be executed, but you get to choose the date." I mean, really, it is pathetic, and it's sad.

I remember back in the 1990s, the good old 1990s when we were in power, we had the transit system of the year for North America — the transit system of the year, 1996, run by the good old NDP. And do you know what

[ Page 2952 ]

happened? Here's what really happened. Let's talk a little bit about the history of why we are where we are today. Why don't we talk about why we are where we are today.

We had democratically elected representation running transit in the Lower Mainland. Then in the early 2000s, the then Minister of Transportation, now Kevin Falcon, did not like what that democratically elected group of mayors said they wanted to do and came up with some excuse, saying they were dysfunctional.

They were exercising democracy. They were discussing the plans. They were figuring out what it is they wanted to do with their transit system and were doing well and planning well, like they do with their strategic plans for the community as a whole. That's a democratic exercise wherein every single community in the Lower Mainland got together and agreed about what they want to do with their community.

If this government would just get out of the way, the Lower Mainland would just do fine. Instead, they have their friends. They have the things they want to do. They have their business friends.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Well, let's talk about business friends. Let's talk about what the minister….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Corrigan: Let's talk about what the Minister of Education was talking about. He used the words "accountability" and "democracy" and "election."

When you talk about the board, how did this board come into place? First of all, they fired the democratically elected board. They got rid of them. Kevin Falcon, in a pique — because he was not getting his way, was not getting the priorities that he wanted for transportation — fired the board. He said: "We're not going to have democracy anymore. Instead, what we're going to do…."

I see lots of members who were around then that were in local government. You should be ashamed of yourselves for not speaking up for local governments and instead becoming toadies for this government.

[1440]

Let's get rid of democracy. Let's not even have elections for this place. What the heck. Let's appoint a board that's put together by business. They can do a much better job because they're professionals, and we're a bunch of amateurs.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Well, really, it's the same argument. Why not? I'm sure we could find a business board that could put together 85 people who'd do a much better job, and then you wouldn't have to deal with that damned democracy and accountability and answering to your communities.

Here's how the board was originally picked. A panel….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: What's so frustrating, member opposite? It is frustrating. You know what? It is entirely frustrating to have a government that cares so little about democracy.

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: Yes, so little. Let's get rid of the 85 members. A corporate board could do a much better job than any of us — any of you.

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: Really? Well, then why don't we bring a little bit to the Lower Mainland?

Anyway, I'm going to get back to the point.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let's have one speech at a time, please.

K. Corrigan: One speaker — right. I get my little moment here.

The way this was originally put together, TransLink was taken away, just simply gotten rid of, by this government. Instead, a screening committee was put together by then Premier Gordon Campbell, with representation from the board of trade, the institute of chartered accountants and the Gateway Council. They describe themselves as a "dynamic, industry-led organization of senior executives from the seaports, airport, carriers and other companies engaged directly in the gateway transportation business." I think it's still mostly the same players.

What they do…. This is democracy and accountability for you. What do they do? They come up with a list, and that list goes to the Mayors Council. They don't know who has applied. I don't think anybody who is anything but….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: I absolutely know what I'm talking about.

A list is…. I'm sorry that the minister has already spoken because I'd like to find out exactly where I'm wrong in this. The list comes together. It comes to the Mayors Council. They don't even know who applied. The list is put together by this group, who then presents: "You get to choose who you want from this list that we've given

[ Page 2953 ]

you." Now that is not democracy.

What have we got now? What do we get now in this bill? Well, what we get is no ability to have anything to do with the budget. You don't get to have control of the budget. A ten-year plan…. By the way, the minister was being quite upset during earlier discussions, saying: "They have to come up with a plan. They have to come up with a vision." That ability to plan is exactly what this government took away from the mayors in 2007. "You can't do it anymore. We do it for you. This board, this private board, does it."

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: Really? Baloney? I've been watching this stuff for a long time.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, please be careful in your speech.

K. Corrigan: The ten-year plan — they get to participate. It's like ParticipACTION: you get to participate. In looking at the ten-year plan, they have to consider the provincial transportation and the province's objectives, including their economic objectives, which gives more control to the province rather than less.

Get to help choose the question on the referendum. Every single mayor in the Lower Mainland said: "We don't want a referendum. That is no way to…."

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: There was a unanimous response. You weren't there at the time. There was a unanimous response — unanimous disapproval of having a referendum.

Again, you don't get to….

Interjection.

[1445]

K. Corrigan: I'm not making it up. It would be hard to make this stuff up. The complete lack of respect for democracy would be hard to make up.

You get to raise the fares. You get to be the bad guys. You get to be the bad guys who set the remuneration for senior staff. But you can't cut back, of course, because there would be wrongful dismissals. You get to set the board's remuneration. So you get all the dirty jobs. They get all the dirty jobs, and they get no…. If the government wants to give them responsibility, give them back the budget, because that's the only thing that matters.

And now the government wants to reintroduce the idea of having two members on the board, which they know has been rejected by the Mayors Council as undemocratic. I know the member opposite, the Minister of Transportation…. Now, I do believe the Minister of Transportation did advocate for, would probably have supported…. Given his present position, I think he probably would have advocated for that. But of course, because he was the chair of the Mayors Council, he would have got one of those positions. He would have had one of those positions.

Here's what a report said that was commissioned by the Metro Vancouver regional Mayors Council, which has repeatedly called on the province to make reforms. They had consultants, Acuere Consulting, who examined practices in 13 cities around the world.

It concludes that TransLink's structure with an appointed board of directors in control of all decisions except major revenue increases is an anomaly worldwide, while other jurisdictions invariably have elected representatives in charge who answer democratically to the people being served — as opposed to what this government has done here.

The report found accountability is "almost completely missing" from TransLink's current structure, and it's less than ideal on transparency, responsiveness, clarity of purpose, advocacy and productive relationships.

The report again says: "The province has exercised a dominant interest, feeling free to impose its priorities on the region and reluctant to provide a role in transit for local government institutions it did not directly or indirectly control."

I appreciate that some of my colleagues have said that they'll wait and see, and maybe there are a couple of little tidbits in here. I think it's just going around the edges and saying: "What is the absolute minimum that we can do in order to fulfil what we have been promising for several years, which is to review this structure because it's not working?" It never worked from day one.

