2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th 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)

Monday, May 14, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 38, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ryder Hesjedal

Hon. I. Chong

B.C. rugby championships

Hon. I. Chong

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 54 — Provincial Sales Tax Act

Hon. K. Falcon

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Penticton Vees Junior A hockey team

E. Foster

May Day celebrations in Port Coquitlam

M. Farnworth

Rights of persons with disabilities

D. Barnett

Mining Week

D. Donaldson

Darlene Thomas

P. Pimm

100 th anniversary of Herbert Spencer Elementary School

D. Black

Oral Questions

Government energy policy and electricity generation costs

A. Dix

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Horgan

Privatization of liquor distribution

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

M. Karagianis

Changes to adult education courses for high school graduates

M. Elmore

Hon. G. Abbott

Timber supply for Flavelle mill

J. Trasolini

Hon. S. Thomson

Proposal for national park in South Okanagan area

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Petitions

M. Mungall

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 51 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. B. Lekstrom

H. Bains

S. Simpson

M. Karagianis

S. Chandra Herbert

J. Trasolini

D. Thorne

M. Elmore

K. Corrigan

S. Hammell

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 21 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012

Bill 23 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Bill 24 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012

Bill 25 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Bill 26 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Bill 28 — Criminal Asset Management Act

Bill 33 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Bill 34 — Limitation Act

Bill 40 — Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

B. Simpson

K. Conroy

J. Kwan

[ Page 11873 ]

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: We have some very special guests in the House today. Actually, one of our special guests in Victoria is Admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma. He is the chairman, chiefs of staff committee, and the chief of the naval staff of India. He's meeting with our chief of staff of the navy from Canada today and our Lieutenant-Governor and some other guests.

Also, we have some other special guests here today. They include our very special guest, Consul General Ashok Das from the Vancouver Consulate General of India office. He's here with his wife, Dr. Erika Das, and their family — daughter, Ashika, and son, Aranis.

Consul General is completing his three-year term in Vancouver on May 23, 2012, as we all know. We all want to congratulate him for the excellent work he has done for British Columbia and Canada and for improving our trade and cultural ties between B.C. and India as well as helping our Premier with the trade mission they did last fall to India. The consul general of India has worked in the Indian Foreign Services since 1987 in various positions. His new posting is going to be the Ambassador for India in Iceland.

Would the House please make the consular general and his family very welcome.

H. Bains: I'd also like to join the member for Surrey-Tynehead in welcoming Mr. Ashok Das and his wife, Dr. Erika Das. They're also joined with their lovely children with them. Mr. Das is completing, as the member had said, his three-year term here. What a pleasure it was to work with Mr. Das — how he bonded the community together, how he tried to deal with the issues that are on a day-to-day basis. Sometimes they're very difficult issues to deal with.

[1335]

I just want to say thank you on behalf of our side here for a job well done, Mr. Das. Hopefully, you will continue to stay in touch with us and keep on improving our relationship with India as we are moving forward. Thank you, and enjoy your endeavour.

Please say thank you very much.

Tributes

RYDER HESJEDAL

Hon. I. Chong: I rise in the House today to congratulate a fellow Victorian, Ryder Hesjedal. As many will know, Ryder is a constituent of, I believe, the member for Juan de Fuca. He lives here in the capital region. He is in one of our country's premier cyclists. He's currently competing in Italy in one of the most prestigious cycling races in the world, the Giro.

Ryder became the first Canadian to capture the pink jersey as overall leader of the race, and I do hope that all members will cheer on Ryder as he looks to win this race at the end of May.

B.C. RUGBY CHAMPIONSHIPS

Hon. I. Chong: At the same time, I would like to congratulate all the teams that completed in last weekend's B.C. provincial rugby finals, including two Victoria clubs from my own riding. The Velox Valkyries of Gordon Head won the Harris Memorial Cup for the B.C. women's championship over Burnaby Lake, 20-14, and the Castaway Wanderers of Oak Bay defeated the Meralomas of Vancouver, 24-16, in the Ceili Cup for the men's division 1 title. So I want to say congratulations to Velox and Castaways on outstanding seasons.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Visiting us today are three very special guests, concerned parents advocating for Surrey schools. They are Linda Stromberg, a member of the ad hoc committee; Brenda Peterson, vice-president of the district parent advisory committee of Surrey; and Pat Enair, co-chair of the district parent advisory committee of Surrey. They met today with the official opposition Education critic and also the official opposition Finance critic to talk about the Surrey school district and the overcrowding situation of the Surrey schools.

They will be pleased to meet with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance as soon as they get the appointment with them. I would ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

I also join the member for Surrey-Newton and the member for Surrey-Tynehead to say thank you, my sincere thanks, to Mr. Das and his family and children for their extraordinary work here. I wish them well for their future endeavours.

C. James: I have a school group that's visiting the Legislature today. St. Patrick's School is here, teacher Mrs. Lisa Hoffner's class — 26 grade 6 students and five adults who are with them. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 54 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX ACT

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Sales Tax Act.

[ Page 11874 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm today introducing the Provincial Sales Tax Act, 2012. The new Provincial Sales Tax Act implements a sales tax that applies to the same goods and services and provides for the same permanent exemptions as the old PST and hotel room tax but in a new, modern, clear and more comprehensive act. The PST will be implemented effective April 1, 2013.

The Provincial Sales Tax Act imposes tax on the purchase or lease of goods; on goods brought, sent, delivered or used in B.C.; on purchases of software and on purchases of accommodation, legal services, telecommunications services and services provided to goods.

The Provincial Sales Tax Act provides the legal authority for all exemptions from PST and refunds of PST. This is the case even where the specifics of an exemption or refund will be located in the regulations. In addition, Bill 54 establishes the framework for the administration and enforcement of the PST and implements certain taxes that were part of the old PST.

Bill 54 also makes a number of improvements to the PST, improving clarity and readability, streamlining administration and providing certainty about tax obligations, addressing tax avoidance and reducing the overall compliance burden on businesses.

[1340]

Finally, Bill 54 makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act to eliminate the B.C. HST credit, reinstate the B.C. sales tax credit and reverse the basic personal amount tax credit enhancements that were made with the implementation of the HST.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PENTICTON VEES JUNIOR A HOCKEY TEAM

E. Foster: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf as the MLA for Penticton, I would like to congratulate the Penticton Vees Junior A hockey team on an exciting win yesterday in Humboldt, Saskatchewan. The team won their first Royal Bank Cup national championship in 26 years with a close 4-3 victory over the Woodstock Slammers from New Brunswick.

The Vees were up 2-0 in the first period, but the Slammers didn't go down without a fight, tying it up in the second period and taking the lead in the third. True to form, Mr. Speaker, your Vees refused to give up time and again before scoring the game-winning goal with just 51 seconds left in the third period.

Comeback victories seem to be the signature style of the Penticton Vees, who started the RBC Cup tournament with two losses before winning their next four games. This championship win capped off an outstanding season for the Vees, who also set BCHL records for points, at 110, and wins, at 54, and consecutive wins, at 42, during the season.

Mr. Speaker, we may not always agree on much in this House, but I'm sure everyone here is pleased that the Royal Bank Cup has gone to a BCHL team for three of the past four years. I might say that my own Vernon Vipers won the cup in 2009 and '10, and I know from those victories how much it means to a community when their team wins the RBC Cup. These players have trained hard, and their fans have supported them through some pretty tough seasons.

I'm sure Penticton is proud to celebrate their Junior A hockey champions and welcomes them home. I wish to congratulate head coach Fred Harbinson, his staff and the players of the Penticton Vees for returning the Royal Bank Cup to its rightful home — British Columbia.

MAY DAY CELEBRATIONS

IN PORT COQUITLAM

M. Farnworth: Well, if you were lucky enough to be in Port Coquitlam this incredibly gorgeous Saturday, you would have been able to see the 89th annual May Day Parade in the city of Port Coquitlam. It's a tradition that everyone in our community looks forward to. With weather like we had this weekend, there must have been 7,000 to 8,000 people lining Shaughnessy Street, Elgin Avenue, Mary Hill Road to watch an absolutely fantastic community celebration.

It's rooted in the heritage and the history of our early pioneers. It reflects our community today, and it sends a strong message of hope into the future. It couldn't happen without some terrific volunteers — volunteers who, year after year, give up their time to make sure that we've got the maypole dancing, an incredible parade and just a terrific community celebration.

I would like today in this House to pay tribute to the following volunteers who make our May Day Parade such a tremendous success — Bev Moulds, the chair; Disa Fladmark; Robin Jones; Dee Perry; Bob Lee; Samantha Lowe; Russ McMurchie; Phil Ranger; Kayla Steele; Michael Thomas; Walter Van Drimmelen; Kevin Van Veen; April Zucker; and Sandy Battle — because they did an absolutely outstanding job.

This year was our 89th. Next year is our 90th, the same year that we celebrate our centennial in Port Coquitlam, when we declared our freedom from the loving grace of

[ Page 11875 ]

Coquitlam and set in place a community that I think is an absolute joy to represent.

With that, I ask all of us in this House to congratulate the volunteers and the people of Port Coquitlam for having a truly terrific May Day Parade once again.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

D. Barnett: May is a significant month for individuals with disabilities. This month marks an important milestone in the journey of the United Nations convention of the rights of persons with disabilities. The convention affects an estimated 650 million individuals with disabilities worldwide. The aim is to ensure that the benefits of existing human rights are extended to everyone, no matter what their ability.

[1345]

Countries like Canada that have ratified the convention promote and support the rights of individuals with disabilities. This is part of a movement to identify persons with disabilities as subjects with rights who are capable of making decisions for themselves as full members of society, rather than recipients of charity or medical treatment or social protection.

Although they have tremendous skills and abilities, people with disabilities have an unemployment rate of almost 20 percent, higher than the rest of the population. That certainty has a significant impact on the more than 360,000 people of working age with disabilities in this province.

Progress is being made on many levels. There is much more to do. In British Columbia we have set an example for inclusiveness and progress, and made the world a better place for people who live with disabilities.

We have changed people's views on what is possible. Through the determination of great British Columbians like Rick Hansen, Sam Sullivan, Lauren Woolstencroft, Terry Fox and so many others that we all know of in our own communities, we have been challenged to step up and make a difference.

We have conquered a great deal of ignorance and changed the way we as society view the potential of people with disabilities. We know that people with disabilities can live full lives of purpose and dignity and be respected. I ask the members of this House to join me in recognizing the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

MINING WEEK

D. Donaldson: Mining Week in B.C. is an opportunity to remind British Columbians of the importance of the resource economy in our province. We are blessed with a province rich in many natural resources that have always played an important role in our economy, from fishing to forestry to mining.

