2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 25, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Medicare Protection Public Access

Act, 2007 (Bill M234)

A. Dix

Committee of the Whole House

Maa-nulth First Nations Final

Agreement Act (Bill 45) (continued)

Fraser

Hon. M.

de Jong

C. Wyse

Fleming

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Maa-nulth First Nations Final

Agreement Act (Bill 45)

Second Reading of Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

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

On the amendment (continued)

N. Macdonald

M. Polak

D. Chudnovsky

[ Page 9579 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

MEDICARE PROTECTION PUBLIC ACCESS ACT, 2007

A. Dix presented a bill intituled Medicare Protection Public

Access Act, 2007.

A. Dix: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, this bill will ensure that the

Minister of Health tables decisions and reasons for decisions made by the

Medical Services Commission in regard to sections 17 and 18 of the Medicare

Protection Act here in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. It also

ensures that records with respect to extra-billing cases are available through

the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

Since this government came to power, there's been an explosion of

extra-billing for medically necessary care in British Columbia. This week we saw

a critical decision on the future of public health care made by the Medical

Services Commission in the Copeman case. The public was not allowed to

participate — only the government and Mr. Copeman.

Incredibly, the public is not allowed to see the decision or the

reasons for that decision. In fact, the Minister of Health left it to Mr.

Copeman himself to announce the decision. He also revealed that the ministry had

worked with Mr. Copeman on the issue in private.

In the next few weeks we should be hearing the results of the

Premier's Conversation on Health. We believe that conversations on health, which

are critical to the public and the public health care system in British

Columbia, should occur in public and that the information should be available to

everyone.

This bill seeks to ensure that everyone has access to and learns

the results of decisions with respect to extra-billing made by the Medical

Services Commission.

I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M234, Medicare Protection Public Access Act, 2007,

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.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on

Bill 45.

Committee of the Whole House

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT (continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

section 3 (continued) .

S. Fraser: Hello again to the minister and staff. As we're

winding down here, I'm trying to get through this as quickly as possible. I have

touched on migratory bird populations. I've got other things. Believe it or not,

I'm a birdwatcher, and there are issues here.

Just a question that might cover it as quickly as possible. It

refers to, in 12.10.1: "Where the Minister, after Consulting with Parties…." As

we go through here, there's a lot of reference to "the Minister."

Isn't the migratory bird act a federal issue? What role does the

province play and/or the Minister of Environment, and how does that jibe with

what's happening under the treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, in this case the reference is to

the federal minister. Again, where the word "Minister" appears…. I think in

virtually every case where it does with a capital "M," it's appropriate to refer

back to the definition of "Minister" in the

definitions

section of the final

agreement. That definition, roughly summarized, means the appropriate minister —

either federal or provincial, as the case may require.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that

clarification. I think I'm finished with

chapter 12.

I'm just going to move right on to 13, since we're not voting on

them. "Legal Status And Capacity" — 13.2. "Each Maa-nulth First Nation is a

separate and distinct legal entity…." Just a clarification. Is that legal entity

defined as a legal entity as a municipality or a municipal government is?

[1010]

Hon. M. de Jong: The reference to each Maa-nulth First

Nation representing a legal entity confirms that each Maa-nulth First Nation —

there being five as parties to this agreement — has the capacity of a natural

person. As such, they would possess the rights, powers and privileges, such as

entering into a contract. It also confirms that each separate Maa-nulth First

Nation has certain liabilities and has the capacity to sue and be sued.

[ Page 9580 ]

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. I'm sure

it's always comforting to know that you can now be sued. I understood that

that's the nature of this recognition to some extent. There are benefits and

liabilities that go with that.

You've touched on the individual Maa-nulth Nations. It refers to

each Maa-nulth Nation throughout this section. Is there any recognition of the

Maa-nulth Nations as a governmental group?

Hon. M. de Jong: There's no similar provision that would

bestow similar legal status on the collective entity or that agency which the

Maa-nulth have created for the purposes of negotiating the final agreement.

It is conceivable at some point in the future that, if they

choose, the five individual entities may decide to create an agency, a society —

perhaps a society would be the logical thing — which would possess the legal

status that that entails. But there's nothing in the final agreement that I'm

aware of that bestows legal status on the collective.

S. Fraser: I don't mean this as criticism, but it's my

quest for knowledge here and some wisdom. Hishuk-ish ts'awalk —

Nuu-chah-nulth — everything is connected. These five Nuu-chah-nulth Nations are

inextricably connected through this treaty, Maa-nulth.

There is certainly the potential for the Maa-nulth as a group to

need to work as a unit, as a unified body. Hypothetically, as we've already

touched on, there's the potential for, say, a challenge to the treaty itself.

Since it's a tripartite agreement, any changes to the treaty anticipated, I

understand, can only be done with full consensus of the tripartite agreement.

That would entail a unified Maa-nulth.

Was that discussed at the treaty table? There are potential cases

where, as a group, Maa-nulth may need to stand as one.

Hon. M. de Jong: No, the member is correct. Of course, the

importance of the collective is reflected in the fact that they negotiated this

agreement together. That requirement is met, and likely will continue to be met,

through the Maa-nulth Treaty Society. That agency will continue to exist and

presumably function as the mechanism by which those individual nations for whom

there is legal status recognized in the agreement function together.

[1015]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. That's very

helpful.

As we get further in the chapter, there's reference to the

ha'wiih and the hereditary chiefs and the roles that are played there. We've

seen in other cases in other first nations where that role becomes difficult.

Sometimes there's a divergence of opinions between the elected chief and

councils and the hereditary chiefs and elders, and that can be a very damaging

schism within a first nation. Is there recognition here of that?

Is there any means for addressing, say, a conflict? I haven't been

able to find anything within this process. Has there been recognition, or has

there been anything I've missed that might help deal with a conflict about,

basically, who represents the interests of the nation — the individual nations

in these cases?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to refer the member to sections

13.3.2 and 13.3.3, wherein the final agreement recognizes the point the member

has made about the historical significance of the ha'wiih for Maa-nulth

culture. The other ingredients in this discussion, of course, are the individual

constitutions that the five first nations have created and ratified in advance

of the treaty ratification votes that took place in their communities. So the

final agreement recognizes the point and the importance of the hereditary

concept and enables the reference within the individual constitutions of the

mechanism by which those two concepts are married.

As the member knows, it's a fascinating story. It's a fascinating

interplay and one of the things that I have learned in the opportunity that I've

had to work with the Maa-nulth.

For example, it was interesting here in this chamber when Chief

Councillor Robert Dennis appeared at the Bar on behalf of the Huu-ay-aht. He is

very particular about the fact that when he speaks, the tyee ha'wilth — I

think that's the correct term — which is the head hereditary chief, will stand

beside him. Generally, he'll have Mr. Peters and his son there to denote the

lineage and the ongoing lineage.