A little nibbling around the edges, but this is not going to be bought by the local mayors. They are not happy with this. They're having a referendum imposed on them that every single one of them said they didn't want.

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: That's a change. That might be a change.

Unfortunately, it does not address the fundamental problem with governance of TransLink, which was pointed out in this most recent report, which is: there is no democracy at TransLink. It's controlled in a backdoor way by this government, has been controlled since 2007, because this government wanted to be able to control the decisions that were made in greater Vancouver. And if that means getting rid of democracy, then so be it.

M. Hunt: I have to admit to you that one of the real disappointments, I thought, in coming to the provincial

[ Page 2954 ]

government was that I was going to miss my times with the mayor of Burnaby. The mayor of Burnaby would constantly accuse me of revisionist history when I would recount different things that had happened in Metro Vancouver. I am just so delighted to be able to follow the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake and to be able to give my version of history and what actually happened in history.

We spoke about that back in July of last year, as there was a resolution concerning TransLink that was brought forward in this House. We had a discussion at that time about it.

[1450]

At that time I had recounted some of the history of TransLink and the tensions that were between the locally elected officials and the provincially elected officials. I'm just delightfully amazed that the good member for Burnaby–Deer Lake described that as the good old days of the 1990s. In fact, TransLink was originally created with 15 members. Three of those members were, in fact, from the government of the day, which was the NDP side of the House — including one of the members that currently sits with us today, who I will leave anonymous and let that individual speak if they so choose to.

Those three members of the provincial government that were working with the locally elected officials quit. They refused to attend because of the tensions at the meeting, I suppose, because they never did give us the reasons why they quit. Then, ultimately, the legislation was amended to take those three provincial members off the TransLink board, because of the inherent tensions that were built into the way that TransLink was built.

I guess I should pause for a moment just to put this into context. I am the only elected official who served the entire nine years that elected officials were governing TransLink. So I guess I have the context to be able to give the history.

Interestingly enough, TransLink in the 1990s was given all these wonderful ways to raise money to be able to create transportation and transit and deal with all these goods and the movement of goods and services and all those wonderful things. Except when we tried to use them, all of a sudden we found strings attached back here. The Premier of the day said: "Vehicle levy? Oh, no, no. You can't do a vehicle levy. We're not going to allow that one."

It was in the legislation. It was something in the Valhalla days that was given to us, but we weren't allowed to use it. That was the Premier. And I'll just say the party that he was Premier of was the NDP — okay, just so we get it clear — the guys who created the legislation in the first place.

Then we get on with life. We try to struggle. We try to come up with a plan. But that was a plan that we had gone through extensive consultation on with the electorate. We had done all sorts of things in creating that plan. And then, bingo, the Premier of the day says no.

Well, by the same token, let's be fair here, because in this House we're all in this thing together. The reality is that we then went through another plan. We created the parking stall tax. We tried to work through the parking stall tax to try to be fair to Vancouver and Richmond, who had the most parking stalls that were being charged. We tried to work that. Again, the concept: trying to spread the pain all around so everybody was contributing, everybody was working together to build a good transportation system in the Lower Mainland.

Regrettably, the Premier of the day said: "No parking stall tax. We're not going to let that one happen." So this continued tension between what TransLink wanted to do and what the provincial government, the elected officials at the provincial level…. We had this tension between the two. They both were elected by the same group of people. They were both saying, "We represent the people; we want to give action on behalf of the people," and coming to two completely different conclusions.

I am very proud of this minister that we have today, the Minister of Transportation. During the election one of the platforms we put forward is that we want to solve this problem. We want to get this thing solved so we can get on with good transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland. This minister, to his credit, went out and listened.

Let's just think for a moment who he listened to and the dispersion of ideas that he listened to. He certainly listened to the Mayors Council's opinion on things. He certainly listened to some of his own caucus members, because I want to assure you that I was talking to him, and he was glad to receive my opinion. I don't doubt that there were many others that spoke to him, as well as the general public. He listened to them.

[1455]

I, quite frankly, had my doubts, because we had seen previous ministers work on this file and no progress being made. This minister is making progress. He is heading in the right direction. I credit him for that, and I stand in this House to credit him. He is working on it, he's listening, he's taking the input, and he's working at getting solutions that are going to work.

Ultimately, the Mayors Council — and yes, we've heard this from both sides of the House — asked very specifically if they could get control over the long-term plans and how to finance those plans. That we have in this legislation. They wanted to be able to manage the 30-year vision for where this is going and how we're going to get there. That's in this legislation.

Ultimately, the funding of it has always been the problem from day one. Actually, to be bluntly honest with you, although I was not in the House during the 1990s, I have the sneaking suspicion that the NDP government of the day wanted to get rid of the problems with funding TransLink. I'm sure that's why they created it. They

[ Page 2955 ]

just wanted to push those decisions off to another order of government, to let them handle it and deal with it.

No matter what you try to do, there are going to be people furiously mad with you, one way or the other — the ones that want more transit and aren't getting it and the ones that are having to pay for it and are not using it. We constantly have this tension. We constantly have a problem. But that's part of politics. That's part of the art of politics and working the compromises and working on things together. This legislation is giving that opportunity. It's giving that power to the Mayors Council to get on with the job and get things done.

In fact, I would suggest that possibly the amendments of 2007 — we've heard that discussed here too — were trying to deal with the constant conflict that we had in TransLink coming to decisions. Some people say we were dysfunctional, that we didn't get anything done, but the Golden Ears Bridge is there today to the credit of the TransLink elected officials. The Canada Line was built and is there. We can go down the list of huge things that happened during those nine years and were set on course in those nine years. We got it done because we had a vision.

Yes, it was painful. I have a certificate on my wall for chairing the mother of all Metro Vancouver meetings. It was nine hours long, five challenges to the chair — and yes, I was the chair. It just was a most interesting meeting. But at the end of the day, we had the vote that said: yes, let's build the Canada Line. Today people are travelling it and enjoying the benefits of that good transit system. Without controversy? No. Without challenges? No.

This legislation that is before us is working at cutting those strings back to Victoria so that the elected officials can get on with the job of building transit.