With the recent decline in the forest sector, mining is increasingly important for British Columbia, both for our overall economy that supports government programs like health care and education and for our rural economy, creating good jobs in all parts of the province for British Columbians.

Miners on the road to success understand the need for social licence in order for projects to proceed, and the basis for that social licence is having a full, robust hearing of social, cultural, economic and environmental aspects of a proposed project. Taking shortcuts leads to uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to unnecessary delays in reaching a decision.

Successful mining companies understand this. That is why they have called for a number of changes that will insist in ensuring we will not continue to lose opportunities to benefit from record-high commodity prices we have witnessed during the past decade.

Foremost among those recommendations is for a more explicit First Nations consultation framework. Good companies want to do their

part in the consultation process. This is a government-to-government relationship, and miners have said they need to know what is expected of them so that they can support that relationship.

Miners have also pointed out the need for increased training opportunities so that people in B.C. locally, regionally and provincially have the best chance at securing a job in their own backyard. And it's no wonder. Mining companies are now facing a shortage of workers, leading to increased costs. Thompson Creek Metals, for instance, recently announced a share offering to raise an additional $430 million towards construction of their Mount Milligan project due to a shortage of skilled labour.

Mining Week is an opportune time to consider the opinions of the mining sector, with the overall goal of reducing inequality and increasing prosperity derived from our commonly owned mineral resources.

DARLENE THOMAS

P. Pimm: I want to tell you the story about a local hero in Fort St. John. Darlene Thomas was born January 27, 1944, in Port Alberni, B.C. She completed her licensed practical nurse training in 1971, and Darlene became an instructor for Canadian Red Cross and St. John Ambulance for the next 30 years.

On the morning of September 25, 2006, Darlene woke up with a slight rash on her face. She treated herself for an allergic reaction. However, this wasn't an allergic reaction at all. It was instead a rare blood disease called polyarteritis nodosa and catastrophic necrotizing vasculitis. The disease took one of Darlene's arms and both of her feet.

Darlene now works in Fort St. John as a Wal-Mart greeter, and on Easter Monday of this year Darlene gained her hero status. Darlene heard the cry: "Call 911!

[ Page 11876 ]

Call 911!" She leaped out of her motorized wheelchair and sprang into action. She saw a 43-year-old man who had collapsed into a potato chip display, and in Darlene's own words: "He didn't look like a potato chip to me, so I hauled him out and started to perform CPR…. I got rid of my right arm, because you can't do CPR with an artificial arm."

[1350]

Once the man started breathing again, Darlene turned him on his side. The weight of him against her triggered the release of the mechanism on her leg, and she saw it go flying. This was the least of her concerns when the man stopped breathing again. Darlene continued to perform CPR until the paramedics arrived.

Darlene is a true hero, and she goes out of her way to help anyone in need. An especially touching moment for Darlene was when this great big bear of a teenaged boy approached her at Wal-Mart and asked if he could give her a hug because she'd saved his dad.

Through all this, Darlene has humbly asked that people take one thing away from this. "I'd just like to encourage everybody to get out there and take a basic CPR course, because no matter what physical shape you're in, even if all you can do is ventilate for the chief CPR giver, then by heavens, that's an awful big help."

This is the ninth person that Darlene has resuscitated in her lifetime.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF

HERBERT SPENCER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

D. Black: One of the oldest schools in New Westminster, Ecole Herbert Spencer School, is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. The school is named after Herbert Spencer, a Victorian era biologist and philosopher. He was an influential figure in sociology and psychology at the time. Although not widely known, he is believed to have coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" several years before Darwin.

Located in the historic Queens Park neighbourhood, adjacent to the park itself, the school is known for fostering a strong sense of community. There's an active choir, track-and-field clubs, community school programs and a well-developed music program.

I have a very personal connection to Herbert Spencer. My granddaughters Meagan and Lauren are both active and engaged students in the school. I've seen firsthand how a team of dedicated teachers, support staff and parents work together to ensure students acquire the skills and knowledge they need to become successful and contributing students and citizens of our community.

The school is holding a 100th-anniversary open house on June 9, and Herbert Spencer's principal, Tracy Fulton, who was actually a student there, will be an active participant in the celebrations. Please join with me in congratulating the entire Herbert Spencer School community on this historic anniversary and thank them for providing New Westminster children with an outstanding educational experience.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ENERGY POLICY AND

ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The government's energy policy has stripped away B.C. Hydro's ability to capitalize on the high water flow, as we're experiencing this spring. As a result, our public utility is being forced, as a result of government policy, to pay massively inflated rates for power.

Would the Minister of Energy acknowledge that the government's energy plan and the government's energy policies are going to cost taxpayers dramatically now and in the next few years?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I won't acknowledge that, hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: You know, maybe in a 1970s British sitcom it makes sense to buy power at $60 to $100 and sell it at 20 cents to $17.60, but it certainly doesn't make sense for the people of British Columbia. The government's policies are costing taxpayers, according to Marvin Shaffer, $1.28 billion over the next four years. That's the cost of them overpaying for power.

Can the minister at least explain…? Can he suggest or can he confirm one way or another whether B.C. Hydro will be spilling power over the dams, spilling water over the dams without generating electricity?

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, there are year-over-year fluctuations of water. I know that he isn't aware of that maybe, necessarily, or knows that sometimes it affects one year versus another.

[1355]

We have companies sitting poised to invest tens of billions of dollars in British Columbia for liquefied natural gas. One of the advantages they see in British Columbia to make that investment is clean energy. They actually see it as them being able to have a market-competitive situation worldwide by being able to say to their customers that liquefied natural gas in British Columbia is produced with clean energy.

[ Page 11877 ]

Now, I know the members opposite don't like that sound because that means they might want to have to support new hydroelectric power, run of the river, wind and other clean sources of power in order for us to continue to have that advantage as we pursue this huge opportunity of tens of thousands of jobs for the future of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: A 36 percent rate increase over four years. It's impossible to understand the government's argument that it makes our economy more efficient to overpay dramatically for power. That's their argument. That's what the minister says — that it's more efficient to buy high and sell low. That's his argument.

It's the consumers of British Columbia and the businesses of British Columbia that are going to pay a price for this argument for years to come. Will the minister not admit…? He didn't answer the question the first time; he didn't answer the question the second time. Will he at least tell us — because this would be information of interest to the people of B.C.: is B.C. Hydro spilling water without generating electricity?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the opposition leader just wants to talk about one little piece of the microcosm other than the huge piece of information around power in British Columbia. We actually support things like bioenergy, which is more expensive to do, the reason being that we know in British Columbia there's going to be a river of wood that may not be able to go through woods because of the pine beetle epidemic.

We think we should have those options in front of us for the value to the whole supply chain of power for British Columbians in the future. That includes looking at all aspects of power to make sure that we're striking a balance and making sure we get the right investments to use the resources in British Columbia in the best way possible.

J. Horgan: It is surprising to hear a Minister of Energy in British Columbia say that by focusing on the 90 percent of hydroelectricity that B.C. Hydro produces, that's just one small component of the puzzle. That seems odd to me.

But rather than deflect, perhaps the minister could focus his mind on the prices today. The mid-Columbia price for average peak power today: 20 cents a megawatt hour. Twenty cents a megawatt hour off-peak, and it soars to $17.60 at peak. Now, contrast that to the average price of independent power that B.C. Hydro is paying today. It's between $60 and $100 a megawatt hour.

Now, that may be just a small part of the puzzle to the Minister of Energy, but I'm fairly confident the Minister of Finance understands what the discrepancy would be between 17 bucks and 60 or 100 bucks.

My question is to the minister. Can he quantify just how much the B.C. Liberals have blown on IPPs rather than focusing on keeping rates down for British Columbians and having a strong power sector so that we can generally grow the economy, not just the friends of the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: the fact of the matter is that in peak water years you do have situations in the fluctuation of power. He knows that; I know that. What he doesn't want to talk about is what was happening a few years back, when the peaks were spiking totally the other direction — when we had an energy crisis in the United States, when people were looking at power prices that were astronomical. We had brownouts across areas of the Pacific, of California and other states.

We made decisions to try and build the future for B.C. Hydro in the proper way at that time. We'll continue to build the future of B.C. Hydro in the proper manner. We know that we've made decisions, like Site C, that the members don't like. Frankly, if you read the quotes, it's: "Today I like it; tomorrow I'm not sure I'll like it." Maybe they'll at least tell us what they think about a new hydroelectric dam in the Peace country.

[1400]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I do, hon. Speaker, but before I launch into that, maybe I'll just correct the minister's memory. It was 12 years ago, and we were selling for $1,200 a megawatt hour, not buying at $100 a megawatt. We were making money for the people of British Columbia. In fact, the good people of California still owe us $300 million.

It was a good policy then; it should be a good policy today. Unfortunately, instead we have $2.2 billion in deferral accounts, rising to $5 billion by 2017, with $45 billion to $60 billion in unfunded contractual obligations, $1.3 billion on self-sufficiency, and let's not forget $1 billion on smart meters.

The B.C. Liberal…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: …energy plan has been a catastrophe from the get-go. Will the minister have the decency to stand in this place and tell B.C. taxpayers just how much they're going to cost before we get to an election next May?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I'd tell the member not to tilt at windmills, but then he doesn't support wind power in places like the Hecate Strait or Banks Island or anywhere

[ Page 11878 ]

else in British Columbia. He doesn't support other forms of green power, and new forms of power are more expensive than the dams that were built back in the 1950s and '60s.

Ironically, they actually get up and talk about the rates of hydro. What they don't tell you is this. They made no significant capital investment in the structure of B.C. Hydro in the 1990s. So today we have a $1.2 billion upgrade that has to take care of the John Hart dam, an $800 million project at the Ruskin dam.

The only power project they actually invested in was a failed power project somewhere in Pakistan. I have no idea how they're going to get that into the grid of British Columbia.

PRIVATIZATION OF

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

S. Simpson: The minister responsible has refused to produce a business case for the privatization of liquor distribution and continues to make unsubstantiated claims that this will be cheaper for consumers.

Matt Phillips, the founder and owner of Phillips Brewing, one of B.C.'s leading craft brewers, doesn't share the minister's claims. Mr. Phillips has told the opposition that today he pays the Liquor Distribution Branch 78 cents for a case of beer for distribution from the time he delivers it to them. In Alberta, with Exel Logistics, which runs their system and is the leading contender for the B.C. contract, he pays $1.53 for that same case of beer from the time it arrives in Alberta.

Mr. Phillips is paying almost double…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: …for the same service in Alberta. Those costs are passed on to consumers.

What evidence can the minister produce, like a business case, to show that B.C. consumers are not going to end up paying more for beverages because of privatization?