It is interesting the way the Maa-nulth have, through their

constitutions, incorporated that notion and married it with what for us is the

more traditional, democratic notion of elected governments. So far it seems to

be working well.

[1020]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. From his

response…. Are we hearing here that the constitution and the sections of the

constitution that deal with the ha'wiih will be something that is, by

relation to the treaty, to be respected by the federal and provincial entities?

Or is that more of an internal constitution?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the key here is that the

constitution, by virtue of the provisions of this agreement, must be consistent

with the provisions of the final agreement and on that basis, of course, will

enjoy the acknowledgment and respect of the other two parties to the agreement.

The constitutions that have been proposed must contain

provisions…. They may be amended from time to time pursuant to the process

decided upon by the individual first nations, but they must at all times be

consistent with the provisions of the final agreement we're debating here.

S. Fraser: Moving right along to 13.6.0 — individuals who

are not Maa-nulth First Nation citizens. There's reference to: "Each Maa-nulth

First Nation Government will Consult with Non-Members concerning decisions

[ Page 9581 ]

of that Maa-nulth First Nation Government that directly and significantly

affect those Non-Members.”

So there is a requirement of consultation with non-members. It

says: "will Consult." Is that a statement of intent? Is there a mechanism

recognized through the treaty that will allow for that? Is there a process that

will be established that is consistent and objective?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, we can explore this in more detail,

but I emphasize to the member that pursuant to the terms of the agreement, this

is another case where the presence of the word "Consult" with a capital "C" is

significant. In the definition

section of the final agreement it lays out in

great detail the obligations that imposes with respect to the process that must

be undertaken.

S. Fraser: Those darn capitals again.

I appreciate that. Thanks to the minister. At this point, I'm

going to turn the floor over to my colleague from Cariboo South, and he will

take over for now.

C. Wyse: I have some very broad questions about the local

government aspect of it. My intention is to be succinct, to cover the whole

section through my questions.

The first question is a brief description of the effect of

chapter

14. It would be my impression from reading

chapter 14 that this provides a

transition process to join regional government, local government, form.

If my assumption is correct, I would ask the minister to explain

the similarities and differences that are contained in

chapter 14 as compared to

any other changes that would be made within a regional district with other areas

becoming incorporated.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is admittedly a general question, so

I'll take a few moments to try and summarize the provisions of

chapter 14 as

they relate to regional government. There are differences in how this is being

dealt with here vis-à-vis the Tsawwassen exercise, the Tsawwassen First Nation

and the Metro Vancouver/GVRD relationship that we talked about earlier this

session.

[1025]

In short, the

chapter is designed to clarify the status of the

Maa-nulth First Nations lands within a regional district upon effective date and

confirms Maa-nulth First Nations participation in the regional district after a

transition period.

Here are some key ingredients that go with that. Maa-nulth First

Nations lands do not form a part of a municipality or electoral area on

effective date. Each Maa-nulth First Nation may enter into a land use planning

protocol and service contracts with local government. So they have that option.

There will be a ten-year transition period. During that time the

respective regional districts may invite the appropriate Maa-nulth First Nation

to participate in meetings on a non-voting basis. At any time during that

ten-year transition period, each Maa-nulth First Nation may indicate its

intention or wish to become a voting member of the relevant regional district.

At the end of the ten-year transition period, each Maa-nulth First Nation that

is not already a voting member of a regional district will become one. At the

end of the transition period, each Maa-nulth First Nation will participate in

and contribute to the costs of those services that municipalities and electoral

areas within the regional district are required to participate in.

That's as it relates to the relationship, as it were, between the

individual first nations and regional districts, which are, I think, the key

components of the chapter.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the minister's response. Given that

aspect of it, really what I was looking for…. I have the similarities of

adjustments that would be made within regional district boundaries. The

differences that would exist as the result of this being a first nations

agreement…. Are there any differences in the process, outside of it being a

ten-year transition period of time, than would be involved with changes made

within the boundaries of existing regional districts that occur all the time

here in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member's question is — and

he'll correct me if I'm wrong: on effective date, does the implementation of

this agreement result in any immediate changes to the boundaries of the regional

districts? If that is the question, the answer to that question is no. On

effective date, implementation of this agreement does not, I am advised, result

in any changes to existing boundaries for existing regional districts.

C. Wyse: I'm going to move on, just so that the minister

knows.

What consultation, if any, occurred with the affected regional

districts? And it would be my understanding that there are potentially two

regional districts that are affected by this proposed treaty.

[1030]

Hon. M. de Jong: I am reminded that there have been,

through the life of the negotiation that took place up to and certainly

including the agreement-in-principle, numerous meetings with the regional

districts of Comox-Strathcona and Alberni-Clayoquot as well as with the

municipality of Ucluelet. I was heartened, as I'm sure the first nations

themselves were, to see Mayor Dianne St. Jacques here.

It's actually been a pretty good story — which, by the way, isn't

to say there haven't been issues that have arisen through the discussion. But

it's remarkable how far I think we have come as communities and society in

recognizing the need for resolving these issues, to work together, and how in

many ways a significant mental shift has occurred, where we are no longer

thinking just about the problem but about the opportunity.

I think of the work that I have been privileged to do with

Ucluelet and Mayor Dianne there. That really has been the hallmark of their

attitude throughout this: where are the opportunities, and how do we work

[ Page 9582 ]

together to capitalize on them? I think that has been a positive feature of

the evolution of this agreement.

C. Wyse: I'm pleased to receive the answer from the

minister. Of course, the point to be remembered here is that this treaty has

some uniqueness to it. Not only does it deal with bringing forward collectively

on behalf of a number of first nations at one time, it also is more of a rural

nature.

With those two components, there is some uniqueness, and I'm

attempting to get an understanding of the process which the government has used

in this item to deal with local governments and first nations communities — how

they will be interacting before the process and after the incorporated area.

That leads me to my next question. What considerations have been

given to deal with any adjustments that the regional district, as the local

government, would experience financially or otherwise with the proposed boundary

changes that will take place?

To put it in context, in the urban treaty that we discussed a

couple of weeks ago, there were identified issues of potential costs for the

local government around issues like water, sanitary sewer extensions and items

of that nature.

I'm now asking the same question on that effect upon a more rural

situation, and what consideration has been given to those adjustments for after

the transition period has taken place.

Hon. M. de Jong: Insofar as the geography is concerned —

the geographic alignment of the regional districts — I'm going to refer the

member to 14.1.2 and 14.1.3, which specifically contemplate the possibility of

changes and lay out the mechanism by which that can occur.