Now, by the same token, we have another piece of legislation — which I'm only going to slightly refer to, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker — subsequently, to follow this, that deals with the issue of the tension between the provincially elected officials and the locally elected officials concerning TransLink. I think: "Well, is it what they wanted?" Well, no. But by the same token, again it's a compromise that can work so that the citizens work on the basis of buying into a vision and into the pain that that vision is going to be in order to get things done.

Is a referendum not democratic? I couldn't believe hearing those words in this House — that a referendum is not democratic. I think it's extremely democratic because the actual people who are going to pay the bills are the ones that say yes and no. "Let's get on with this. Let's do this." As a matter of fact, I heard the words that this is against democracy and all of those sorts of things.

I remember during the 2000s that there were those who were complaining because we as the TransLink board, as locally elected officials, were not directly elected to that office. Therefore, they said that was not democratic. So even the original can be argued, depending on your perspective, that it was not democratic.

As for me, I believe it is democratic. I believe it is working in the spirit of that because we have democratically elected people making the decisions. They are there representing their local municipalities. They're representing their people.

[1500]

It's a federation of the municipalities, 22 member municipalities, plus First Nations working together in order to find solutions to get things done, to get transit and transportation moving in the Lower Mainland. That's why I will be supporting this bill.

I want to say it one more time so that nobody can think that I didn't say it: I am proud of this minister and this legislation being here.

H. Bains: I went through this, I think the previous ten years almost, going back to 2007, actually — if you really look at what brought us here. And as you know, 2007-2008 is the time when the debate was going on at the Mayors Council.

These are the elected mayors or councillors that made up the TransLink board. These are the people who are elected, or were elected, from their communities, and they were accountable to their communities. They knew what was needed in their communities because they are the people who make land use decisions. They would be the right body to make the right decisions, because all experts in the world will agree that land use decisions and public transportation go hand in hand. There's no argument about that.

So who is best in that position? Mayors and the councillors, in their city halls, make decisions on land use every day. They also know what is needed as far as the services needed to serve that community as far as the transportation is concerned. So they were the right mix. They were the right body to make the decisions to look at this very, very important but complex situation that our growing communities face. And it's all over the world. Every city has huge and complex challenges when it comes to public transportation, when it comes to moving people and goods.

At the same time, you're talking about how to be responsible to our future generations, which means: how do we look at and protect our environment? I think that was the duty, that was the responsibility, that those elected mayors prior to 2007 did a remarkable job on. If you look at what they were able to deliver in the Lower Mainland, it's remarkable. And since that time, what do we have? This government came to the table kicking and screaming. Finally, they worked with the mayors so that we have the Evergreen line.

If you may recall, Mr. Speaker, and those members on that side also know, it was becoming a joke because there was no leadership coming from this government here. The mayors weren't allowed to do the work that

[ Page 2956 ]

they needed to do because of the change in the government in 2007. No wonder people who were hoping to have the Evergreen line built on time started to call it the Nevergreen line. You may remember that. They used to call it the Nevergreen line because they stopped believing that this government is ever going to deliver on that promise.

Finally, it was the mayors again who showed the leadership and advised this government of what is needed. That's when the two cents per litre was approved here in this House so that they could have the revenue that they need to pay for their portion of the Evergreen line. As you know, it was a three-way split. It was the provincial government, federal government and TransLink. It was TransLink that was having a difficult time in coming up with their portion to fund their $400 million.

I think I will be very, very cautious in looking, at committee stage, at exactly what this Bill 22 does, what the intent is.

[1505]

Mayors, time and again, ever since 2007 when they were removed from being on the board, have been saying that they are removed from the decision-making table and that an unelected board is making all those decisions behind closed doors. Once they come up with a plan, the Mayors Council, then, is required to say yes or no to that plan. They could not amend it, could not change it. They have to say yes or no.

If they said yes and they require more money, then it was the mayors who had to find the new money. It was a system that was designed to fail. How do you ask someone: "Make a decision, but you cannot amend it. You cannot change it. You have no participation in designing and planning that plan, but you have to say yes or no. Once you say yes, if there's additional money needed, you have to find the money." I mean, it just does not work that way.

Also, they were saying: "We're the ones who are accountable to the people who elected us. We know what goes on in our communities. We know where the growth is. We know what is needed when it comes to land use decisions and match that with the transportation decisions." But they were far removed from that decision. All they could do….

And the Minister of Transportation can sit here, as he did all of his life when he was on that board, being an apologist for this government. He's still doing that. He got awarded for that, by the way. That's why he's sitting here.

I think the reality and the facts are different. I remind the minister how frustrated he was even, at the time when he was on the board, with this government. I'll show that to you, and I'll read the quotes from the minister.

The problem was just because the Minister of Transportation of the day, Mr. Kevin Falcon, had a little snit, had a fight with the mayors because the mayors were making the decision — who were democratically elected, and the councillors. The minister didn't like the decision that they were making, so he fired them. So democratic.

As the Minister of Transportation was standing here earlier on and praising this government and the board of how democratic they are and how accountable they are…. He didn't like the decision that they made. He fired them. That's how democracy works in their world but not with the rest of the world, not on this side of the world.

What did he do? Replaced those members. Who did he replace them with? Not through election. He went and said they will be from the board of trade, Gateway Council, chartered accountants and the Minister of Transportation. So much democracy there. As the Minister of Transportation and my friend from Panorama are talking about how democratic they were in the last ten years.

That's what happened. That's why hardly any decision got made. In fact, if you compare to the services we had back then to the services that we have today, there's a cut in services right now. So much leadership coming from this government that we have to take cuts in transportation services.

My friend comes from the Surrey-Panorama region where, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you…. The members from Panorama and Tynehead know, and the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Education knows, that south of the Fraser right now we have one hour, on a per-capita basis, of public transportation compared to 1.9 hours for Vancouver-Richmond-Burnaby. About half. So much leadership coming up from those elected on the government side from Surrey.

This is the fastest-growing community. It's not that they could stand up here and argue: "Oh, we didn't know that Surrey was growing that fast." They can't make that argument. They knew it. They knew it in 2001, and they knew it in 2007 — that Surrey is the fastest-growing community.

We need more buses. We need more public transportation. Guess what happened. We got cut. I'll tell you exactly where the cuts were. I'll remind the Minister of Education where the cut had to be made — because there's no money; there's no funding coming — because of lack of leadership from this government. They ran away when there was a chance and the time for them to make a decision.