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members to listen to the question and listen to the answer.

Hon. R. Coleman: With regards to his question, I know that you're afraid of any form of privatization. I know you're opposed to any type, except — oh, I forgot — in 2000 and 2001 you were prepared, on the hump you came over when you lost government, to sell B.C. Hydro, the Liquor Distribution Branch and other Crown assets. You said you wanted to sell a big-ticket item.

What we're doing is we have a negotiated RFP on the street. The proponents have had their meetings. They will come in with their bids. We will look at the bids and see if they're good for government, and we'll make the decision on the basis of the information that we receive back.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1405]

S. Simpson: Mr. Phillips was not consulted about this. Others in the industry have not been consulted. There is little, if any, public support or support from the manufacturers and licensees for this scheme. The government has produced no evidence that is credible to support the move.

Brewers are now identifying real increases in costs — 78 cents a case in B.C., $1.53 a case in Alberta. They'll be facing this with no adequate response from the government — costs that they will have to pass on to the consumers.

How is it that this government feels the need to have a two-week consultation about which Monday in February to create a holiday but won't have one day of meaningful consultation for the industry or the public when it sells off the LDB?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's been a flat tax on beer in British Columbia for a number of years, and there've been no changes to that in a long, long time. The only people that ever actually wanted to raise the price of liquor, in my memory, both in policy and as a government, were the NDP.

As the members opposite are always proud to advise us, we're not Alberta. We are actually British Columbia.

We have a negotiated RFP on the streets. It's a totally different package. The liquor stores in Alberta were sold. They're not up for sale in British Columbia. It changed how that model worked completely. We're looking at it strictly from the wholesale, the distribution and warehousing of liquor in British Columbia.

All the pricing is staying with government. All the taxation is staying with government. We continue to manage for the financial health of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: I have big doubts as to whether the B.C. Liberal government has considered the long-term impacts of this sell-off of liquor distribution. The minister said that prices won't go up and that the privatization scheme will save money for consumers. However, there's nothing in the RFP that protects consumers, and we know that government officials have refused to answer numerous questions that the industry has, so I don't see anywhere in this where there's protection for consumers.

Would the minister, rather than continuing to try and undermine the process here, simply table the documents, the business case that he has and that he has stated clearly in here that he has tons of paper on? Table it in the House so we can look and see if there is really evidence to support this move to privatization.

[ Page 11879 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: What are you so afraid of? We're going to go to the street and see if somebody can do something better than we do it as government. What is wrong with that? It actually makes pretty good sense.

We have an old warehousing system that will need to be redone in one way or the other. It will cost tens of millions of dollars for the taxpayers of British Columbia. Or you could actually go out and do a negotiated RFP, look at industry's opportunities and see whether it's more beneficial to British Columbians to privatize the warehousing and distribution. I don't know what you're afraid of.

I guess what you're afraid of is that you might find out that there's a better way to do business and that it doesn't always have to be done by government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, those in the industry — small wineries, breweries, distillery businesses — are raising many concerns about this privatization and the impacts it will have. You know what? They weren't consulted, and they've had no adequate response to any of their concerns.

Matt Phillips from Phillips Brewing writes this:

"Our distribution costs in Alberta are approximately twice as high as they are through the Liquor Distribution Branch, and we suspect that there will be a similar increase in B.C. once distribution is privatized. This cost will inevitably be passed along to consumers. These sorts of decisions don't benefit consumers, government employees or small industry. The benefit to the province is fairly suspect."

If it's such a good idea, why doesn't the minister just table the business plan and put all of this to rest here in the Legislature?

[1410]

Hon. R. Coleman: Why didn't you wait for the results of the RFP? Except you prejudge everything over there. You want to prejudge every environmental process.

They want to prejudge every environmental process, go into their caucus and make a decision. Forget statutory authority. Forget opportunities. Forget any decisions of government. They just want to actually ignore all that process.

We have an RFP on the streets. We will see if we get back a proposal that makes sense for British Columbia and the warehousing and distribution of liquor, and then we'll deal with it.

CHANGES TO ADULT EDUCATION COURSES

FOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

Last week the minister trivialized this issue, saying that while these courses may be "enormously interesting to the individuals who take them…they are not consistent with the education guarantee." In fact, these courses are exactly what is needed to develop a skilled British Columbian workforce.

My question is to the minister. Can he explain why he is making it more difficult for British Columbians to upgrade their skills?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the explanation I provided last week was a very good one. Clearly, the member wasn't listening to it. To begin, anyone who has not graduated from high school can continue to access all of those courses free of charge. That has been very successful.

What have not been successful are a number of the elective courses which apply to those who have completed graduation but are going back and accessing programs. We've seen some school districts provide electives like equine studies, photography, film and theatre, etc., and we are seeing completion rates as low as 35 percent on a lot of those courses.

Again, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition last week, I hope this is not indicative of the ability of the opposition to make value choices. It is clearly much more important that we continue to provide the core courses, both to those who have not completed high school and also to those who have completed high school.

The school districts do not need to be in the business of providing electives which can be found elsewhere. If they want to access them, they'll be able to access them on line, but there may be a modest fee for that, which will be returned if the student completes the course.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B.C. is in the midst of a growing skills shortage. Why are the Liberals closing the door on opportunity for immigrants like Mrs. Akter to contribute to their new home?

Hon. G. Abbott: The costs of the programs the member references have gone from $1.5 million a few years

[ Page 11880 ]

ago to $15 million today. The large reason for that is the proliferation of elective courses which are being offered by the school districts.

[1415]

For every student who has not graduated from high school, they remain free, all readily available. For those who have graduated and are going back to upgrade, all of the courses the member referenced remain available to those students. There will be a deposit, which the student will be making in order to access the course. Provided they have substantial completion — not necessarily even passing the course but substantial completion — they will have their deposit returned.

Again, I guess that this goes to the easy answers that are available in opposition. If I had to make a choice between early childhood education and ensuring that all students who hadn't graduated had the opportunity to have adult basic education courses, I would take the former and not have it spent on elective courses, which many people enter but never complete.

TIMBER SUPPLY FOR FLAVELLE MILL

J. Trasolini: Flavelle sawmill, owned by Mill and Timber, is located on the waterfront in Port Moody. For years Flavelle ran two shifts per day, employing 60 workers. Now they're down to a single shift, and even that's not consistent — a 50 percent job loss at this mill. Why? Lack of fibre. The Forests Ministry is actively encouraging the export of raw logs, yet a mill in my community can't get wood to keep workers employed.

What's the minister going to do to restore the timber supply to Flavelle so they can rehire the laid-off workers?

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, I appreciate receiving the first question in the House from the new member.

Again, this issue has been canvassed extensively in the House. We are continuing to work on ensuring that our log export policy remains balanced. There's a surplus test to ensure that lumber needed for domestic mills is subject to the surplus test. That is done through both a surplus test and a fair-market test.

We're continuing to work to ensure that the policy is balanced. We're working through it with the industry, with the stakeholder groups. We'll continue to ensure that we have a balanced policy — one that is creating jobs in British Columbia, one that is ensuring that uneconomic stands are harvested. Harvest levels are up in both the Interior and the coast. We're continuing to work to make sure that we have a balanced policy here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Trasolini: Flavelle has skilled workers, efficient operations and a good market. What they don't have is wood, because the B.C. Liberals think shipping raw logs is better than processing them here at home.

Will the minister put our mills like Flavelle ahead of offshore jobs? Will he take steps today to ensure that B.C. logs stay in B.C. to create B.C. jobs?

Hon. S. Thomson: The log export policy surplus test applied, making sure that logs are available for domestic mills, when that surplus test is applied under export permits. Again, the balanced policy — 7.3 million cubic metres of lumber to China. That's creating jobs — 9,000 new jobs in British Columbia as a result of having the balanced policy — and continuing to build export opportunities for lumber in British Columbia.

That's what we're going to continue to focus on to ensure that we continue to build the opportunities for harvesting in British Columbia, which will provide logs for the domestic market. We're working with the industry to ensure we have that balance. We're working to ensure that the surplus test is applied efficiently.

That's the work we continue to do with the timber export advisory committee. That work will continue as we work towards that balanced policy here in British Columbia.

[1420]

PROPOSAL FOR NATIONAL PARK

IN SOUTH OKANAGAN AREA

R. Fleming: The study of a South Okanagan–Similkameen national park was designed to protect Canada's only desert ecosystem. It is one of the highest priorities for conservation in Canada, and B.C. has been a party to a park feasibility study since 2004.

However, three months ago the Environment Minister unilaterally withdrew provincial support. In February the Premier cited a feasibility study and said: "We do not as a province support a national park. And the reason why is because the majority of people don't want it."

The opposition received a copy of the feasibility study through a freedom-of-information request. It clearly shows that the park is both feasible and that, in fact, 63 percent of the local population favours it, while 26 percent are opposed.

Can the minister tell us, then, why he made the decision to withdraw provincial support, against the wishes of local residents and against the advice of his own ministry?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, if the member would like to know about the local residents' feelings around this proposal, perhaps he should check in with his colleague, the member for Fraser-Nicola, who has publicly stated his opposition to this proposal. His colleague…

Interjections.

[ Page 11881 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. T. Lake: …has echoed the feeling of many residents of the local region. The feasibility study shows that about 42 percent in one region have support for the park. There are a number of people that are undecided and a significant number of local people who are opposed.

A change of this magnitude in land use changes people's livelihoods. It impacts their economic ability. It impacts First Nations. It impacts recreational opportunities.

There are a number of different ways to preserve the conservation values that want to be protected in that area. We will continue to work for those conservation values through the many mechanisms we have available. But to turn people's lives upside down without significant local support is not something that this government is going to do, and that's something that the member for Fraser-Nicola agrees with.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I know that for members of the government's side, a poll that shows 26 percent support is pretty good these days.

Here's what the minister said in estimates when I asked him about the province's reasons for pulling out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: He said: "I made the decision that we did not have adequate public support so that we could end the uncertainty."

But the FOI shows a majority of the regional population supports it. The Okanagan First Nations support it, local mayors support it, chambers of commerce support it, regional tourism associations are for it, and so are conservation groups. The Deputy Minister of Environment signed off on it, and even the Liberal MLA for Boundary-Similkameen has supported it, opposed it and supports it again.

If they killed the proposal for reasons that go against the advice of science…

Mr. Speaker: Pose the question, please, Member.

R. Fleming: …his ministry, business groups and local residents….

Mr. Speaker: Member, pose the question, please.

R. Fleming: I will, Mr. Speaker.

The facts don't support the excuses offered by the Premier and the minister. To the minister: what's the real reason for killing this proposal?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I guess at the next meeting of the member's caucus he can ask a number of his members why they don't support this proposal.