[1035]

C. Wyse: Having had a look at that, I understand the

process on how it may occur. I still haven't heard any answer on the discussions

upon how the regional district will be affected. So that would lead me,

potentially, to my final question.

When you look at 14.1.1b, which deals with the Comox-Strathcona

regional district in which the government has announced that, unilaterally, they

are making adjustments to that particular regional district, what consideration

has been given by this treaty upon other announcements that have been made by

the government over one of the mentioned regional districts contained within

this agreement?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry. It is an important question,

but I'm not sure I understood it. The member was referring to a specific

section

and a specific change. Can he help me by just particularizing which

section he's

referring to?

C. Wyse: My apologies to the minister. It would be 14.1b,

where the Comox-Strathcona regional district is identified to be covered by this

particular bill. All I'm doing is establishing that that same regional district

is under review by the government for being divided into two parts, into two

regional districts.

My question is: what effect, if any, does that decision in

municipal affairs have upon this particular treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry, hon. Chair. I don't want to be

troublesome. I can't find a 14.1b. There's a 14.1.5b. I just want to make sure

I'm answering the right question here, and I can't find the

section that the

member has identified.

C. Wyse: I'll try it this way. I have it on page 169,

chapter 14, "Regional Government." It starts off with the word "General," which

is the status of the Maa-nulth First Nations lands within the regional district.

And then, as I read it, it's 14.1.1 on the effective date, and then there is an

"a" and "b" underneath on the copy that I have here.

Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: Visiting us here today is a class from

Hillcrest Elementary School, a school in my riding. It's a class of grade 3 to 4

students — about 20 of them. They're accompanied by their teacher Ms. Margo

Fitzpatrick and a number of parents, I see.

They're watching the debates that are taking place, and I hope

they will be well educated when they return to class. I ask the House to please

make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I'm concerned that maybe the

member has an earlier draft. Maybe what we could do is this. If he wants to send

the page over here, maybe we can cross-reference. These are precise questions

about precise provisions of the agreement, and I don't really want to speculate.

So if he can do that, we can move on. Then I'll try to come back and answer the

question, if that's acceptable.

[1040]

C. Wyse: Madam Chair, I'm in agreement to do such and am

also in agreement to provide the information I have in a written form and simply

receive an answer from the minister at another date. That would allow time

within the debate to proceed to other items.

I make that offer, and if the minister is in agreement with that,

then I will conclude any questions I have on

chapter 14.

Hon. M. de Jong: That's acceptable, Madam Chair.

S. Fraser: Madam Chair, I guess I'm asking for your

indulgence. I skipped over a

section in

section 13. A

[ Page 9583 ]

couple of questions around education from the member for Victoria-Hillside,

if that's all right.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister a couple of

questions about the post-secondary

section of the agreement, and in doing so, I

want to reference the Nisga'a agreement and the recent Tsawwassen treaty as

well. Some of the language is identical, but some of it is either missing, in

the case of the Maa-nulth agreement here, or is different. I want to maybe see

if the minister can tell me the meaning of the differences.

First of all, what is not there but is included in the Nisga'a

agreement is that there is an additional

section after this

section in the

Maa-nulth agreement that talks about establishing institutions, developing

curriculum and providing responsibility for adult basic education programs.

What the Nisga'a then goes on to outline in a

section of similar

length is that the standards will be comparable on Nisga'a institutions to

provincial standards around the organizational structure of the institution,

which probably means that it has to have a senate, a board of governors, a

similar means to colleges and universities to appoint a president. It also

references that the standards will be similar on admission standards and

policies, instructor qualifications and certification, and curriculum standards.

It specifically says in order to facilitate transfers of students between the

various institutions in the post-secondary sector.

That's all in the Nisga'a agreement. It's not in Maa-nulth. I'm

wondering why those specific references are not included here.

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer…. First of all, I think

the member is correct. There is a difference between the drafting in the Nisga'a

provisions and the provisions here.

The answer lies in

section 13.21.2, wherein the concurrent law

model as laid out here and the prevalency of the federal and provincial laws

mean that the kinds of provisions that the member alluded to earlier that were

present in the Nisga'a were simply deemed to be redundant in terms of the

drafters of the agreement — that the same objective is being sought.

It has been accomplished here by virtue of the concurrent law

model and the need to specifically enunciate that the types of things that the

member referred to were deemed by the drafters and the negotiators to be

unnecessary, although the objective remains the same.

[1045]

R. Fleming: Okay. I appreciate that clarification. Maybe if

the minister could be precise on this…. Does this mean, then, that in advance of

any degree programs or curriculum being finally approved anywhere in the

Maa-nulth territory in this treaty agreement, the Degree Authorization Act of

the province would prevail? Therefore, the Degree Quality Assessment Board would

be involved in approving that curriculum?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised the answer to that question is

yes.

R. Fleming: One other difference between Maa-nulth and

Nisga'a that maybe the minister can comment on is that, while both treaties are

identical in allowing the nations to establish their own institutions on their

own territory, Nisga'a contemplates and allows the creation of an institution

that is not on Nisga'a land — to own and operate post-secondary institutions.

I'm wondering why the Maa-nulth is prohibited. Given that we have

various places on Vancouver Island and the geography of this treaty, there may

be a central location or an opportunity somewhere where the various members of

the treaty would wish to place such an institution. That would seem to be not

permitted in this. Somewhere on the Island Highway, for example…. That would

seem to be disallowed under this treaty.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've just got the Nisga'a agreement here,

and I was listening carefully to the member's submission. I note that in the

Nisga'a agreement, at

section 103 where it deals with post-secondary education,

the provision reads: "Nisga'a Lisims Government may make laws in respect of

post-secondary education within Nisga'a Lands."

The distinction, I think, might be as follows. In both cases —

both Nisga'a government and now we're dealing with the Maa-nulth — there's

nothing in the agreements to preclude or prevent the establishment of a

Maa-nulth-sponsored post-secondary institution outside of treaty settlement

lands, but Maa-nulth laws wouldn't apply. It would be pursuant exclusively to

provincial regulation.

My understanding is that that is similar to the Nisga'a provisions

around post-secondary education.

[1050]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for allowing us to get

back to the education stuff.

I have a question on education that just came to mind. We recently

passed Bill 46 in this House. That's the First Nations Education Act. If I've

got this correct from committee stage of Bill 46 — and possibly the minister can

confirm this — post-treaty, the negotiations that happen in Maa-nulth basically

disallow the Bill 46 initiative. It's instead of Bill 46. Is that correct —

post-treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: Post–effective date, the Maa-nulth will

derive their authority and their jurisdiction over education matters from the

final agreement.

S. Fraser: All right. If I've got that correct, then Bill

46 applies to those nations that have not yet achieved treaty. Would that be a

safe assumption?