[1510]

That's not leadership. They ran away from their responsibility: "Oh well, by the way, yes, we need the public transportation, and yes, we need to increase the services, but we're not going to make any decision. We'll have a referendum. Oh well."

Why wasn't there any referendum when Evergreen line was built? Why wasn't there any referendum when the previous two lines were built? Why wasn't there any referendum when Port Mann Bridge was built? All of a sudden…. I ask the members from Surrey to pay real

[ Page 2957 ]

attention here. When it's Surrey's turn now, when it's Surrey's time now, they're running away from the responsibility and saying somebody else is going to make a decision. That's not leadership.

Let me go back into the history. My friend from Panorama started with the history, and I was hoping that he would continue on, but he stopped at 2001. I'm going to fill inthose blanks for my friend. He talked about how the government was interfering here in the 1990s. They wanted to do the work. The minister here, the government of the 1990s, would say: "Oh no, you can't have that."

But let's talk about the last ten years. I will go back to, actually, the Minister of Education and see how he felt. On March 23, 2012, the day after the Premier announced the audit and ruled out the vehicle levy, the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Lekstrom, admitted that he and the Premier had not collaborated or talked. He had not. Here's the minister; there's the Premier. The minister is saying one thing; the Premier is saying something else. For the memory of my colleague from Panorama, this is true interference by the Premier. That's why decisions aren't being made.

He was a good soldier, Mr. Lekstrom, and I like him. He said: "She is my Premier. I serve in the cabinet at her discretion." So he's throwing his hands up in the air: "What can I do? I know what I'm doing is right, but the Premier is interfering."

But let's go a little further. The Minister of Education was so forceful in saying, "Well, we had so much good stuff going on in the previous ten years. There was accountability. There were all of the decisions being made." Then he went on to contradict himself by saying, "Well, there are changes needed," because the old system wasn't working.

On one hand he was saying such wonderful things the minister, the previous minister and the previous minister have done — all the great things. Then all of a sudden he's: "Oh yeah. That stuff isn't working."

Here is just a recent memory for the minister. When the Premier pulled the rug from underneath that minister at that time, Mr. Lekstrom, this is what the Minister of Education had to say: "Langley mayor" — I will not use the name — "vice-chair of the TransLink Mayors Council, said the Premier seems to be 'drawing the line in the sand' without even bothering to talk to the mayors who struggled for the past two years over the difficult decision of what new funding mechanisms to request."

This is what the vice-chair, who happens to be the Minister of Education now, had to say about this Premier. She was pulling the rug from under her ministers. He went on to say: "She has never talked to me or Mayor Richard Walton, the chair." The Minister of Education further said: "Nor does she seem to have talked to her own cabinet members. I am never surprised at things the Premier says. I think that she makes decisions in isolation." What a lesson for the member for Surrey-Panorama.

[1515]

You want to talk about interference by the Premier. Here is a prime example. This is what's happening. This is after 2007 when the Minister of Transportation at that time said: "The old system doesn't work." The member for Surrey-Panorama said: "The old system didn't work." They were fighting with each other, and here is what was happening in 2012, right here in this House.

There is a lot more history, Minister and Member for Surrey-Panorama, because interference after interference by the Premiers of this House in the last ten years is the reason nothing got built. Never mind that nothing got built. We had to cut services.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Yeah, the Minister of Health is talking about the Canada Line.

I gave a little history there — how the Canada Line came about, how he fired the democratically elected board so that he could appoint his own board. The elected mayors and the councillors were looking out for the region, but the minister and the Premier of the day had their own agenda — nothing to do with the Lower Mainland, but they had their own agenda. That's the way they operate and they continue to operate to this day. I've just read some of the quotes.

Her own ministers are saying that she doesn't talk to anybody, that she works in isolation. "It never surprises me how she makes decisions."

An Hon. Member: She works with Harry Bloy.

H. Bains: Works for Harry Bloy, I guess. Okay.

Let's come back to 2010. Let's talk 2010 — September 2010. I was present. The Minister of Education was present — such a huge fanfare — and the previous Minister of Transportation. They were all there. They were all there, and I thought: there's a hope that finally we are going to sign a piece of document that will have some solutions to our badly needed public transportation. This is September 2010, and we're talking about it now, almost four years later — still, the same thing.

The commitment was made by this government with the local mayors that they would find a long-term sustainable funding formula to have the Evergreen line and all of the other extensions and expansions that we need in the Lower Mainland. That decision was made in 2010. So what are we doing now? Still talking about the same thing.

It's hard to believe that the minister, who was vice-chair at that time, could stand up here and praise that system of the last four years of doing nothing — doing nothing those four years as far as public transportation is concerned.

We needed more buses in Surrey. What did we get?

[ Page 2958 ]

Service cut. We needed an expansion to south of Fraser. What did we get? Nothing.

If you look at the handyDART part of public transportation, there's another story. I hope the Minister of Transportation is paying attention. There's another story. There are disabled people who use this service to go to work so that they keep themselves busy. It's good for their health. It's good that they're not depending on anybody else. But what's happening? Because of a lack of service, and we have cuts in that system, they are told, "You can't go to work," because they have no transportation now.

This is the reality. This is happening right now. I ask the Minister of Health to come over, listen to some of the real people in Surrey. Let's listen to some of the real people in Surrey. Let's come and talk to….

The Minister of Health is always sitting here chirping away about something that makes no sense at all. It's not relevant to what we're talking about, but he has to have his two bits in here. But real people are hurting, as they waste their time trying to put somebody else down over important issues such as handyDART.

We're standing here today again, since 2007, to talk about the change in governance.

[1520]

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: I was also seeking leave to give my colleague from Surrey-Newton a chance to catch his breath.

We are blessed to have in the Legislature today a group of dynamic students. They're grade 11 students from Elgin Park Secondary School, along with their teacher Lindsey Ellett and a vice-principal who is questionable in terms of his knowledge of the Legislature. The students now know everything there is to know about the motto and the themes of our province.

Sarah is actually one of the students and is a very good rap singer. I heard her do a rendition of that famous rap song called "So Fly." Would the House please make them most welcome to the Legislature.