[1425]

When you are changing the use of land that people make their livelihoods upon, that people use for recreation, where businesses have invested $5 million and more in terms of the use of that land, the historic use of that land, you have to have overwhelming local support.

Whereas there may be groups around the province that like the idea, it is important that the local population be listened to and to ensure that there is overwhelming public support.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: If the member is truly worried about preserving the environmental values, I would be happy to speak with him about provincial parks, protected areas, wildlife management areas and a number of other mechanisms that we have available to protect the conservation values in that part of our province.

[End of question period.]

M. Mungall: I seek leave to present a position.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Mungall: I have a petition here from 288 people who live on the east shore of Kootenay Lake. Their petition is to restore original sailing times for the Kootenay Lake ferry.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will start with debating second reading of Bill 51, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act; followed by second reading of Bill 45, intituled the Income Tax Amendment Act; then second reading of the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, Bill 47;

[ Page 11882 ]

and then Bill 53, intituled the Family Day Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be continuing with the Ministry of Health estimates.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 51 — SOUTH COAST

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I move that Bill 51 be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Bill 51 amends the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act and provides consequential amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act. This bill includes TransLink governance amendments and a new fare evasion structure for Metro Vancouver transit system.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The governance amendments will address concerns raised by the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation and by the public. These changes aim to strengthen the role of local government in TransLink's planning and decision-making processes and to ensure that TransLink is running effectively and efficiently.

Amendments include that we are adding two new seats to the TransLink board — for the Mayors Council chair and vice-chair. These new seats will strengthen the link between the Mayors Council and the board and facilitate communications. It will give mayors direct input into TransLink planning and the decision-making process. I believe that this change will support the objectives of the Mayors Council without fundamentally changing TransLink's governance structure.

We will also be extending the submission date for TransLink's annual base plan from August 1 to November 1. This extension will allow TransLink to consult more with the public and the Mayors Council on the content of the annual plan. It will also allow TransLink to include updated fiscal information in their forecast and to save administration costs by combining base plan preparation with its annual budgeting.

In addition, TransLink can now be audited periodically at the request of either the province or the Mayors Council. The performance audits will examine TransLink's operations with the goals to help the organization increase its efficiency and better serve the public. Periodic performance audits will help to maintain the public confidence that TransLink is spending taxpayers' and transit users' money wisely.

Lastly, we will also be adding the director of electoral area A to the Mayors Council. This will enable the 13,000 people living at UBC, the University Endowment Lands and the rest of the electoral area A to have their elected representative voting at the Mayors Council's table. It provides representation on the Mayors Council to taxpayers in the electoral area who contribute to TransLink's funding.

This change was requested by the Mayors Council and the director and the public as well.

[1430]

Also in this bill are fare evasion amendments. This bill will actually move forward to allow people to pay their fines and encourage them to do so, and if they so choose not to, there will be repercussions. People have been stealing from transit in Metro Vancouver, and they're now being put on notice. They will face the full wrath if they refuse to pay their fines. While most people pay their fares, those who are caught without fares will face serious consequences if they do not pay up.

Fare enforcement will be changing from a provincial offence system to the TransLink bylaw system, supported by statute and regulation. This means that TransLink will no longer just be issuing the tickets. They will be establishing the infractions and ticket amounts and also be responsible for the collection of the fines. TransLink will be able to keep the proceeds of the fines as well.

The province, working with TransLink, will establish the initial parameters of its new bylaw. This will include establishing future dispute resolution and appeal procedures to protect people who believe that they have been issued a ticket unfairly.

TransLink, with the approval of the Mayors Council, will have the ability to modify its bylaw over time. For example, it can revise fair evasion fine amounts or craft strategies such as discounts for early payment and surcharges for late payments. This will encourage people to pay their fines as quickly as possible. The bylaw can also be amended over time to address emerging technologies like smart cards and fare gates.

TransLink will also have new enforcement and collection tools at its disposal. ICBC will now refuse to renew drivers' licences and vehicle registrations to people with outstanding fare evasion fines. This includes all past provincial tickets and future TransLink bylaw tickets as well as fare evasion tickets on the B.C. Transit system.

In addition, TransLink will also be able to prohibit people from using the transit system or any other services that TransLink provides. They will use collection agencies to recover unpaid fines. As well, they will be able to file certificates in Provincial Court that will provide all the powers of a court order to recover outstanding fines.

The province will continue to support TransLink fare enforcement efforts. In the rare cases where TransLink is unable to collect on a ticket, we can offer our enhanced powers to deduct the fine amount from provincial tax refunds and other provincial payments.

[ Page 11883 ]

The amendments that I'm introducing today represent a strong, new direction in combating fare evasion in Metro Vancouver. I look forward to continuing to work with TransLink and the Mayors Council in implementing these governance and fare enforcement changes.

I certainly have had encouraging discussions with the Mayors Council and TransLink over the past year that I've served in this ministry. These are challenges, and these challenges will continue, but we will face these challenges head-on. Together, we can find solutions as are presented in this bill today.

I look forward to hearing the colleagues from the other side of the House discuss second reading of this bill — their issues and their concerns and comments.

H. Bains: It is a pleasure to talk about…. I believe Bill 51 goes a long way, in my view, in dealing with some of the issues that the local riders are facing, that TransLink is facing and that the mayors have talked about for a long time.

Essentially, as the minister has laid down, it has about five different components to the bill. In no particular order, it does talk about change to the governance model of TransLink. It talks about dealing with fare evasion and enforcement of the fines. It talks about a performance audit, and it talks about adding another representative from area A to the Mayors Council and also extending the date of submission of the base plan by three months, I believe — August 1 to November 1.

I will deal with each one of those areas as I speak, but let me begin by saying what brought us here, what the need was behind this bill and why the minister felt compelled to bring this bill to the House today for second reading.

[1435]

When you talk about governance, there is a history behind how…. We are at a stage where we have a governance model today that was the creation of the previous Minister of Transportation, who happens to be the Minister of Finance today. I think the background is necessary for people who are listening — why we need to bring these changes that the minister is recommending through this bill to the governance structure.

Previous to 2008, Madam Speaker, you will know, and many members here will know, that there were elected members from all across the Lower Mainland. Those could be the mayors or those could be the council members who were elected by their constituents. Each of the councils would appoint representatives based on the population, on a per-capita basis, to work on the TransLink board.

That system worked from 1999 until 2008. I think a number of major projects were brought into service during that period of time. I think this was around the time when discussion around the Canada Line and Evergreen line was taking place in the board rooms of the Mayors Council and the mayors board that was comprised of the elected officials, the TransLink board.

It was a conflict between what the government of the day wanted to do and the minister of the day wanted to do and what the mayors felt was the right thing to do. There was a huge dispute going on. In fact, if I recall it correctly, the mayors went three times, I believe it was, before finally agreeing to go with Canada Line project first, before the Evergreen line.

Originally, the mayors felt that we needed to deal with the Evergreen line first, because they felt the northeast sector along with the south of the Fraser were two of the fastest-growing communities in the region and the entire province and that we needed to connect those communities with the current and existing SkyTrain lines.

The mayors did that through a lot of consultation. The mayors did that through a demonstrated need from those regions and also the promises that were made by this government to those communities. And one — the mayor, I'm happy to report, from Port Moody — is here today. Thanks to him a lot of work was done. He pushed the issue of the Evergreen line because that was the right thing to do.

The minister and the government had a different agenda. We were going into the 2010 Olympics, and the minister felt it was more important for them to deal with the Olympic file than to deal with the real needs of the Lower Mainland as far as public transit was concerned.

So what did he do? He had a snit over that argument, and he basically went out and fired the entire elected board. Talk about democracy. Many people talk to me…. You know, this is the House of democracy. How does democracy work sometimes? Here's an example where democracy doesn't work as far as that Minister of Transportation was concerned.

You will see that the government here talk a lot about consultation, talk about listening to all different communities, talk about making decisions based on consultation and what the needs of the communities are. That one decision that I want to bring to this House's attention shows clearly how not to make decisions that are affecting our communities.

He went out there, fired the board — because the board felt that there were some needs that they needed to meet, that that was their mandate, and they were doing the right thing. The minister didn't like it, and he fired them.

[1440]

He brought in and appointed a nine-member board. He called them professional board members, and yes, many of those members, I agree, bring a lot to the table. I have a lot of respect for a lot of those board members who make decisions, as far as public transit is concerned, for our region.

But the democracy suffered there. The transparency and accountability that comes with a true democracy was lost in that decision.

[ Page 11884 ]

What happened was that the board started to make decisions — I think that was the mandate given by the minister — behind closed doors. When those decisions were made, no one knows how they came up with those decisions — no consultation, no transparency, no accountability. And then those decisions made by those board members — behind closed doors, I may add again — were brought out, and they were presented to the commissioner.

The commissioner's role was to see whether there's a revenue stream that will be sufficient to the decision that they have made. Once that decision was made, then the Mayors Council that was created, also with that model by that previous minister, will now look at the policy that is brought to them by non-elected board members, behind closed doors, without any consultation with anybody. And they are now asked to say yes or no to that plan.

That's all they are asked to do. That's all their role is — say yes or no to the plan. If they say yes, then they were expected to go find money to pay for the policy that they would say yes to. Mayors have since that time said, "Look, this model is not working," that they are totally left ineffective. They are disconnected from the decision-making table.

And I don't blame them. I don't blame them because these are the people who make land use decisions on a day-to-day basis for their communities. Every expert on public transit in the world will agree that land use decisions and public transit go hand in hand. There's no question about that.

Why not have those people who make land use decisions have some say on the decisions that would be made on public transit that affect their communities? It makes a lot of sense, but not to that Minister of Transportation at that date, because he just wanted to have his way.

He got his way, and we are suffering as a result of that one bad decision. We can talk about many bad decisions made by many ministers on that side in the last 11 years, but that one thing, when we talk about public transit, is the one that comes out and hits you — that this is how not to do business.

What we see now is that the mayors are saying: "Look, someone else is making decisions that affect their communities, and we are only there to say yes or no — rubber-stamp someone else's decision." Madam Speaker, that's not how you do business. If you want people to engage in key decisions that we talk about in Bill 51, then you want to engage those people who will be affected by the legislation that we talk about here.

So on the governance side, I think it is a real shame, in my view, that we lost four or five years, where decisions were made and the mayors simply felt that they were disconnected from those decisions. I think that is not the right thing to do, because these are the people who are elected by their constituents. They expect them to do the right things, make the right decisions when it comes to public transit, because the public is way ahead of this government — believe it or not.