Hon. M. de Jong: Right. I think the member is essentially

correct. The legislation that we dealt with earlier remains relevant for Indian

reserves and Indian bands. Of course, this agreement alters significantly

[ Page 9584 ]

and positively the status of the Maa-nulth, so I think the member's assertion

is essentially correct.

S. Fraser: I think I understand the rationale. The

Maa-nulth have negotiated their own terms for education and for self-governance

of that. I suspect it would make Bill 46 redundant — although eminently

supportable, I noted, by the House here. Except for two government members, it's

pretty much supported by everybody, I think.

Moving along, back into

chapter 14. I'm trying to be very quick

here. The issue around regional districts that the member for Cariboo South….

There are two regional districts specifically involved here. There's the

Alberni-Clayoquot regional district. Four Maa-nulth First Nations will follow

into that regional district zone. And then, I guess, the Comox-Strathcona will

be for the north.

What level of discussion happened at the regional district level?

It's a pretty comprehensive

section on inclusion, which I think is long overdue,

of the first nations into the regional district board as sitting and voting

directors. How high a level of discussion happened there?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that meetings started as

early as 2003 and then carried on for a five-year period through into 2007. So

there was, as I indicated to the member's colleague, fairly extensive engagement

with the two regional districts and, as well, with the municipality of Ucluelet,

which is reflected and which I think added value to the final product at a time

when there was still and probably is still…. This is still relatively new in

terms of how we go about this. It was worthwhile, and it was time well spent to

engage the parties at that level as extensively as was done.

[1055]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm assuming,

then — I believe my assumption will be correct — that both regional districts

involved here supported this initiative. They are in agreement.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that the regional districts

worked extensively with the first nations on the provisions of the

chapter and

are, I'm told, satisfied that they represent a workable path forward over the

course of the ten-year transition period. We'll look forward to that beginning

as soon as the effective date rolls around.

S. Fraser: There are some physical challenges. I know the

Alberni-Clayoquot regional district. I've sat there, and the table is full.

They'll need a bigger table at this point because there'll be four more seats,

which will be welcome seats, I'm sure.

There are a number of initiatives that the regional districts are

involved in — certainly pre-treaty. Obviously, everything is still pre-treaty.

The Islands Trust, for instance…. The north Island trust is a $50 million trust

that has representation from the regional districts and local governments. That

was two years ago now, I guess. It was Bills 6, 7 and 8, if memory serves me.

At the time — and we asked for this as an amendment — the first

nations involvement in the advisory committees to those trusts was not included.

We saw that as an oversight, so we put forward an amendment to include

appropriate first nations representation on the advisory committees of those

trusts. I noted that the government voted against that, which I thought was

something of an anomaly.

At this point these Maa-nulth Nations will actually, in a

roundabout way, almost get a seat, through the regional district, on the

advisory committees. Would that be accurate?

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not an expert on the composition of

the Islands Trust board, but I take it from the member's question and will

proceed on the assumption that the regional district does have membership on the

Islands Trust. Assuming that to be the case, then I think the member's assertion

is correct.

As the Maa-nulth First Nations become full members of the regional

district, they will acquire an indirect participatory role via their membership

on the regional districts into the proceedings of the Islands Trust. So they

will acquire that indirect opportunity to participate in that work.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification.

I'm going to leap way ahead here, being mindful of the time, which is ticking

very quickly.

Heritage Conservation Act. We're looking at, well, 19, 20…. There

are a few chapters here that touch on it.

[1100]

Heritage Conservation Act issues. With first nations traditional

territories, there are always these issues around artifacts, gravesites,

traditional sites. Just a quick question on that. If changes to the Heritage

Conservation Act were to occur…. They're being contemplated, I know. We

certainly have provided a private member's bill to that effect.

If changes were to happen in the future to the Heritage

Conservation Act, would they then have any ability to apply retroactively to the

treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am referring to

chapter 21 — to 21.2.4,

the law-making power with respect to culture and heritage set out in 21.2.1. I

won't read it, but at 21.2.4 the point is made that "Maa-nulth First Nation Law

under 21.2.1 prevails to the extent of a Conflict with Federal Law or Provincial

Law." That's significant, of course, because there's a paramountcy argument

there.

But the other general rule — and it's probably a good time to make

it again — is this. With respect to the member's question about a provincial

statute or changes to a provincial statute or federal statute, no one party — in

this case, the federal or provincial government — can statutorily impact on the

rights that the Maa-nulth acquire under this agreement.

[ Page 9585 ]

So this body, this chamber — and that's partly the significance of

this agreement as well, it being a tripartite agreement — will not have the

option, statutorily or legislatively, of altering the authorities and the

jurisdictions that this agreement provides to the Maa-nulth to deal with

something like culture and heritage as laid out in this agreement.

There are other reasons that the province is seeking to make

improvements to the Heritage Conservation Act and other legislation, but

whatever those changes are, they cannot adversely impact the rights that are

assigned and provided for the Maa-nulth in this agreement. Where changes are

made that can impact or have an effect on the Maa-nulth in the exercise of the

rights provided to them under this agreement, there are specific notification

requirements, as well, that the parties — the province and the federal

government — must abide by.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate

it. It's a complex issue. There's still potential for Maa-nulth Nations or

others to find sites that may not be included within the land settlement here,

but they still may historically…. I mean, anything can happen. The knowledge

that these acts could still apply even off the agreed-upon boundaries of these….

There are a lot of angles to this.

[1105]

I am mindful of the time, and I want to thank the minister and his

staff for the work done and expedience in answering. It's been very good, except

that I would urge the minister, next time we have a treaty, that having the full

legislative calendar at our disposal would be helpful and in keeping with a more

fulsome conversation that we could have on this.

On that, I would say that I have concluded my critic's role.

Sections 3 to 31 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:06 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

Bill 45, Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Act, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time on the following division and

passed:

[1110]

YEAS — 63

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

Roddick

Hayer

Jarvis

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Mayencourt

Polak

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Karagianis

Krog

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Macdonald

Conroy

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 2

Lekstrom

MacKay

Hon. M. de Jong: First, a final reminder from Joyce: please

gather things out of your desk before the end of school.

[1115]

Mr. Speaker: Don't worry, Minister. I'll remind them later.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate of

Bill 43.

Second Reading of Bills

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 (continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

M. Polak: This is not only something that has been before

this House for quite some time but something that's been on the public mind, if

you've lived in the lower mainland for any length of time. It's been on the

public mind and on the mind of many elected officials

[ Page 9586 ]

for years. TransLink has been a source of frustration over the course of,

well, I guess, since '99, almost.

There have been some great improvements made in transportation

over the years, but really, you've got to ask yourself….

Mr. Speaker: Member, would you just take your seat for a

second.