Debate Continued

H. Bains: Let's continue on with what has happened — the system that isn't serving our public transportation. I just finished suggesting how the Minister of Education was engaged with the Premier, contradicting each other, and how the minister at that time said: "I'm never surprised at things the Premier says. I think she makes decisions in isolation." I think that time, when that was said, was 2012 — March 22, 2012.

What happened as a result of those actions by the Premier? The mayors passed four resolutions, one rejecting future property tax hikes. Originally they were talking about…. As part of their deal in 2010, everything was on the table, and they would work with the province to come up with a long-term sustainable funding formula.

Because this government continued to second-guess the mayors and not cooperate with them and would not sit down with them, they said: "Fine. You play your game over there." What they did was…. They did four things. They passed a resolution: no future property tax hikes. They requested that there should be a governance change from the minister. Then they said also that in light of the two previous audits, another one is not needed unless it is done by the Auditor General, cancelling $30 million in property tax and service expansions until alternative funding sources are determined. This was later found not to be legal.

This is the system that was brought in by the previous Minister of Transportation that they are so proudly saying how great it was. They could never work with the mayors since 2007. The mayors were sitting over there. This government was sitting over there. Even when they tried to do something, the Premier would always say one thing. The minister would show something else. She would pull the rug out from under the minister, and then nothing got done. As a result, we have service cuts.

I'm going to tell you what the service cuts were and how that affected our communities. Many of the members who are from outside of the Lower Mainland — it may not mean much to you, but I can tell you that we have people who want to leave their cars at home to go to work, to do their business or just to go to a shopping mall. They can't do that. They are forced to drive cars. These are the people who really care about climate change. They want to help to keep our air clean and not leave any footprints, but they're not being helped by this government. These are the people who are way ahead of this government, but they're not being helped.

What happened? In September 2012 TransLink released the 2013 Base Plan . Despite aggressive cutting of costs, TransLink faced a $472 million shortfall between 2013 and 2015 and had to cancel the following plans. This is what happened; in 2012 they had to do this.

[1525]

The planned increase of 306,000 annual service hours needed to reduce overcrowding on key routes, accommodate population growth and meet U-Pass demand, and full Highway 1 rapid bus project — cut. Full King George Boulevard B-line to White Rock was cut. Extension of SeaBus service to every 15 minutes and upgrade the Lonsdale Quay — cut.

Full funding for major road networks and cycling was cut. Not only that. What was expected at that time didn't get done. We have a SeaBus, the third SeaBus that was built, and I think that it cost over $20 million. The plan was to have three SeaBuses running. They had no

[ Page 2959 ]

money. They had to park one. It's still parked. This is how the decisions are made. How are they fiscally prudent decisions?

We have a SeaBus sitting there, parked — not being utilized because they have no operating funding. This minister and the previous Minister of Transportation and all of the members stand up here, one after one, about how great the system works and how great a job they're doing when it comes to public transportation. I'd just like to go back to what is happening to that $20 million SeaBus that was there to take those passengers that had to come across from the North Shore to Vancouver for work.

Absolutely, change is needed. Absolutely, we need governance change. Absolutely, the mayors have been asking for governance change ever since they were fired in 2007. You know what? Knowing this government, I will be watching in detail to see what this Bill 22 actually means. Are they actually bringing the changes that the mayors are asking for? Are they giving them the powers, especially on budgeting and planning and developing strategies? I want to see how those powers are transferred over to the mayors.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Now my question is to the Minister of Health, who again is chirping away rather than giving any logical argument behind his chirping. My question is: what is the role of the board? What are we going to use those seven seats for — to have more defeated Liberal candidates, to find some place for them to go to? Is that what we're looking for? What do we need them for?

Interjections.

H. Bains: The Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Education should know better. The minister decides the governance change. The minister decided in 2007. The minister fired the elected board at that time. He could do that now. He can do that now.

My question is: what is the need for the board? I need to know the answers to that. If the mayors are going to do all of the work that the board is currently doing, if that's what they're doing, and all of those powers are transferred over to the mayors, then what is the role of the board? Again, it shouldn't be a room for the friends of the Liberals or the defeated candidates to have a little place to go to. "Here you go. You served us well. Yes, we will appoint you there."

I think those are some of the serious questions that we need to ask. Before those questions are answered, it's hard to say that this thing does the job that it set out to do. It is such an important issue. I mean, in all seriousness, this is such an important issue. We're running behind right now. In about 30 years, 2040, in Metro Vancouver, by their own estimates, there will be another million people — over a million people moving into the Lower Mainland.

Over a million, and you know what? Most of them, if not the majority of them, will be settling south of the Fraser, northeast section.

[1530]

It's the south of the Fraser that is suffering right now for public transportation. We don't have services now. Imagine when all those new people move in. That's just around the corner. It's not 100 years down the road; 2040 is just around the corner. We're not prepared for that.

We're not prepared for our education. We have 7,000 students in portables. We are behind in every service that we need to meet the needs of the growing community south of Fraser, and none of them is standing up there acknowledging that — none of them.

I'm so surprised and disappointed that especially those people who are from Surrey would be standing up and saying…. We're failing the south of Fraser population. We need more schools built right now. We need more buses. We need expansion to public transportation. I don't hear them. They make all those good…. What they're told to say, they say it. They stand up and say it, and then they sit down, but there's no action or resources behind it.

Schools? By the time some of these new schools are going to be built, we'll need four more. All of those members know we need ten schools now. There's only funding for four more — okay? We need ten now. We need 500 buses now, but we are seeing the services being cut to south of Fraser.

I'm really hoping that the government, at least at this juncture…. They have seen ten years of mismanagement and non-cooperation. This one somehow will….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Thornthwaite: I'd like to actually say a personal thank-you to the Mayors Council for the hard work that they have done throughout the years and throughout the transition and for the work that they do, and in particular, to my mayor, Richard Walton. He's the mayor of the district of North Van, but he also happens to be the chair of the Mayors Council, and I know that he works very hard. I want to give some kudos there.

I'm standing up to support Bill 22. Our government is committed to ensuring that the Lower Mainland is provided with a working transit system designed to deliver some of the priorities of the Metro Vancouver residents. I believe that this legislation will enable locally elected representatives, the mayors, to have an important say in how transit operates in their community, in our community.