They want to leave their cars home. They want to help improve our environmental situation that we have. They want to leave less in carbon footprints. They want to deal with greenhouse gases. They are worried. They are concerned not only today but for their children, and their children as well. So they want to have their locally elected members, who represent their views, on the TransLink board so that the TransLink board can make the decisions that actually will deal with the needs of our public needs.

[1445]

How do you make them leave the cars home when there's no real alternative for them to use an alternative mode of transportation? It's very difficult, and they don't see that that's happening today.

You know, when we are talking about the change in governance here, again, I want to talk about the minister having tried to deal with this issue. Once again, true to the form of this government, they did it again, said: "We will tell you what is good for you, and then you have to accept it." Like the previous minister did back in 2008: "I will tell you how to run TransLink. I will make decisions for you." He did that, and we're still suffering as a result of that.

I think this minister had an opportunity. I do have a lot of respect for the minister for trying to deal with the issue that is before us. In what he did in Bill 51, trying to deal with the governance structure, I think he seriously missed an opportunity to do the right thing — didn't do the right thing.

Back a month ago, two months ago, after Mr. Crilly, who was the commissioner of TransLink, rejected the fare increase — right after that — the mayors passed four resolutions. One was to deal with the minister's announcement. The minister suggested that he would try to fix the TransLink board structure. The minister announced what is listed here in Bill 51 back then, that he is going to add a chair and a vice-chair to the TransLink board.

Look what the mayors did to respond to that. They got together. They had a meeting. They passed four resolutions. One of the resolutions was to deal with that governance structure. They said: "This move does not go far enough."

I thought the minister would accept their resolution and the direction they put forward, but the minister failed to do that in this bill. He didn't address that issue.

I want to say that it is disappointing, to say the least, because the minister did write a letter to the mayors on April 10, 2012. I will use one of the paragraphs that the minister wrote to them on dealing with the governance issue. The minister said:

"Your motion No. 4" — this is the motion that I just finished talking about, that the mayors made after the minister made the

[ Page 11885 ]

announcement of changing the governance structure — "indicates that the Mayors Council wishes to explore governance models and practices from other jurisdictions. I will be interested to hear about the outcome of this work, and there may be additional refinement for us to consider in the future; however, I feel compelled to reiterate the provincial perspective that TransLink should continue to be overseen by a professional board."

Here, on one hand, the minister mentioned to them — at least gave them a hope — that he will look forward to hearing from them about the outcome of their proposal. What I suspect the minister is talking about here is that the mayors, previous to this meeting, put together a subcommittee to talk about the governance structure. The mandate of that committee was to come back with proposals to make the governance structure better.

That committee, I understand, has met, and they have not concluded their deliverance on their work. I am told that there will be more meetings scheduled.

[1450]

So the right thing for the minister to do would have been to wait until the Mayors Council, and their subcommittee that is looking at the governance structure, would come back with their proposal on how to make the governance structure better, more effective, more democratic, more transparent, more accountable. At the end of the day, that's what we all want.

But for some reason, on this one the Minister of Finance — who happened to be the Minister of Transportation earlier, who I think messed it up in 2008 to begin with — again got his way and won the day with this minister as well, which is unfortunate.

This minister has a lot to offer, in my view, when it comes to this file. I think it is not the right approach, and the mayors said at that time that this doesn't go far enough. Since that time the chair of the Mayors Council also commented in public. He said that this step goes sideways and not in the right direction, basically. That's how you read it.

I have talked to a few mayors since the time this bill was introduced, and I am getting the sense from those mayors that the government isn't serious in dealing with the governance structure of TransLink. Bill 51 doesn't even come close to what is needed to fix the TransLink board's governance structure.

What you need is a board that is elected, that is a professional board. There are workers who deliver these services on a day-to-day basis. There are drivers. There are other service providers in there that deal with the public every day. Who better to provide information on how to deliver the services, which are decided behind closed doors by the current board? Why not have someone from the workers, who deal with the public on a daily basis, to represent the workers' perspective? Why not have someone sit on the board there? But the minister missed that opportunity again.

The minister also missed an opportunity to consult with the mayors. The minister said earlier today that through consultation with the mayors…. But when you judge what the mayors' reaction is to this bill and to the minister's announcement earlier of adding two of the mayors, chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council, onto a nine-member board now…. I think there are a lot of flaws in that approach.

First, I will be asking some of those questions during the next stage of the bill debate, third reading. How are they going to make decisions behind closed doors? Many of those could be in camera. Many of those decisions and many of those meetings would be in-camera meetings. Decisions are made there. But how are they now to take that information and bring it to their colleagues and share that information with their colleagues? So there could be a technical issue, a legal issue, here as well.

I don't know whether the minister has that area covered. How are they able to report the decisions that they are making in camera, behind those closed doors? How do you deal with that?

There's no such thing in here that those meetings would be public meetings. That was one of the complaints the public had — that these meetings are behind closed doors. No one has access to those meetings. No one knows how they arrive at those decisions. All they know is what the decision is, and the decision is, again, made by those who have no connection to the land use decisions that are being made in the communities.

When the mayors and the councils plan for their communities, they'll look at the land use decisions based on where the public transit is going to go. And not being at the table when those decisions on public transit are made…. I think there is a huge disconnect, and I agree with the mayors for being upset over that. I think those are some of the serious flaws in this bill when it comes to dealing with the governance.

[1455]

I think it's, once again, a missed opportunity, I will say, for the minister not to wait for the mayors subcommittee to come back with the recommendations on how to improve the governance model and governance structure.

Madam Speaker, here's another quote I want to give you — what was promised and what was delivered. I have read the minister's letter. He looked forward to hearing the outcome of the work that is conducted by the Mayors Council. The minister basically said that in the letter but didn't wait to hear the outcome. He rushed through this bill and put his own stamp on it, put his own suggestion on it.

But here's what the Premier had said and promised to the mayors and to the public on changing the governance. This is nothing new. If you go back to since the time of the previous minister…. He had a little fit, a tantrum, over not getting his way, Canada Line versus Evergreen line. He fired the whole board. Since that time there's a demand…. There's presentation after presentation from mayors, from the public and from many of the other

[ Page 11886 ]

stakeholders that this governance model is not working.

As a result, when the current Premier took office…. This is what the Premier said when she was asked about changing the TransLink governance: "There's no appetite to start monkeying with it before we get through municipal elections." This was a decision obviously made before the municipal elections. "We will look to municipal governments for direction on that and see if we can find some consensus. I don't think this is going to be a fast process."

I hope that the minister has read that. I hope that the Premier passed those sentiments to the minister when this issue of governance was put together in Bill 51.

I repeat again. She said: "We will look to the municipal governments for direction on that and see if we can find some consensus. I don't think this is going to be a fast process." So the minister is saying: "I look forward to what the mayors have to say on changing the governance." The Premier said: "We will look to the municipal governments for direction."

Then the minister went ahead and did what he did in Bill 51 and said: "Well, I will tell you. I'll do all those promises by the Premier and by the minister, but look, this is all I'm going to do. Two members from the Mayor's Council, a chair and the vice-chair — those are the only two that will be added. I'm going to make that decision. I'm not going to wait until you deliver on the work that you have taken to talk about what kind of governance model there has to be. I'll tell you what's good for you."

I think it's a pattern that we see — minister after minister after minister making decisions here and not consulting people who use those services and actually who make those decisions. They have to live with those decisions.

I'm talking about the mayors and the council members who have to make decisions on land use based on the public transit. That's one area that I have serious issues with. I think much more comes with it.

Governance is one area. Who runs TransLink? That's what we are talking about — how those decisions are made. Are those decisions based on the demonstrated need of the communities or through consultation with the public, with the locally elected officials, with the stakeholders, with the workers who deliver those services? That's what was expected. That's what you do through the right governance structure — make those right decisions, based on all of the consultations and input from the people who will be left dealing with the decisions made by the TransLink board.

[1500]

I think there was an opportunity. I had high hopes with this minister — not with previous ministers, but this minister — that this minister would actually listen. I think the Minister of Finance had his way. Again, he won the day on this particular issue. I don't think this is the right thing to do.

I would suggest to the minister to seriously consider waiting on this particular area of the bill until the mayors have come back with their proposal on how and what kind of governance structure they would like. At the end of the day, those are the people who would be making decisions based on what is needed in their communities.

If you are going to have them come and participate in the decision-making process, why not get their input on what kind of governance structure they can live with? That would be the right thing for the minister to do.

Knowing how reasonable this minister is, I'm sure that he will listen. I'm sure that in the next read, the minister will come back and say: "Look, it was a mistake to rush through that one particular area of this bill, and we are withdrawing that. We will come back after true consultation, real consultation, effective consultation by the mayors and the communities and the workers who deliver those services and then put together a governance model, governance structure that actually will work and be reflective of the communities. It will be reflective of the needs of the riders.

It will be reflective based on what the workers have suggested — what they experience on a day-to-day basis — and the council members' needs, the mayors, for their particular communities."

I think that is one thing that I'd really like to talk about in this, when it comes to the governance structure.

The other part that this bill, Bill 51, talks about is the fare evasion part. I think it's been in the media, in the public eye, for some time now. What that means is that it was actually very embarrassing to hear the inability of TransLink to first issue tickets, through TransLink police, and then not having any mechanism or authority to collect those fines.

There are a couple of reports floating around out there in the media. One is that there were 63,000 tickets that were issued in 2011 and only 7,500 paid. So you're talking about 55,000 tickets that were issued by TransLink police. If you just think about it, just imagine, each ticket…. How much time does it take?

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you continuing as the designated speaker?

H. Bains: Yes, Madam Speaker.

When you just think about and imagine…. For a police officer going through the exercise of catching someone who failed to pay the fare, pulling them aside and writing them a ticket, taking the information, all the time when they could be out there providing security and comfort to the rest of the passengers out there…. So they write their ticket. So 55,000 uncollected tickets — just one year I'm talking about — and how much time they actually spend on that.

The irony behind all of this…. Actually, it's quite embarrassing. The embarrassing

part is this. Again, I want to go back to the minister who messed it up in the first place in 2008 — the current Minister of Finance. In 2008 he acknowledged in public: "We know there is a problem,

[ Page 11887 ]

and we are going to find a better way of collecting these fines." This is his promise in 2008.

Mr. Doug Kelsey — head honcho, high up there with TransLink — is also quoted in the media, saying: "We've been asking this government for years to give us the authority to collect those fines."

[1505]

Yet when the current minister was asked about the situation, he said: "Well, this is the first I've heard of it." What does that tell you? It tells you one thing: that the previous minister, who knew about a problem and promised to do something about this, failed to do it — failed to act. That is a neglect of your duty. That is mismanagement. That is negligence of your duties, I think, when you say that there is a problem, acknowledge there is a problem, and then you fail to act on it after promising to deal with it. That's a real shame — that that minister didn't act on the problem that he acknowledged existed — that he would fix it.