Point of Order

N. Macdonald: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realize that

there were people standing around here, but when I finished debate, I'd asked

for the opportunity to come back and finish my comments. I think I have about

four or five minutes left.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke

has the floor.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: Thank you very much. In the time that I have

left, I just want to reiterate a few things.

The reorganization of TransLink. The points that I have covered

quite extensively are around the concerns that I would have, especially with the

governance model. The points that I made….

I understand there's a speaker that will follow me, who will try

to explain the need for TransLink reorganization. One of the things that has not

happened in the debate to date is a strong case made by government members about

the need for that governance structure to change. As I've said, I have not lived

in the area, so that's an argument I would be interested in hearing, and I am

glad that it is coming. But if you decide to change it, then there are strong

reasons that need to be given for how you're improving it.

What I would say clearly, in looking at this legislation, is that

it is in no way going to improve the governance structure of TransLink. In fact,

I would say that there should be deep, deep concerns about what is proposed. The

examples that I used earlier were around B.C. appointed governance structure

boards, and I used examples that highlighted why people in the lower mainland

should be deeply concerned about that sort of a governance structure. It has

simply failed and failed miserably, and I think the example most would be

familiar with would be the Convention Centre Expansion Project board.

Having said that, in the few minutes that are left, there are

opportunities to improve it. It's based upon a certain set of principles that I

think everyone in this House should share.

The first principle that should be in this board and in this

legislation is that it absolutely must be a TransLink board that is

democratically elected. To me, that is fundamental and is so obvious that we

really shouldn't have to be arguing that point in this House. It should be

democratically elected and accountable.

[1120]

That second point is an important one as well. It should be

accountable to the people who are going to live with the decisions that the

TransLink board makes. It should be accountable to them, and the only way you do

that directly is through election. So it should be democratic, and it should be

accountable to the people that are going to have to live with the decisions.

Following on that, you have the case of taxes. You are going to be

taxed in the lower mainland by a board that is neither democratically chosen nor

accountable to you. If there is anything that is more fundamentally important to

our democratic structures, it is the idea that if you are going to tax people,

you are going to be accountable to them through democratic means for the money

that you're taking from them.

This structure does not allow that. It does not allow you to have

any say in money that is going to be taken from you to set up the transit

system. That should be a concern for everyone. Even living outside the lower

mainland, I strongly object to any government that goes in that direction. To

feel that they can take money from us and not in any way be held accountable for

that money is another thing that is wrong with this legislation.

Now, for the New Democrats and for me…. I fundamentally think that

we need to empower people. We do that by having strong local democratic

institutions where the people making the decisions are held directly

accountable.

My background in local government reinforces that view. That is a

highly effective level of government, because you make a decision, you go to the

grocery store, and you better be ready to explain it.

Well, it should be the same with transit decisions. This will

impact people's lives directly. They will have to pay a substantial amount of

money for the infrastructure that needs to be put in place, for the operational

costs. The idea that they would not have some direct way of holding the

decision-makers accountable is to me…. First, I don't understand how a

democratic body would put that forward. Second, I just fundamentally disagree

with that direction.

We need to recognize that to make that work, there have to be

senior levels of government providing funds for the lower mainland. That is what

senior government has always done. I recognize that the senior levels of

government should be involved in that board. I think that makes sense. In fact,

it's a good thing to have not only locally elected people but also provincially

elected representatives as well as federally elected representatives.

The transportation decisions that are made in the lower mainland

will affect everyone. It needs to be done properly. To do it properly, what

every person who sits in here should believe is that proper decisions are made

in the open. They are made by democratically elected representatives of the

people, and those representatives are held directly accountable to the people

whose money they take and spend. That is what we should have seen with this

legislation.

If the case is made that TransLink is broken and needs to be

improved, then improve it. There is noth-

[ Page 9587 ]

ing about this legislation that improves the governance model, and that

should deeply concern everyone here.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I'll take

my seat.

M. Polak: I'm very glad to rise and speak to the question

of TransLink and to the question of what we ought to do about it, which is

really what we're here talking about.

In the time that I've lived on the lower mainland, which is most

of my life, and in the time that I've spent in municipal politics in Surrey and

as an MLA in Langley, I can think of a lot of things that people have said to me

about TransLink. They've said things like: "What a mess," and "Oh, please blow

it up."

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

They've said all manner of complaints and concerns and outright

frustration, but the one thing I don't think I ever heard anyone say about

TransLink was that they were accountable. To speak now about this new governance

model and address it as being somehow less accountable than the TransLink that

currently exists is absolutely laughable for anyone who lives in the lower

mainland.

[1125]

Let's talk a little bit about what people said, or have said in

the past, about the existing TransLink model. We have the mayor of Surrey,

currently, Dianne Watts who says: "There needs to be one plan that everybody is

working together on. There's no point in having different levels of government

having different plans." Former mayor of Surrey Doug McCallum talking about

TransLink said: "We have serious structural problems in governance." Larry

Campbell was quoted as saying, "Quite frankly, I don't see it working" — meaning

TransLink. "We have got to get rid of the parochialism." Not my words; Larry

Campbell's words.

Editorials in The Vancouver Sun going back to 2004:

"TransLink has come to represent political gridlock in the lower mainland rather

than a transit system that moves fluidly." Or again: "Instead of blindly heading

down this road, it's time to admit that TransLink itself is broken, that it is

incapable of doing the job it was created to do."

So no question that there are problems that exist in the current

structure of TransLink, problems that won't get us to the kind of transportation

solutions we need so desperately on the lower mainland.

I want to read from the opening of the report from the TransLink

Governance Review Panel, because I think in the midst of all this debate, we can

easily forget that this wasn't pulled out of thin air. In terms of time for

consultation, in terms of input from the public, this has gone to all sorts of

consultation through the work of the TransLink review panel.

Here's what they've said:

"Our recommendations for a new planning framework,

governance structure and sustainable funding measures rest on our conviction

that we must act boldly to create a forward-thinking, proactive and fiscally

accountable organization. We held more than 30 meetings with stakeholders and

received 120 submissions. We also received expert advice on a range of topics,

including legal, governance, marketing, finance and revenue measures. While our

recommendations were informed by this input, they are the panel's alone.

"We cannot overstate the importance of planning

appropriately for the future. Our economic, social and environmental health

depends on whether we have the foresight to anticipate and serve significant

transportation needs over the next 30 to 60 years and beyond.

"A new planning framework, governance structure and

balanced sustainable funding measures will build a solid foundation for an

integrated transportation system that will ultimately move people and goods in

the region from Pemberton to Hope.

"We hope that you will seriously consider our recommendations as we believe they will create an integrated transportation

system that supports the economic, social and environmental interests of the

region and the province."