In my brief history with this issue, one of the main things that I've heard consistently is that the mayors want more say. Well, they've asked for more say over TransLink's long-term plans and investments, and that's

[ Page 2960 ]

what this bill is about. We've listened, and we're delivering.

The proposed legislation will significantly increase the ability of the Mayors Council to establish TransLink's long-term strategies and to approve its plans and projects. In the words of Richard Walton: "This is a step in the right direction."

I really liked what our Minister of Education said, and I was very impressed with him and the member for Surrey-Panorama because they've got this huge history in this issue and talk so passionately and so eloquently on it. I liked the way he said that this looks to the future, to solutions and working towards solutions, not to being hung up on the problems. It works towards a truly integrated transportation system and to help articulate a vision to set priorities, to engage the public and to work towards long-term goals for the region.

The government's commitment is outlined through these amendments to assume the responsibilities of the TransLink Commissioner; allow the Mayors Council to approve TransLink's long-term strategies — and they will be appointing the majority of the board of directors; manage a 30-year regional transportation strategy; and develop a fully funded ten-year investment plan.

The ten-year investment plan will replace the Mayors Council's current planning and review process involving base and supplemental plans. The council will approve fare increases, decide the sale of major assets and oversee TransLink's complaints and customer satisfaction survey processes. The Mayors Council will also oversee executive and board of director remuneration.

[1535]

Recognizing that these new responsibilities and accountabilities will place greater demands on the Mayors Council, government will ensure that the Mayors Council has appropriate resources to support that expanded role. Government will also be adding two provincial appointees to the TransLink board of directors to improve communications between TransLink, the Mayors Council and the provincial government.

The decision-making power, therefore, has shifted to the mayors. Local decisions will be made at the local levels. They will approve the long-term funding and taxation strategy, and I understand we keep everything on the table. What would that be? A regional carbon tax, vehicle levy, road pricing, fuel tax, regional sales tax — whatever — that will be decided, I assume, in a referendum, which is the subject of another bill.

One thing I wanted to mention is a personal visit that I made over the Christmas holidays to Australia. One of the things that I noticed when we landed in Sydney was this huge amount of transportation infrastructure.

I travelled through Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane — highly connected road systems, rail systems, water systems, a tremendous amount of infrastructure in all of those three cities involving roads, boats, ferries, river ferries, tunnels, bridges, trains, buses. I was taken aback and even recommended to the Minister of Education that he take a visit there just to check it out, because I was really, really impressed.

Then my sister, who we went to visit, who actually lives in Brisbane and travels quite regularly between the cities…. I recognized it too, when I was in her car, that every once in a while when you were driving along the road system, their beeper, their transponder, would go off — a highly connected transportation tolling system that connects all of these major cities. So it doesn't matter whether or not she's driving in Sydney or Brisbane or Melbourne; that car that she owns is connected to the transportation system via tolls.

Everybody wants more transportation systems and infrastructure, but nobody wants to pay for it. I can tell you the Australians have a wonderful system there and a huge infrastructure, but I've also been told that it costs $30 a day just in tolls to get from one end of Sydney to the next. So we do pretty well here in Metro Vancouver. But as I said, everybody wants increased transportation, but nobody wants to pay for it.

What this bill helps to do is to improve the governance model, which allows all levels of government to work together and give the Mayors Council new tools that can be used to expand the regional transportation system for all of us, for all of our benefit, in Metro Vancouver. That's the reason why I will be supporting this bill.

S. Robinson: I rise today to speak to Bill 22, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act. I'm pleased to see this legislation come forward, recognizing that the 2007 decision that this government made wasn't the right decision, that they hadn't got it right, and they were going to attempt to amend the error that they made back in 2007. So I was very pleased to see this come forward.

What I note here is that local government is probably in the best position to recognize the regional transportation challenges. I'm glad to see that members on the other side of the House recognize that. Local government has an intimate relationship with the land, with land use and with what their communities' transportation needs are. Recognizing that the TransLink model that has been operating these last ten years hasn't been working and recognizing that it's time for a change is a good thing.

What I've been able to pull out from this bill is that the Mayors Council right now will have an increased role in governance, and that's a good step in that direction.

[1540]

The mayors represent their electorates quite well, and they certainly have regional transportation challenges. Right now we know that getting tied up in traffic has huge implications not only for the economy but for those of us living in the suburbs.

Certainly, the members that I represent in Coquitlam-

[ Page 2961 ]

Maillardville feel the traffic challenges as they try to make their way around — through New West, through Port Moody, through Port Coquitlam on the other side and getting through Vancouver and Burnaby. It's always a challenge, and you're always trying to find ways around the bottleneck.

Making sure that we have a transportation system that's properly funded, that's properly resourced, is what we need to do. Our communities are growing, and if we're going to be absorbing all those people, we need to find a way to help them get around our communities.

One of the things that I want to highlight about why it's important that local governments have as strong a say as possible in managing regional transportation has to do with how they make land use decisions. I want to talk about Burke Mountain for a second. Burke Mountain is a brand-new community of about 25,000 or 27,000 people that's going up in the northeast sector — north side of Coquitlam.

Being a city councillor for a number of years, I was quite familiar with the challenges that were presenting themselves around the fact that TransLink wasn't being properly resourced to meet the needs that it said it would. Back in the early 2000s when the decision was made by that council to develop Burke Mountain and put over 20,000 people up on the side of a mountain, it was decided that it would be a transit-oriented community.

My understanding and, certainly, the community's understanding at the time was that "transit-oriented" meant there would be transit. Transit would be the focus point of this community. There would be a transit hub. There would be buses coming in and out. People wouldn't need cars.

Suburbia — as those of my colleagues here in this House who live in suburbia can appreciate — was built around the car. Our model for land use planning in those communities is changing. We recognize that we need to change our ways, and having a transit-oriented community is the way to go.

Lo and behold, as land use changes came on side, decisions were made not to have two-car garages, to use the land wisely and a little bit more intensely — to have a little bit more density. The decision was made not to have huge parking pads for cars that people wouldn't need to get around because, of course, they were going to have buses.

The 20,000-plus people were going to have buses that were going to ferry them in — up the mountain and down into the community. There were going to be buses everywhere that would take them to the Evergreen line so that they could head downtown and buses that would take them home at the end of the day.