Then there comes the next minister, previous to the current minister. She did nothing — nothing — after the previous minister acknowledged publicly that there was a problem and that they were going to fix it. I feel for the current minister, actually, believe it or not. Being in opposition, that's not a good thing to do, but I do feel for this current minister. Generally, he's saying that this is the first he's heard of this. What does that mean?

The previous ministers failed to act on it, failed to pass that information to the current minister. That is neglect of your duty. How bad can you be as a minister, who acknowledged there's a problem…? It's not even a small problem, Madam Speaker. You're talking about tens of millions of dollars, taxpayers' money that is sitting there uncollected. And not only that, but there is money and revenue sitting there uncollected when we hear from TransLink that there's a shortage of money and that we have to put some expansions on hold.

So $43 million, one account shows, going back to 1999 — $43 million in uncollected fines sitting there because TransLink didn't have the authority or mechanism to deal with the collection.

That's money that could have been used now — it's more than enough — to put all of those projects that have been put on hold today back on track. I'm talking about expansion into south of Fraser, talking about improvement to the current SkyTrain station and about adding 417,000 new service hours for buses. Now that is curtailed down to 117,000, when we need 417,000. Actually, that 417,000 comes close to the need that is there for south of Fraser and in other parts of the Lower Mainland. Those are all put on hold.

Also put on hold — they're still talking about fare collection and the evasion of fares — are the turnstiles that were promised as part of the solution to this, at $170 million dollars — $170 million to put the fare gates and turnstiles in. But two of the busiest stations — Main Street and Metrotown — will not have the turnstiles installed at the same time when others are being installed. The explanation from this government is that those two stations need upgrading, and that upgrade is linked to that $30 million shortage that I talked about earlier to improve the services all around the Lower Mainland.

That explanation does not make sense to me, and it does not make sense to many other people out there. First, why leave two of the busiest stations out, when we are talking about curtailing fare evasion? Secondly, the reason given for not installing those turnstiles — of upgrading those two before the turnstiles go in…. There are two other stations — in New Westminster and Surrey Central — that are also getting upgrades and turnstiles at the same time. So explain that. How do you explain that? There is no explanation to that. I think the only explanation I could come up with is mismanagement, misdirection.

[1510]

I thought this minister had an opportunity through Bill 51 to lay and set the direction straight here and, number one, deal with the governance in a real way, in a real sense — a governance model that the mayors can live with, the stakeholders can live with, the local communities can live with. That was needed, and the minister failed on that.

Fare evasion. Giving TransLink authority to collect those fines and enforce those tickets is a good thing. It's a good thing. It's long overdue — $43 million behind. After $43 million, finally the minister one day felt….

This minister — you know, I give him a lot of credit. He took notice and said, "I'm going to deal with it," and he's dealing with it through this bill. So I say good work, to the minister. Where two previous ministers failed, this minister actually acted. He talked less, but he acted on this issue.

The previous two ministers talked a lot for political expediency and tried to take political mileage out of that but failed to act. That is not how you want to do politics in this province, and that's what happened with the previous two ministers.

The fare evasion issue, I think, is the right thing to do, under this bill, where TransLink will have an opportunity to, through ICBC…. Again, I will be interested in asking all those questions at third reading — how that system will work, how much it will cost to collect those fines, and how much, actually, TransLink will net out from the total money that is left out there uncollected. And what does that mean to the bus riders and the transit riders? I think all of those questions will be there.

The minister talked in this bill about giving tools to ICBC, where they will not be able to renew their driver's licence or registration. I think an issue also arises out of that.

ICBC is asked to do a lot of collection for many of the government agencies. I think that, maybe, is the only way

[ Page 11888 ]

to collect some of those fines, but there are some issues by some members who get affected by ICBC and collection of ICBC and using ICBC's resources to be the enforcement agency for this government without getting any extra resources. I think there are some issues from that side, so I will be asking some questions from the minister about that as well.

I think the other issue would be: how do you collect from those who do not have driver's licences, do not own cars? Although in here it does talk about the Minister of Environment wanting to speed it up, I think he failed to understand that this issue is a very, very serious issue, and the government should start to take serious issues more seriously.

I think how the fare collection and government registering in courts to collect fines from those — how that will work and how the people will be affected by it will be another issue that we will talk about.

The other part, I think, in order to make our public transit work best for everyone, is to make sure the people who deliver those services are protected. People who drive those buses, people who provide a service on SkyTrain stations — how are they and their safety protected?

Many times I'm approached by members of the public that perhaps a driver should be asked to do more when it comes to collecting fares. There is a study out there that 70 percent of the assaults that the drivers face and are subject to are caused by fare evasion or a refusal to pay fares by those people who don't want to pay fares.

[1515]

I think we are putting our drivers at such a risk. Their health and safety are actually compromised when we don't have enforcement such as TransLink police going on buses to do random checks. Thanks to the president of the bus drivers' local, brother Don McLeod — who along with his colleagues went and met with the head of the transit police, about a month ago, I'm told — the police have taken notice. The police have escalated the presence on the buses, I'm told — but not nearly enough, according to the representative of the drivers, brother McLeod.

I think that's another area that we need to work through. I will be asking some of those questions, as far as fare collection, fare evasion and what kind of mechanisms are existing through this bill, in addition to what already may or may not be there, to make sure that every person who uses our service pays for that service.

There are some questions. This is what Don McLeod, the president of the local, told me. He said: "Our drivers are faced with many occasions. For example, there is a last bus, the last bus at nighttime. There are folks who want to get home, and they may not have sufficient change, sufficient fare." The drivers are put in such a situation. Do they leave them behind? That may compromise their health and safety. Or do they take them without the fares being collected? Those are the kinds of answers that we need to provide to the drivers.

This government has failed to provide for our drivers and protect our drivers when it comes to assaults by the public when they are using buses or TransLink. That issue is also not addressed here. I would say that our drivers deserve better — much better from this government than what they are receiving from this government.

I would be asking some more questions on that to make sure that the drivers are protected and, at the same time, that the people who use our services pay the fare, an appropriate fare, and that the health and safety of drivers and our passengers are protected as well.

We talked about fare gates earlier. I think that a lot more effective way of enforcing our fares and making sure that the fares are paid — and also for the safety and well-being of our passengers — would be having uniformed TransLink employees present at all stations at all times. We raised this issue earlier, when there were some passengers that were assaulted. Minister after minister has said, "No. There's no need for it," which is unfortunate.

You know, women at nighttime, many of the seniors who use our public transit — many of them don't feel safe at certain times and in certain places in the Lower Mainland. I think that's another question that I will be asking at the next stage of the bill debate.

The other

part is the performance audit that the minister has tried to address in this bill — that once every three years, the Mayors Council can ask for one performance audit and that the minister will then comply. I again have a lot of questions on that. What does that mean? We have three audits now, so far, that this TransLink board has gone through, and what has this government learned?

The most recent one was by the comptroller general of this province. That report came down with a number of recommendations — a number of recommendations when it comes to the governance part, when it comes to talking about auditing and the efficiency in our TransLink.

[1520]

Here are some of the recommendations that are listed in an October 2009 report by the office of the comptroller general. Again, it was through the auspices of the Ministry of Finance.

I talked about the governance. This is what this report said. "A Framework for Transportation Governance, Comments and recommendations." This is what they had to say: "Through our review of B.C. Ferries and TransLink governance models, we identified key components of a framework that could guide future applications of independent, regulated, publicly created authorities so that they are effectively structured to fulfil the following four principles."

The four principles listed here are: "(1) protect ratepayers' interest with minimal administration costs, including hard caps on compensation levels for senior executives

[ Page 11889 ]

and board members; (2) protect clearly mandated customer service levels; (3) minimize costs and maximize benefits to B.C. taxpayers of provincially funded grants; (4) improve transparency and public accountability for decisions and performance levels."

It went on to say: "We suggest the province consider this framework in establishing governance structures for other applications and if modifying the B.C. Ferries and TransLink models in the future."

Here was an opportunity for the minister to look at these suggestions and recommendations that came through that report — what kind of governance model there could be. I don't know if the minister paid much attention to that report. It doesn't seem that way. When you look at what is being proposed under Bill 51 — adding just two members of the Mayors Council, the chair and the vice-chair — and ignoring all the other recommendations that came through the previous report that was commissioned by the previous Minister of Transportation, what does that tell you?

The mayors are saying: "We will actually investigate how to make the TransLink governance structure better." The minister didn't wait for them to come back with the recommendations. Then we already have — the minister has it on his desk — this report that was conducted by the Minister of Transportation, through the comptroller general's office. There are recommendations here. None of that has been actually looked at or parts of it even taken into consideration.

Again, it went on to say: "An essential element of the governance framework is a body to oversee and hold accountable the operating company's board of directors. This body is given a mandate to fulfil responsibilities that parallel those of corporate shareholders. In the case of B.C. Ferries and TransLink, the shareholder/overseer should be the authority and Mayors Council, respectively."

There are all kinds of recommendations that came through this report. It seems to be a pretty extensive report. It is almost half an inch thick and many recommendations. Again, it seems to me that this government ignored those recommendations.

There's another recommendation that came through that report, which seems to be ignored, again, under Bill 51. It talks about: "We recommend the province consider establishing a single regulating entity for the transportation sector, including B.C. Ferries, TransLink and other entities considered appropriate."

I think there is a lot to take from this report. I'm not suggesting that everything could have been included in Bill 51, but it seems to me that when you ask the comptroller general of the province to conduct a review of governance, conduct a review of efficiency, and then you ignore it — substantially, when it comes to governance structure — I think it sends a wrong message.

These studies, these reviews — and there is another one being conducted by the minister now, the efficiency review — are seen to be…. I'm sure, people see that they are cynical about these reports and reviews — that they are only for political expediency…. And I don't blame them.

[1525]

Why go through these reviews, go through these studies, have our hard-working staff conduct these studies and do thousands of interviews and then ignore those recommendations? At least we should learn from them, and if not entirely…. Look at, you know, what component of that can be taken to deal with the governance structure that the mayors have been asking about, opposition has been asking about. It's not there in Bill 51.

The minister is taking notes, I know. I hope the minister, when we come back to the next stage of debate — third reading — will come back with an amendment to the bill saying that we are deleting the component of the governance, because it doesn't go far enough. According to the chair of the Mayors Council, it's a step sideways. I'm paraphrasing those words — not an exact quote.