That panel was chaired by a former mayor from my riding, Marlene

Grinnell. Not only was she a former mayor of Langley city, but was very well

regarded across the region not only as a knowledgable mayor, generally speaking,

but also as one who was a staunch advocate for accountability in government — a

staunch advocate for careful accountability when it came to taxation and the

spending of taxpayers' money.

These are recommendations that, as I've read in the letter from

the panel, are endorsed by such a person. Certainly in my area, in Langley, I

hear nothing but praise for the work of that panel and in particular for former

Mayor Grinnell.

Coming from our own Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce, speaking

to the reintroduction of the bill — because let's remember, this is a

reintroduction of something that was up before us months and months ago in the

spring session — here's what Ed Kolla, the president of the Greater Langley

Chamber of Commerce, had to say. He says: "Langley participated on the task

force to make recommendations to the TransLink Governance Review Panel. We are

very pleased that the majority of our recommendations were included."

So here we have a situation where something was known to be

broken, something that many people felt was absolutely unfixable. We've had a

review panel with people who knew their business, knew what they were talking

about and knew the lay of the land. They came back — after listening to members

of the public, after listening to those who are in governance in municipalities

— to government with recommendations that they feel will finally put us on the

right track to future planning for transportation needs in the lower mainland of

British Columbia.

[1130]

What has government done? Government has responded by saying: "We

will accept these recommendations, and we're going to implement them. Here's the

legislation." Instead of ready acceptance on the part of the opposition for the

work of such an esteemed panel, we have them questioning, first of all, whether

there's a

[ Page 9588 ]

problem and, second of all, if we ought to perhaps further discuss a solution

rather than implement the work of the panel.

One of the things that the panel said in analyzing the problem was

this: "Decision-making at the TransLink board has proven to be difficult, slow

and marked by the division of local political interests rather than regional

consensus building."

When they sought to produce a new governance model that they felt

would work for a transportation authority in the lower mainland, they seriously

considered how this governance framework would deliver for the constituents in

that region not only effective transportation planning but also effective

governance. In fact, dealing with the governance model is something that the

Auditor General recommended in 2001, when he made recommendations about

TransLink's governance.

Certainly, they're not responding to something that was newly

brought about by the provincial government. This is something that they've

considered, because in their view, it needed to be looked at. These are people

who had experience in understanding how it ought to work and how it wasn't

working, and their recommendations reflect that.

One of the things that they sought to achieve in the

recommendations was a clear delineation of responsibility. When they talk about

that, they're referring to the elected council of mayors. Now, I've heard a lot

of people on the other side talk about how this will be a governance structure

that is completely unaccountable: "Nobody will be able to touch them; nobody

will be able to know what's going on."

Nowhere was the issue of unaccountability more apparent than when

the current TransLink board determined they wanted to put in a parking stall

tax, and those of us who are MLAs know that the vast majority of people who were

faxing and e-mailing and complaining were saying: "We don't know who to complain

to. We don't know who our representative on TransLink is. Maybe we should write

to the MLA. Maybe we should write to our mayor. Maybe we should write to the

chamber of commerce." They didn't know who they should talk to.

One of the reasons the council of mayors is so critically

important to this governance structure is because I know, and every other

resident in Langley knows, that when we vote for our mayor, we're voting for our

representative on that board. We know who they are. We know how to talk to them.

We know how to go to our mayor and say: "This is what we want; this is what we

don't want."

What will those mayors do? One of the things they will do is

provide certainty to the taxpayer with respect to their oversight. One of the

things they say in the report is: "Taxpayers will know that when they vote for

their mayor, they are also voting for their representative on the council of

mayors." There will be "timely, transparent and accountable decision-making,"

and "checks and balances in planning and decision-making that are established

through clear areas of authority and responsibility for the council of mayors."

So we take a look at what they'll be doing. As the report says:

"Respecting the fundamental principle of no taxation without representation, we

think" — this is the panel talking — "that TransLink's ten-year strategic plans,

including revenue measures, should be approved by elected representatives in an

environment that facilitates a regional perspective."

Let's think about that for a minute. If the current structure was

actually responding in that manner, if the current structure facilitated the

kind of accountability that the opposition says that they take so seriously,

then why on earth would the panel recommend something like this? Why?

It's because of that direct link between a community's mayor and

this board. When they are voting on the revenue measures that the new authority

will put into place, they are directly elected by their community to be the

mayor, to be the representative on that mayor's council, and they know that they

will be accountable to those people who voted them in. They know that if they

are responsible for revenue measures that the community doesn't approve of, they

are going to face that at the ballot box.

[1135]

You could never say that. You could never say that about the

current structure. Nobody knew who did what. It was constantly changing, and it

was a dog's breakfast of representation from around the lower mainland. Now

you'll have consistency, and you'll have the ability of the public to know

exactly who it is they need to talk to if they don't like what's going on.

Further in the report it says: "The council of mayors' fundamental

purpose will be to approve TransLink's ten-year strategic plan, including

revenue measures and borrowing limits. To facilitate efficient decision-making,

we recommend a limit on the time allowed for the mayors' consideration of the

plan. The council of mayors will also be responsible for appointing the

independent TransLink commissioner."

It's hugely important that this governance model be put into

place. It's something that certainly has received adequate debate and discussion

not only in this House but all across the lower mainland. I mean, TransLink has

been the favourite whipping boy in the Tim Hortons and the Starbucks for years.

It's time that we get on with making the changes that are really going to mean

something for people in the lower mainland.

What is it going to mean? If you look at the mayors council, for

example, one thing that is very important to the model that is recommended, and

that we are going to be adopting should this bill pass, is that the council of

mayors, as it says in the report, will streamline decision-making and replace

the role of the GVRD board in the governance of TransLink. The GVRD will no

longer have a role in TransLink governance

It might sound like a small thing to people who are listening to

us debate acronyms for various levels of government, but it's been a huge thing

for those representatives who've been involved over the years. The issue that

the mayor of Surrey, Dianne Watts, raised in

[ Page 9589 ]

the quote that I provided from her earlier is the whole question of all these

different areas having competing interests and not being able to come to grips

with a decision. They were trying to satisfy everyone.

Now, you will have a streamlined approach where you have mayors

who understand the need for consensus-building around the region. If you talk to

them, you'll find that the majority of them are very pleased with this kind of

model.

In fact, one of the more interesting quotes that comes, I guess,

as a rather look-forward one is from 2005 from Mayor Lois Jackson of Delta. She

says: "I believe we should have every single mayor on the TransLink board. We

don't need five representatives from somewhere like Surrey and Vancouver. We've

got more than 20 communities represented on the GVRD, and I think we should be

using that resource."