Well, about half of the mountain is developed. Most of the houses along that mountain have one-car garages. They don't have parking pads. In fact, in order to use the land more intensely, they parcelled the lots so that you didn't even have spaces to park on the street. So that letdown and letdown were close together because, of course, it was going to be a transit-oriented community.

Ten years ago that was the plan — transit-oriented. Did it materialize? No, it didn't materialize. In fact, I spent my five years on council begging TransLink to get a tiny little bus to a tiny little corner at the bottom of the mountain so that people could at least get to the bottom of the mountain and hike up if they needed to. Complaints came into council because the transit-oriented development that was supposed to be their community never materialized.

The fact that we had to beg for a little bus that finally came this year — just this year…. I got elected in 2008. It came about the end of 2013. That's how long it took for us to get a tiny little bus for this transit-oriented community.

I know I'm not alone. I know that Coquitlam is not alone. I see it in Langley, see it in Surrey. I certainly hear from my colleagues about the challenges that come when you have complete, distinct governance around land use and transportation planning and a completely separate board.

[1545]

We also see in my own community…. I've spoken to the Minister of Transportation from, again, a land use planning model. The Evergreen line is finally coming, and I have asked for park-and-ride spots in Coquitlam-Maillardville. Everyone keeps saying that the Evergreen line is coming to Coquitlam, and it is — to parts of Coquitlam. It's completely bypassing Coquitlam-Maillardville.

I'm pleased that TransLink, in its wisdom, decided that they would actually include park-and-ride. I do park-and-ride wherever I can because I prefer to use the existing infrastructure that we have. It makes my ride comfortable, it means that I can actually do some work on the way, and I get there safe and sound and in a timely manner.

But in Coquitlam-Maillardville we won't be able to access those 500 parking stalls that TransLink is bringing on side with the Evergreen line. All of those parking stalls are going to be over in Coquitlam–Port Moody and in Coquitlam-Burke. Isn't that very interesting? I won't see a single stall; neither will my residents. In fact, they're going to have to drive backward along the Evergreen line to park their car to go forward along the Evergreen line.

It certainly doesn't serve those constituents well, and I've been asking the Transportation Minister if there's any possibility of considering some stalls at, perhaps, Braid station or Lougheed station so that those people on the south side of Coquitlam can be well served by this infrastructure. But that's not going to happen. I do hope that with some change in governance, the Mayors Council will have some familiarity with what the needs are of the people who are making use of this transportation infrastructure and they will be able to respond to those needs.

[ Page 2962 ]

What else have we been seeing in my community? Well, we've been seeing service cuts, just like other members have spoken to from this side of the House. We saw service cuts that have resulted in almost no bus service going through our major employment area along United Boulevard. That was a real doozy.

I had phone calls from businesses that run 24-7 operations. Because they're 24-7 operations and in our communities we don't have 24-7 transit service, they actually staggered their shift work. They've staggered their hours to accommodate their employees so that they can have access and use the transit. People want to use transit. They've been very accommodating.

Well, now that they've eliminated parts of that route, it's thrown into a tizzy. And what's really interesting is that these employers don't have enough parking for all of their employees. Again, it's going to come back to land use planning and the challenges at the local level that they're going to have when there isn't enough parking.

What I want to, I guess, point out is that those who are closest to the people, those who deal every day with the complaints and with the issues related to transportation infrastructure and transportation management, are the folks who ought to have the most say about how decisions are made, about how this program is funded. They know what the needs are.

I'm going to bet that when you have a Mayors Council given the authority and the responsibility to make these decisions, you're not going to get these one-off announcements: "Oh, by the way, that tunnel? We're going to replace that." Like, where did that come from? Whose plan was that part of? It's something I'd never heard of. I hadn't heard it spoken of by any of the colleagues while I sat around a council table. It was certainly not part of the conversation.

That, I think — I hope — will take care of some of that grandstanding and promise-making, because I think this is really important. This will speak to our capacity to grow as a region and our capacity to meet the needs of our current citizens. They want good transportation. They want accessible transportation. They want regular transportation. They want well-funded transportation. This is what we need. This bill sort of moves us in that direction, but I'm not convinced that it will actually get us there.

One of the things that I guess I want to speak to is an experience that I had. After I read some of this bill, it got me to reflect on a job that I once had.

[1550]

I was the associate executive director of a family service agency. It was a great job, and I was given authority to do a whole lot of visioning and planning. It was a job that I loved. I organized work groups with my staff, and I organized work groups with our clients and our volunteers. We created some plans, some really great plans, for how to take care of some of the needs that we were identifying. I presented it to the executive director and to the management team about the direction we were going, and they were thrilled and coming on board, and it was lovely.

Then we got to the board of directors, who had a different idea and a different vision. I have to tell you, it was crazy-making. To be told on the one hand that you have this responsibility and this authority to go and do something, and then this other body says: "You know what? No, you don't get to do that." So that was six months of work down the drain, with disappointed volunteers, disappointed staff and poorly served clients of an organization that really could have done a great job.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

As I read through this and I see some of the limits, I worry. I worry for the future. Is this going to be another bit of a boondoggle where you give some authority with a little bit of responsibility, but not enough to actually make a difference? And it begs the question of: how much of a difference is enough of a difference? I don't think that we see that here. I don't think that there's enough of a difference that will actually change for our communities.

What's missing from the bill is the ability of the Mayors Council to actually get in the muck of preparing budgets and making sure that, operationally, they can deliver. You can vision all you want. I mean, I spent six months visioning. It was great. It was a great exercise. It was fabulous. But until the board actually said to run with it, that's all it was. It was a vision. So what?

It's not going to bring buses up Burke Mountain. It's not going to bring parking stalls to Coquitlam-Maillardville. It's certainly not going to bring buses along United corridor so that the employment generation that happens down there can be properly served.

In fact, what's very interesting is that I've been having a bit of a challenge in my community. They're shutting down Burquitlam Care Centre. Most of the people who work in that centre use transit because it's by Lougheed SkyTrain station, and it's really easy for people to move back and forth from their homes and their communities to work. Well, it's being shut down because the contract has been given to a private operator in the hinterlands of Port Coquitlam.