I think I could feel the sentiment that is coming from these mayors. They work day-in and day-out trying to represent their communities based on the needs of their communities and what kinds of communities they want to develop into, because we have a growing community. Unlike London and New York, we are a growing community still, relatively speaking, and we have an opportunity to do it right — do it right now for our coming generations and the generations that are going to come after them.

For example, south of the Fraser we are still a growing community. It's the fastest-growing community. If we don't make the right decisions today, what kind of community will this look like 20, 30 or 50 years down the road? Where are industries going to be? Where will the jobs be located? Where are the residential areas going to be, and how are we going to serve them through our public transit so that we don't clog up our roads through more cars and having to build more roads and more bridges, being a leader in dealing with greenhouse gases and leaving the least amount of carbon footprints? We have an opportunity now to do it right.

All the mayors are saying, asking this government, is to work with them, to give them an opportunity — give them an opportunity to work with the government so that their decisions on land use can actually go hand in hand and coincide with the decisions that are being made on public transit.

If we fail to do it now, generations to follow us will look back and reflect on all of us here in this House: what the heck were we doing? What were we doing when we made those decisions? Why didn't we deal with our public transit at a time when we had an opportunity, when the community was still developing?

That's what the mayors are asking. That's what the public is asking. That's what the public wants us to do. Again,

[ Page 11890 ]

I think arrogance has set in so deep with this government that they ignore any recommendation, any review of their own, to deal with some of those issues.

Again, I want to quote from this report of the comptroller general from 2009, under "Planning." This is what the report says: "The current planning structure for TransLink is challenged as a result of ineffective communication between TransLink, the Mayors Council, the TransLink board of directors and the province and the short time frames allotted to conduct planning and satisfy the complex statutory funding requirements."

Here again, the report identified what the serious and real issues are out there, and the minister completely ignored this report, it seems to me — completely ignored this report. It seems to me there's one person over there who may have more to do with ego than dealing with what the real issues are: "I made those decisions back in 2008. I am the Minister of Finance today, and I am going to tell you what is the right thing for you to do."

[1530]

I think that is the wrong approach. I think we are all grown-up men and women in here. We all are going to make mistakes. If mistakes were made, acknowledge them and then commit to work to eliminate some of the after-effects of those mistakes that were made.

That's exactly what should have happened. It hasn't happened. I think that is a real shame in not having to deal with the issues that we need to deal with. The minister had an opportunity when he brought this bill in. He could have dealt with it, but he failed to deal with it.

I think the performance audit, again…. I would say yes, from time to time you need to do an efficiency review. There's no question, because as large an organization as TransLink is, there is such a wide area of their job and their responsibility to cover. I think there could be complacency setting in, whatever the reason may be, where we could always go back and say: "Look, I think the way you're delivering these services, the way you're making these decisions, the way the taxpayer dollars are spent — there may be a better way. Let's do a review."

The purpose of the review would be to act on some of those recommendations that come through it. So far what I've seen from this government is that they go through the exercises but fail to act on any recommendations that come before they make decisions.

I will talk about how, when you ignore your own recommendations from your own people, it could affect the long-term future services that may get affected by it. Madam Speaker, here is one example that I'm going to give you. When the previous board was in place, before the current Finance Minister decided to fire them all, the total cost for the entire year of 2007, for all those board of directors, was $126,000 — for the entire year $126,000. That's where the cost was.

Here we're talking about finding efficiencies through yet another report that the minister has commissioned. From there, in 2008 when the new board came into effect, the total went up to $488,000 — more than four times. It didn't just stay there.

From 2008 — $488,000 — to 2009 it went to $545,496. Then you go to 2010, and it's getting better. In 2010 the entire cost of running that nine-member board went up to $624,586. Where do you find efficiencies with that kind of runaway remuneration for the directors that were appointed by the minister at that time?

He said: "I'm going to make this board more efficient." So this is their way of finding efficiency — the board that cost them $126,000 in 2007 and in 2010 cost us $624,000. That's 2010 numbers. We still don't know what the 2011 numbers are and what the 2012 numbers are. If you look at the way they're escalating these last three years, it won't be good news. Believe me, it won't be good news for the taxpayers.

[1535]

I'm going to use one more example here. The chair of the board in 2007 was paid $43,000 for the year. It happened to be the mayor, hon. Speaker, of where you come from. At that time he was the mayor, and he was the chair of the board. He was paid $43,000.

The following year when the Minister of Transportation said he was going to find efficiencies and make the TransLink board more effective and more reflective, this is what the new chair was paid in 2008 — $75,000, almost double from the previous year.

I don't think your current mayor would be happy to see how the remuneration…. The work they did was no less than the work that the new board is doing. They did the same amount of work. The member from Port Moody will tell you the time it requires to be on those boards and make those tough decisions along with your own decisions that you need to make to run your municipality.

So that's 2008 — $75,000. For 2009, would anyone like to guess? You know, is it by the rate of inflation maybe? Maybe double the inflation rate? Maybe 10 percent? No, from $75,000 it went to $100,000.

That is 2009. For 2010, I think your mayor will not be very happy to hear this number. The chair of the board in 2010 was paid $125,000. So in three years from $75,000 to $125,000

whereas, according to the previous Minister of Transportation, the ineffective, inefficient board was paid only $43,000.

If the previous Minister of Transportation was running his finances that way, no wonder we're in big trouble right now as a province. We're in deep trouble. No wonder that to fix up their problems, to cover up those problems, they had to come up with bills like HST where they would gouge the small businesses, the taxpayers, $1.9 billion — $1.9 billion through that one bill — the tax shift from big corporations onto the working people, the small businesses, the consumers.

No wonder the previous Minister of Transportation was so ineffective in making those decisions, and no won-

[ Page 11891 ]

der we are in such trouble with TransLink services today when it comes to delivery of services. No wonder we have to put all those expansions that were promised in the Moving Forward plan for TransLink…. Madam Speaker, $30 million is short. As a result, all the services….

The member for Surrey-Panorama will know the kinds of services that we need. I'm sure the members of her constituency, which is next to mine…. They come to our offices all the time. They tell us about the lack of services of public transit, the bus service that is not there.

The Surrey mayor and our council have been saying that we could use 500 buses based on the population that we have today, and never mind the population growth we are seeing in the coming years. We are talking about 12,000 new residents moving into Surrey alone. Then we talk about Langley, and we talk about North Delta. The services that are required are not there as far as public transit is concerned.

This bill — and I give credit to this minister — tries to deal with some of the issues such as fare evasion and giving authority to TransLink to collect fines that are sitting there uncollected. I think it's a step in the right direction, long overdue. I think it's $40 million later. Nonetheless, it's there. Finally, we will deal with that issue and see how that works.

[1540]

The issue that also is in Bill 51 is to add one more representative from area A, which is the university endowment area. I think that it also makes some sense, because there are needs of that region that this member finally could take to the Mayors Council. But again, the Mayors Council, the way the whole structure is, the governance structure that I talked about earlier — feel that it is totally ineffective.

They will be there. They will not be able to deal with the issues that…. Area council A, which will be representing the university endowment area, will not have a real effective way of dealing with those issues because they're not at the decision-making table.

I think that, again, it's the right thing to do — to have some voice on the Mayors Council from that area, and it's a step in the right direction.

Also, moving the submission of the base plan from August to November is, I think, a step in the right direction. Again, more time means better consultation, and better consultation has to be there.

You can't simply say that I'm giving you more time if you are going to use that time to try to undermine the mayors and the Mayors Council and try to convince them of how wrong they are rather than trying to consult them in a real and effective way. That should be the real intent behind this. If it is — and I say to the minister that I'm sure he's genuine in this — it will be a step in the right direction, again.

In conclusion, I just want to say that there are things in this bill that make some sense — actually, make a lot of sense — when it comes to the fare evasion and collecting the fines that are sitting there uncollected. I think it's a step in the right direction. When we are talking about the performance audit, again, I think it's a step in the right direction. Once every three years, I think, makes sense. But again, what do you do with that audit? What do you do with the review that comes out?

I hope that the minister won't be around at that time as a minister when that next review comes back, but I think that it'll give the government of the day real issues to look at and deal with to see where the efficiencies are found. But the minister may be sitting here as a backbencher on this side of the House at that time. I think it'll be a good thing, though. We could go out there and consult with them about some of the failures of their government and how we can actually avoid those mistakes ourselves.

So again, the performance audit is the right thing. But with the governance changes that are being proposed here, I have a serious issue. I have a serious issue with this. It's not only that it doesn't go far enough. It does not even reflect, it doesn't even come close to, what is needed to have a more accountable, more transparent, more cost-effective TransLink board and a TransLink as an organization.

It doesn't even come close to dealing with that issue. It is, I think, a reaction to questions being raised by the mayors and many stakeholders, but again, the minister missed an opportunity. It was a golden opportunity. Here was an opportunity to do it right, but the minister failed to do that. The reasons? I just can't imagine what those reasons might be.

[1545]

I have a lot more to say, and I have so much material to go through. But it is something that we will be dealing with during the next stage of our debate, so I think that I will take my place at this time. There are a number of speakers who are very, very passionate about TransLink services in their communities. I would now allow them to have their say.

Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, latitude is enjoyed, but I would ask individual members to bring their comments to the contents of the bill, Bill 51.

I might also ask that members who wish to interject into the debate do so only from their seats.

S. Simpson: I have just a few comments in relation to Bill 51, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act. This piece of legislation essentially deals with three matters. It's a bit of a band-aid. It's a bit of a correction. It's dealing with some errors that have been made previously, and we'll talk about that a little bit, but it deals with three significant areas.

The first is the question of governance and some minor

[ Page 11892 ]

and modest modifications to the governance structure of the board. It does deal with issues around putting in place a remedy to deal with the collection of fines for lack of fare payment, and it deals with the question of performance audits. There are a couple of other minor things, but largely, those are the three pieces that the bill embraces.

Whenever legislation comes forward and a bill is presented to the House, one of the first things you ask yourself is: well, what's the purpose for this? What's the reason for doing this? Why has the government chosen to bring this piece of legislation at this time? And what's it to address?

In the case of Bill 51, I think that that's fairly clear, and we know where that was going. If you want to kind of know what the roots of this bill are, you go back and you look back to, certainly, some of the past issues. We know that in the past, back earlier in the term of this government, issues around things like the lack of fare payment and those issues have been issues that have troubled TransLink and the government for a period of time. So we go back to deal with that.

This notion of performance audits. Well, I think that probably intertwines pretty well with what have been the funding challenges that we've seen faced by TransLink over an extended number of years.