Well, finally we're going to be using that resource. We're going

to have those mayors directly representing their constituents, their

communities, on a board of governance. They're going to be the ones who are

going to be making the decisions about how the regional transportation structure

is planned for, how the borrowing happens and how the taxpayers' money is not

only spent but collected. They're going to be accountable for those decisions.

Direct accountability to elected officials regarding taxation and

other revenue measures is provided. That's something, clearly, that the panel

felt was important and that the panel feels strongly will be achieved through

this model.

Another point. Every municipality in the transportation service

region participates in transportation governance through its mayor, which will

improve representation and communication. One of the things that TransLink has

probably attempted to do — I'm sure in good faith — but really, I think, failed

largely at accomplishing was effective communication with the communities that

were concerned with the region and the transportation in the region.

Not only did people not know who to go to, to complain, very often

they didn't really know what was going on. It was very difficult to find out

what meetings were about, what kinds of things were going to be on the agenda,

what kind of planning was taking place.

Well, here's an opportunity to make that communication far more

direct. Again, an example from everyday life. You're interested in what's going

on at that board and you want to know what it is they're planning and deciding,

you'll know who to talk to. If I was an ordinary constituent, I could walk right

into Mayor Peter Fassbender's office and talk to him about what's going on and

what they're planning. I could talk to Mayor Kurt Alberts in the township of

Langley — same thing.

They're able to directly communicate to their public what is going

on in the governance and planning. That's something that TransLink has never

done a very effective job at.

More efficient decision-making. The report outlines how more

efficient decision-making will improve TransLink's ability to meet future

transportation needs.

We've seen fits and starts in all sorts of the planning that's

gone on around the lower mainland. Certainly, if you're like me and have spent

most of your life in the valley in the south of the Fraser, you realize that

much of the planning that has gone on over the last number of years has still

been focused on an old idea of people waking up in the suburbs and deciding that

they're going to get up that morning and go into work in Vancouver.

[1140]

We know from the recent studies that that's not how travel still

happens in the lower mainland. It's more, as they say, an

everywhere-to-everywhere model. Yet that's how they still plan. It's reflected

in the lack of services we have that get us between the suburbs, and it's

something that if you have a council of mayors working toward — they recognize

that keenly. They talk about it all the time, and they'll be able to do that

kind of planning work here.

Certainly, when it comes to the connection between their

taxpayers' money being collected and spent, you're going to see a more clearly

understood model. That's another point that the review panel made. They say the

public will more clearly understand the connection between specific

transportation investment and the gas tax, property tax and fares needed to fund

them.

They're going to be able to have a direct line into what's

happening in one of the most important planning issues to face them as we go

forward in a region that is growing so massively. It's time that we have

something to respond to the changes that have taken place in the lower mainland

that won't be hampered by constant bickering between regions as to what they

ought to do as their priority.

Instead, you have a council of mayors guiding what will be an

independent operating process. When I say independent, it's not going to be full

of people who are bringing a political interest. It's going to be full of people

who are bringing an operational interest.

Now, you can talk about accountants and lawyers and whoever else —

whatever other group you'd rather not see as an independent panel, and we've

heard lots of joking about what it's like to have business people on a panel —

but in reality, what you usually hear complaints about from the public is that

you have politicians getting too heavily involved in operations that they have

no expertise in talking about, rather than staying with an overall policy

guidance.

For me, when I read the work that the governance review panel has

completed, something that really is important to me is that they've correctly

delineated the responsibilities between the mayors council and those who would

operate the system. So you have those elected people making decisions that are

appropriately within their scope. They're going to be making policy decisions.

They're going to be approving decisions about spending and about collecting of

taxes. That's the place where they ought to be — the oversight role.

As one of my mentors used to say, a politician's job or an elected

person's job is to lay the tracks, not to

[ Page 9590 ]

run the trains. That's very clearly delineated in what they've recommended.

But when it comes right down to it, to be looking at possibly

delaying this because we need further discussion is a ridiculous way of

completely discounting what the review panel has recommended. If one wants to

argue that we shouldn't be moving in this direction, then the arguments ought to

take on what on earth we might do instead.

The TransLink Governance Review Panel took on what many would have

said was an impossible task, and when they brought forward their report, I can

tell you that south of the Fraser, in my region, you had people applauding.

"Finally," they said, "somebody has found a way to make this work, to make it

work for the region, to make it work for the taxpayers around the lower

mainland."

We've had months and months of opportunity to dialogue and debate

about the bill since it was tabled last spring. We've certainly had ample

opportunity for that public discussion to happen during the consultations that

the governance review panel engaged in, and now we've had opportunity in this

House to consider again what things ought to change with respect to

transportation governance in the lower mainland.

As far as my community in Langley is concerned, it's time. It's

time we get on with it. It's time we get on with planning for our future. It's

time we get on to really responding to the transportation needs of British

Columbians who live in the lower mainland and for too long have had to deal with

an absolutely impossible model of governance.

I suggest that it's time we move on and get this bill passed so

that finally we can move forward as a region into what will be, I'm sure, a

prosperous future with good transportation for all of us.

[1145]

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased, today, to speak to the motion

that was brought before this House by my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway,

which would have the effect of stopping Bill 43. I'm very pleased to be able to

speak to that motion and strongly support it because we need to stop Bill 43. We

need to stop Bill 43 because the motivation that has been put forward for the

bill — by all too few government representatives, it must be said — by the few

who've taken the time to speak to the issue…. Those motivations are all wrong.

My colleague, the member for Langley, a few minutes ago told us

that there was constant bickering inside the old TransLink. The old TransLink,

in fact, did have a number of problems. Constant bickering wasn't the problem

for two reasons.

First of all, what the member called constant bickering was

actually democratic debate engaged in by democratically elected representatives

of the people. If you want to call that constant bickering, you can do it, but

it speaks to your understanding of democracy more than it speaks to the issue of

bickering.

Secondly, those folks found a way, despite the fact that they came

from a whole number of municipalities, to figure out a transportation plan for

the lower mainland, to figure out transportation priorities for the lower

mainland. And may I remind the members opposite, including the member who just

finished speaking, that those people, despite the fact that they came from 20

different municipalities, had as their first priority rapid transit to the

northeast sector.

It wasn't bickering that stopped that. It was this government that

stopped that from happening by not providing the resources that were necessary

and for breaking the promise that they made at the time of the approval of the

RAV line, of the Canada line, that rapid transit to the northeast sector would

be brought to the people to whom it had been promised for decades, together with

the building of the RAV line.

It wasn't constant bickering that was the problem, and it isn't

so-called constant bickering that's the problem with the building of northeast

rapid transit — what some people call the Evergreen line. It's the government

that's the problem.