I'm sure the member for Port Coquitlam won't be too upset if I call it the hinterlands, because it's just getting developed. It's where the Walmart is. It's way out there, almost by Pitt Meadows where there's no transit. There is no transit.

When I spoke to Fraser Health, they said: "Oh no, but there will be transit." It's: "Oh yeah, I've heard that. I been hearing that for five years at Burke Mountain." There will be transit. But in the meantime, people need to move around. Well, you know what? "You just go and get a car, and then when transit comes, you can sell the

[ Page 2963 ]

car." It doesn't work that way. That's not how people live their lives.

The Mayors Council needs to have some tools in order to make transit work, and I don't see that here in this bill. I find that we need to make sure that the Mayors Council has enough authority, enough responsibility to make it work. I just don't have the confidence that at this point that's the case.

My colleague over here just handed me a couple of…. He's busy doing some research to speak about transportation in Sydney, Australia. The member opposite was talking about how fabulous it is. If I'm reading his notes right…. They are too difficult to read, actually, as I read. Yeah, we need to send him to some literacy program. Those got cut, so never mind that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the mayors need to have real authority and real responsibility. That means making sure that they can take a look at the operations and make the decisions. They're elected officials. They're elected, and if people are unhappy with how they do it, then maybe they won't get elected again. But they need to have some real opportunity to make real change. How much of a change is enough of a change? This just doesn't cut it.

[1555]

I'm going to end with just a couple of quotes from some of the mayors, because I think they say it best. Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie: "It seems fairly consistent with the letter written by the minister to the Mayors Council, and it's a good thing for the vision to be turned back to the mayors, who will adopt an overall strategy…. But if we're not overseeing the budget, how can we ensure the vision is being carried out?"

It's a good question. My own mayor, Coquitlam mayor Richard Stewart — who, I recall, sat in this House back in the 2000s; he sat on the other side — says: "At this point the legislation doesn't look like we run it. It does look like we run the long-term planning of it, but TransLink doesn't necessarily have to follow what we decide on the long-term strategies. It hasn't always followed what we decided, even on the core budget and the supplementary budgets that are presented to the Mayors Council." The mayor of Coquitlam, who sat in this chamber on that side of the House, recognizes that it's just not enough.

Finally, Port Coquitlam mayor Greg Moore says: "It's not what we wanted, because we wanted to have complete control, as it was before. Will it be enough for us to proceed forward? We will have to see, because not having the budget and operational oversight is a real challenge. If we develop a ten-year plan, for example, and in year 2 the board decides to not implement pieces of our plan, there are no repercussions for us."

It sounds like the risks of failure are great, and we cannot risk failing. There's too much at stake. So many people are coming into our communities, and so many people are tired of clogged roads. Certainly, in the suburbs I hear people — parents, seniors — saying that they are stuck in traffic, that they want to have more time to spend with their families, with their children. They want to spend time celebrating their grandson's hockey game or being at a birthday party, but they are stuck in traffic.

It's only going to get worse. This isn't a problem that's going to go away. We need to get it right. We need to see this Liberal government do the right thing: give the power to the mayors where it belongs. Let them struggle with these operational budgets. Let them make those decisions. At the end of the day, we all need to be moving around our communities with ease. We need to grow the economy together. We can't grow the economy if we're stuck in traffic. That just doesn't cut it.

If this government really thinks that they're ready to grow the economy, then put your words where your mouth is. Change the words here to make sure that the Mayors Council can act on our best behalf.

R. Sultan: I am pleased to rise in support of Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014. Some months ago in this House I offered my opinions on the future governance structure of TransLink, and I referred rather facetiously to the province and the TransLink Mayors Council as resembling two individuals pirouetting on the stage, each hoping the other would pick up responsibility for some tough funding decisions. But my laboured attempt at simile here was wrong.

The provincial government and the Mayors Council of TransLink have been engaged and will continue to be engaged, as I've advanced my knowledge of ballet, in what in ballet terms could be better described as a pas de deux — that is, literally, a dance for two — the key point being that each partner takes positions they could never maintain on their own. They're completely interdependent on the stage. Such is the interdependent nature of the province interacting with the Mayors Council.

With this legislation, it appears to me that the provincial government is substantially releasing the Mayors Council from its embrace, and we all look forward to watching the rest of the performance. I believe Bill 22 is a healthy step forward to a more balanced and conventional governance system for TransLink, which should receive broad support.

[1600]

Now, in this regard, I listened with great interest on my television monitor in the office to the remarks of the member for Vancouver-Fairview, quoting a consulting report, which it soon became apparent to me, has just been released on Bill 22, and which the Mayors Council had commissioned.

Over lunch I got my hands on a copy of it, and it is a very helpful document. Now, the member for Vancouver-Fairview read portions of the consultant's report which were quite critical of the proposed approach and cited

[ Page 2964 ]

certain governance arrangements which weren't working very well. I read the report, and what struck me was the positive enthusiasm for Bill 22's new governance arrangements that it embodied. I realized….

I hate to be unfair, Member, but it seemed to me that you were quoting the portions of the report referring to the status quo and the arrangements that had been put in place by the former Minister of Transportation, Mr. Falcon. They were not referring to the proposed modification and reform, if I could use that word, of TransLink governance. I think you, perhaps, are a bit guilty of not necessarily reading the whole consultant's report.

But as we are all aware, in 2007 for various good reasons, driven by the looming imperative of the 2010 Olympic Games, TransLink's governance structure was modified very drastically by the Minister of Transportation of the day. Kevin's solution had three components, rather oddly: a board of directors, a Mayors Council and a regional transportation commissioner, who was more or less supposed to keep the other two honest, I suppose.

Well, did it work? The Canada Line was built, and the Olympic Games were a great success. On that measure alone, I think one could say that it did the job.

Furthermore, despite grumbling and friction among the parties — some of it quite public and for which, we've been reminded, there's a long history, not just commencing in 2007 — TransLink itself has become a great success, giving those of us who live in Metro Vancouver a modern, efficient, expanding and quite affordable mass transit system. At the same time it provides us with a major road network — another component of TransLink, which seldom gets mentioned — a road system positioned one notch below the provincial highway system, one notch above the municipal road systems in Metro Vancouver.

In short, TransLink is a success story, and it's admired, as has already been pointed out by the Education Minister and others. People come fro