The governance issue. That also goes back to 2007 and the decisions of the minister's predecessor to essentially blow up TransLink as it was known at the time and restructure the organization, including a significant restructuring of the board where an appointed board was put in place by the minister. The mayors and councillors — those people who were local elected officials, who had prior to that comprised the board of TransLink in large part — were, in fact, set aside, and a Mayors Council was created that had some limited powers and limited authority to support the work of the board that was put in place, the private board.

At that time the argument of the minister of the day was that this would be a more professional board, that it would be a more efficient board and that it would lead to better operational decisions or better operational outcomes by TransLink as it moved forward. The challenge with that, of course, is that we can all argue whether, in fact, we've realized that.

What we've seen, in fact, have been increased challenges since those structures changed. I think that we see those increased challenges for a number of reasons.

One, and it's a fair comment, is that, you know, transportation and transit are extremely expensive. They're challenging to do. They cost a lot of money.

Local government, who are looked at to pay a significant portion of that, don't have a whole lot of revenue streams at hand. Pretty much the only revenue stream of significance that they have is property taxes. Sadly, what we know, of course, is that property taxes tend to pay for almost everything that local governments have to pay for. So they're stretched pretty thin in terms of the property tax envelope as it is. So that has created this challenge.

[1550]

Now, there's always been the range of conversations about the other tools that might be available for funding for TransLink, for funding for transportation and transit options. The challenge has always been, of course, that in too many times and in too many cases, when the mayors and the councils and the TransLink of old had looked at decisions around where to get that money from, the decisions were overruled by the provincial government in terms of allowing TransLink to, in fact, be able to take advantage of those options or those choices.

We now have the situation that has come about in the last period of time where you've had the mayors pushing back in terms of where the dollars would come from — the additional $30 million that has been spoken about in terms of dollars that are required for priority funding. There's been push-back over that.

We've also seen, of course, the work of the regional transportation commissioner, Mr. Crilly, who had rejected fare increases and had called on another further efficiency review to try to find those resources within the TransLink that we have today.

So we have this situation where the previous minister was telling us that he was going to create a more efficient, effective system. What we've seen, as a result, is a system that really hasn't demonstrated much in the way of efficiency or effectiveness in terms of what it's accomplished there.

We now have Bill 51, and I see Bill 51 as the minister's efforts — I think a sincere effort — to try to deal with these problems that are facing TransLink at this given time. The problem, I think, with the bill is that on what may be, in the long term, the key issue here, which is the governance issue, the minister has chosen to put a band-aid on this rather than try to strive for a substantial solution.

The band-aid that the minister has put on this is to add the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council to the board of TransLink. So you have a board that is made up of private individuals appointed by the minister, by the government, and we now are going to add the two elected officials, two mayors, to that group in the hopes, I assume, that they will reflect the position of our elected leadership at the local level, who make up the Mayors Council.

Now, in some areas, they might accomplish that. But one of the real challenges around transportation, around TransLink, around transit, is how integrated it is into land use planning.

When we look at local government land use planning — and governments are making decisions about housing decisions, about land use decisions, about decisions about where they want to create business opportunities and commercial development and to put those pieces together where they want to enhance neighbourhood

[ Page 11893 ]

development, those kind of things — transit plays an integral role in those decisions.

People who look at local area planning, at community planning, will certainly tell you that if you're not talking about land use and housing and transit in the same conversation when you talk about planning, then you're missing the boat on planning. You need to connect those three pieces in a pretty integral way to make things work.

That really was the benefit of having elected officials be, largely, the decision-makers. I think that the province has to be at that table, but to have local elected officials — mayors, councillors — be essentially the primary decision-makers in that discussion is because they always, bring to the table a consideration of those land use issues and how they move forward.

[1555]

If we as a legislature — and we, ultimately, as the province — want to encourage more sustainable development, if we want to encourage more efficient communities, if we want to encourage less vehicle use, if we want to encourage enhanced transit use, if we want to look at ways to develop affordable housing in our urban areas, in our suburban areas, all of that will connect to the discussion around transit. Ultimately, in the Lower Mainland it will connect to TransLink.

Those decisions are going to need to be partnership decisions that are made with local councils. And those local councils, in order to do that, it's my view, need to have a more significant say and a more significant role in the decision-making of TransLink and the discussion at TransLink than they have under the current structure.

So the question becomes whether, in what the minister has chosen to do here — by putting the chair and the vice-chair, two mayors, on the board of TransLink — he has met the test to be able to get enough input from the locally elected leadership onto that board to make this decision-making work in a way that's responsive to our desires, or what I hope would be our desires, for more effective land-use planning that starts to meet our objectives around compact, complete communities and our objectives around how we develop our communities.

It's a point of debate. There's no doubt about that. I would argue that it doesn't get us there, that there's a need for a more significant role to be played by the mayors, by local councils, probably through the mayors, in the bigger decisions there. Also, under the previous board of TransLink….

Something that governments didn't avail themselves of, not in the way that they should have, was the ability to have MLAs playing a role representing the provincial interest in the discussion around TransLink. That was an opportunity that wasn't necessarily taken advantage of, to make sure that the province, who pays a lot of the bills when it comes to TransLink and to transportation and transit, has a voice there as well. We didn't see that opportunity really being availed very much by the province when it had the opportunity to have those MLAs sitting at that table.

The concern I have here is that we have a governance structure that hasn't been successful. I don't necessarily blame the nine people — the people who are sitting on the board and who have sat on the board previously. I think they got put in a difficult situation. I think they were created…. It was almost a board that was somewhat, because of the secrecy of the board….

It was a pretty private board. It held very limited public input in terms of public meetings, unlike the TransLink board, the previous board, that was more public in its nature because it was elected officials, who tend to be more public in their nature as to how they hold their meetings. It's a more secretive approach. I think that board was put in a difficult place. I think that the board has not been as successful as we'd want.

I think that's reflected in the fact that we today have this crisis at TransLink. We have the situation where in April of this year the CEO basically put all future expansion projects on hold — with the exception of Evergreen, which will go ahead — until these financing issues are resolved.

We all know these financing issues come and go on a pretty regular basis. We think we've found a resolution, and then all of a sudden somebody changes their mind about whether that particular vehicle for financing will be allowed. Then we're back at the starting gate again as to whether we'll be allowed to use those tools. Local governments clearly have their challenges with it.

That's created a situation where I think that we have a very difficult time in looking at how we move forward. And it really doesn't matter. I mean, we know that there's a desperate, desperate need for a significant expansion of transit opportunities south of the Fraser, the highest growth areas. We know that that has to occur.

We know the pressures that we feel in Vancouver to build out Broadway line heading out to UBC. We know that there is no shortage of demands for additional bus service or better, more enhanced SkyTrain service or longer hours of service.

[1600]

Of course, we're going to see here soon, relatively soon, the Evergreen line in place. Once it's in place and operating, it will have increased demands on it as well. It probably won't take very long before people will be talking about enhanced hours there and other things on Evergreen, and that will be inevitable.

The problem we have is that we have created a situation where there doesn't seem to be a capacity to get at these decisions. I do believe that the structure that was put in place in 2007…. I think it had a lot to do with the significant differences of opinion between the minister of the day and the mayors over the priority of the Canada Line and how that would move forward.

Those differences were what they were, and the Canada

[ Page 11894 ]

Line is there, and it's doing fine. The result of that was a structure that here we are, five years later or so, that the minister is trying to correct by making adjustments through Bill 51. I'm not convinced that the adjustments necessarily go far enough. We have that situation.

We know that the mayors, in their discussion on this, have asked for the minister and the government to do a number of things. First of all, they have said quite clearly that they don't believe that property tax should be the funding source, or certainly not the primary funding source, for their share of funding of future projects. They have said the governance changes proposed by the minister don't go far enough, and I think that's fair comment.

They've asked for the Auditor General to really take a look at that question of the governance model and — considering the objectives, considering the legitimate interest to the governance model, considering the legitimate interest to TransLink — whether in fact there's another model that might look more appropriate. I'm sure they are hopeful, and I think, quite rightly so, that any model that was put in place would be a model where the mayors and local councils and local governments would play a more significant and substantive role in that question.

They have argued, in light of the recent efficiency reviews on TransLink, whether another audit is necessarily required but have said — again, going back and pointing to the provincial Auditor General — that they believe that the Auditor General would be the appropriate authority, the appropriate place to have any review done as, clearly, one of the leading independent voices on those things in the province and the body that we look to as a legislature to give us guidance on most audit questions.

Then they have called, of course, for the latest expansion plans to be set aside until alternative funding sources for the $30 million that's in play can be determined.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Those are pretty significant demands by the mayors. I think they are serious ones. They're ones that are precipitated by what has gone on not just in the last short while but over the last number of years, primarily since the changes came about in 2007.

I think that where the minister has gone…. I understand that the minister has made the effort to get at this largely through the governance model and the call for performance audits every three years. When we get to committee stage, maybe we'll get an opportunity to have more conversation about this. The minister might say I'm putting on a band-aid here because it's necessary, but I'm also going to open the door, and I'm happy to open the door, to having a harder look at this for down the road, when maybe we're going to make more substantive and what may be more effective changes on some of these questions. We'll have to look at that and see how that all plays out.

[1605]

One of the other things, and I think that everybody would be in agreement with this, is that there are steps included here to finally…. I'm sure we would all shake our head over this, but we are finally looking to be in a place where those fines that are put in place by TransLink for people for nonpayment of fares…. There would be a fine system in place that is enforceable, that will allow TransLink to actually collect the fines they are owed.

I think that what the minister has proposed here hopefully takes us there and will get us there. It's certainly worth pursuing. The structure that the minister has put in place in order for us to be able to collect those fines and have that revenue go to TransLink to help offset some of their costs and maybe begin to rebalance a little bit the operating challenges of TransLink is a good thing.

That fine structure, the structure that has been put in place here…. The ability, possibly, to use ICBC as a tool in some ways to help with collection and the ability to use some judicial tools to get at collection all make some sense. Hopefully, that will sort itself out, and we'll see some of the money — most of the money — that is rightly owed through fines for non-payment come back and come into the TransLink coffers.

Then the third piece here, and I had referenced this a little bit before, is the notion of performance audits every three years. That may be a good idea. I don't have any qualm with that.

I think we would all agree that organizations that are as complex as TransLink, organizations that expend the amount of public dollars that TransLink does, organizations like TransLink which always require some degree of subsidy in order to do their business…. It's the nature of transportation systems, I think. If you want to provide them in a broad and effective way, there's going to be some degree of subsidy always there. It's important that you continue to make sure that they're being run as efficiently as possible. We need to be able to look at all of those matters.

I think the question that will come about will be to ensure that those performance audits…. The questions will be confidence in where the performance audits land and who they're done by, confidence in the criteria and the breadth of the audits, the ability to ensure that they're done in a transparent way. All of those will be important things, and I'm hop