Those who've managed to…. I congratulate my colleague from

Langley. Despite the fact that I fundamentally disagree with the positions that

she put forward, at least she came to the House to speak to us on the issue of

TransLink. She's to be congratulated for putting forward her point of view,

which is a legitimate point of view. Wrong, we believe, from this side, but at

least she had the jam to stand up and talk, unlike many others on that side.

What those who've had the courage to stand up and talk about this

issue have said is that this opposition is satisfied with and wants to go with

the status quo on TransLink. Sorry. Do a little research. Take a minute to find

out what this opposition has in fact said about the current structure of

TransLink.

Have a look at the submission that was made to the panel by this

opposition, which called for very important reforms of the TransLink governance

system that are supported by most of the members of the GVRD, now Metro

Vancouver, including the chair of Metro — the mayor of Delta, Lois Jackson — who

said very clearly and very wisely from the beginning that it is a mistake to

separate transportation planning from land use planning. That's an error because

they're the same thing in the end.

This model that's put before us by the Minister of Transportation

further separates those two functions. The submission made by the opposition

that, clearly, members of the government haven't taken the time or the

opportunity to read, said: "No, we have to bring those two functions together.

We have to take TransLink and make it an operating company under the GVRD, now

Metro Vancouver, so that transportation planning and land use planning can be

done together, so that the policymakers who deal with the issue of

transportation planning and land use planning, which is in the end the same

thing, are one and the same."

Who would they be? Under the submission made by the opposition to

the TransLink panel, which members of the government side haven't taken the time

to have a look at and, therefore, speak erroneously

[ Page 9591 ]

about…. We say those people who make policy with respect to transportation

planning and land use planning should be the elected representatives of the

people of the region, not some group of business people chosen in a totally

undemocratic and unaccountable way — not that.

[1150]

The difference between this side of the House and the other side

of the House on governance when it comes to TransLink — and, by the way,

governance when it comes to all the other functions that happen across the

province — is that we say "democratically chosen and accountable," and they say

"unaccountable, undemocratically chosen."

Every fundamental decision that will be made by the new TransLink

authority will be made by the unaccountable, undemocratic, so-called

professional board. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a second.

The minister has put before us a piece of legislation that sets

into place a screening panel that chooses, in effect, who the members of the

TransLink board are going to be. Now, the minister didn't bother to wait for the

legislation. Not only did he bring to this House legislation which is

undemocratic and unaccountable, but he didn't bother to wait for it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The substance of the bill is undemocratic, and the way in

which he moved forward with the bill is undemocratic as well: "Gee, it's

unfortunate there wasn't the opportunity to do it in the Legislature." There

wasn't the opportunity to do it in the Legislature. Why? Government has control

over what comes to the Legislature and when it comes to the Legislature. They

let it fall off the table last time. They just went ahead with it. It's not the

law yet. "Doesn't matter. We'll just go ahead with it." What did he go ahead

with?

He went ahead with a screening panel that's made up of five

representatives, five groups, who chose those people that are going to be, in

the end, the board of TransLink. Who are they? The board of trade and the

Gateway Council — parenthetically we should mention that the board of trade is

on the Gateway Council, so the board of trade gets two undemocratic kicks at the

can — the chartered accountants association. The mayors get to choose one, and

the minister gets to choose one.

What's the character of that organization? The character of that

organization is that it is completely and totally trustworthy to the government.

They can trust that the people who are appointed to this undemocratic,

unaccountable board that will make all the fundamental decisions with respect to

TransLink…. The government can trust that those guys and gals are going to do

what they want.

Where, I ask, are the land use planners? They could have helped.

If you wanted to have this loony screening panel and you were convinced it was a

good idea, you might have put the land use planners on the screening panel to

help choose who's going to run TransLink. You might have put the transportation

planners on the screening panel to decide who's going to be the undemocratic,

unaccountable board. They know something about transportation and land use

planning. Nope, don't see them.

You might have put an environmentalist on the screening panel. The

minister, though, we know is the "minister of browning B.C." rather than of

"greening B.C." The Minister of Transportation is the minister whose

transportation strategy is a transportation strategy that has everything to do

with roads, bridges, cars and greenhouse gases and very little to do with

climate change, public transit and finding solutions to the important problems

that we all face together and that our children will face. So no

environmentalist on the screening panel. That has somehow got missed — not

surprisingly, given that the Minister of Transportation is the "minister of the

browning of B.C."

What about a worker representative? We've got all these business

people. What about a worker representative, a trade unionist? "No, don't want

those guys and gals there. They're dangerous. They can't be trusted. We don't

know what they might say."

L. Krog: It might be what the people want.

D. Chudnovsky: It might be what the people want.

What about people from the Bus Riders Union? It's a transit

authority. It's the screening panel that's going to choose the unelected,

unaccountable board. Okay, if you want an unelected, unaccountable board, I

guess you're the government, and you can do it if you want, but put somebody who

rides the bus on the screening panel. How about that? "No, sorry; they can't be

trusted."

[1155]

What about an academic? You know that at UBC we have a

world-renowned school of transportation planning. It might be a good idea to

have somebody from there on it. At Simon Fraser we have internationally leading

academics who speak to the issues of transportation planning and transportation

policy all the time.

If you really want an undemocratic, unaccountable board and you're

really going to choose them with a screening panel — loony idea, I know — how

about putting somebody on the screening panel who's not simply one of your

buddies from one of the business groups? Have a screening panel that's a little

bit representative of the people of the province and the people of the lower

mainland.

What can we say about this structure that the minister has put

forward? What we can say is two things, it seems to me. They should be very

concerning to all of us, and they are concerning to all of us. That's why I and

we speak strongly in favour of not letting Bill 43 go through.

The two things we can say are that those folks who are going to

make up the undemocratic, unaccountable board of the new TransLink are

completely and totally trustworthy to the government. They are people who won't

make a fuss. They are people who will do the bidding of government. That's the

first thing.

[ Page 9592 ]

The second thing we can say…. This is very, very important and

something that we need to take into account. Their approach is guaranteed to be

a business-model approach, when what we need is a public policy approach. We

need to be businesslike, but we need a public policy approach because the

motivators, the underpinnings, the principles that we need to look at when we're

planning transportation in our region and across our province aren't simply

business-model approaches.

They are environmental approaches. They are public policy

approaches. They are "serving the people of the region" approaches. They are

greenhouse gas approaches. They are transportation and land use planning

approaches. There are all kinds of public policy needs that need to be met in

terms of the work that needs to be done by the panel.

To finish my remarks, this model of governance is not in the

interests of the people of the region. It is a significant error. There are

improvements that can be made to TransLink. We stand here ready to join with the

government to make those improvements, but it is not an improvement to take away

democratic control from the people of the region.

We oppose that. We continue to oppose it, and we'll oppose till

the last minute of this session.

D. Chudnovsky moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175