2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014 (continued)

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. C. Oakes

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Committee of the Whole House

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

G. Heyman

Hon. T. Stone

K. Corrigan

H. Bains

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

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

Committee of the Whole House

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

G. Heyman

Hon. T. Stone

H. Bains

K. Corrigan

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

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

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (continued)

M. Mungall

Hon. D. McRae

A. Weaver

J. Kwan

K. Conroy

[ Page 3379 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: In

Section B, the chamber, we will have committee stage continuing of Bill 21, the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014; followed by committee of Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014; and, if time, Bill 23 committee stage, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Social Development.

[1335]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — LOCAL ELECTIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On the amendment to

section 137 (continued) .

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to say thank-you to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for moving this amendment. It's not often you get a chance to, in one amendment, improve democracy for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people, as this amendment would do.

This amendment, of course, would allow Vancouver, as it has unanimously requested for years upon years upon years, to finally ban corporate and union donations in the municipality for municipal elections and, also, to put campaign spending limits into municipal elections.

Of course, Vancouver is well known for multi-million-dollar campaigns by multiple parties, campaigns whose budgets often seem to exceed the amount of money spent in provincial elections by parties — or come close, anyways — in just one city, not the entire province of British Columbia.

That's a problem, and this amendment would fix it. It's a problem because the people of British Columbia should have the right to know that they have one member, one vote. The people of Vancouver should have the right to know that the parties and the individuals that they elect to represent themselves are beholden only to them, the voter, and not to somebody else — not to somebody who made $1 million, $25,000, $100,000, $500,000 donations but just to them. It is the councillor representing the citizen — not the councillor representing the corporation or the councillor representing the union but the councillor representing the citizen.

It has been unanimous. Parties that represent the vast majority of Vancouverites support this. In fact, the parties that have called for this probably received the votes, were voted for by 99 percent of the voters in the city of Vancouver. Effectively, the majority — the vast, vast majority — of Vancouverites have also endorsed this policy. It's not often in Vancouver where you have every elected municipal party unite and call on the provincial government in such a way — unite, put away their partisan differences and say: "This is the right thing."

Of course, we know that this has been an issue for years, and the government has been supposed to act on behalf of the will of the people for years and has declined to. They've refused to act on this, just as they've refused to act on our request to ban corporate and union donations provincially.

The B.C. Liberals, for some reason, think that it's okay to donate whatever you want in this upcoming election from wherever you want, from whomever wants to. I think that's wrong, because Vancouver should be for Vancouverites.

Vancouver should be about having a council that is representative of the citizens, that is elected by the citizens, whose campaigns are funded by the citizens, not by some outside forces — not by some people who have projects they want to see proceed who, through their corporations, can make massive donations; not by somebody who wants a better deal — but by the people. That's what democracy should be all about.

[1340]

I find it shameful that this government refuses to act upon the unanimous request of my city, my constituents and the constituents who represent all of Vancouver.

That the members for Vancouver-Quilchena, Vancouver-Fraserview, Vancouver–False Creek won't come up into this House and defend what will likely be their votes against this I think is wrong, and they have to answer to their constituents, because their constituents have made clear in their votes that they support this.

I hope they rise and defend their positions. I hope they rise and tell us why they think corporations and unions should be able to make unlimited donations to municipal parties and municipal candidates, because so far they have not. Especially, I would argue that the member for Vancouver-Fraserview should have her say, since she again and again spoke to the media, voted in support of these actions when she was a councillor in Vancouver and called on this government, when she was a councillor, to act. The fact that she won't, I think, speaks volumes.

It's unfortunate, because a better democracy could be

[ Page 3380 ]

had if this amendment was passed. A better democracy that all citizens of Vancouver could have more confidence in would result if this amendment passed.

We are about one person, one vote in this province. We are about one person, one vote because a democracy should be for the people, by the people, of the people — not by some special interest who decides they want a project and has a heck of a lot of money. No, we don't have one person, 1,000 votes. We don't have one person, 10,000 votes or one million votes. We have one person, one vote for a reason — because we believe in equality. We believe that every citizen should have an equal say. We know that money allows people to amplify their voices.

If every person said who they voted for and that's the way it worked, and they voted and that was the election, we could understand that. But in this case, the B.C. Liberal government has decided that one person, if they have $1 million, $25,000, what have you, through their corporation or their union, can have a much bigger voice.

In municipal elections the turnout is not always high. I wish it were higher, and I think, certainly, much more must be done to do that. But when you have a small pool of voters, money matters, because people go out and they spend a lot of money on advertising, on phone banks. They spend a lot of money on going out and having people knock on doors, herd people to get out to do the voting.

As we've all seen in our own campaigns, campaigns are expensive, but nobody should have an unfair advantage because they have one corporation or one union decide that their voice was worth more than another. The citizens should be who count here, not a special interest who has a desire. No, it should be the citizens, and that's why this amendment is so important.

We've had unanimous support for this, and I don't understand why the minister can't respect that. That's something that my city demands, needs, desires, wants, hopes for, dreams for. It's something we've asked for again and again. I don't know why the B.C. Liberals have decided Vancouver's voice doesn't matter. I don't know why the B.C. Liberals have rejected the citizens of Vancouver, who have demanded this and requested this so many times. I don't know why the B.C. Liberals have told the public, effectively, by refusing to do this that their voice is worth less unless they have a lot of money. That's the result of what will happen here.

We've seen it in Vancouver. We've seen it again and again. Multiple political parties led to a huge increase in cynicism. They want their votes to count. They want their voices to count. They want their individual contributions to count. So if you're living on a fixed income but you have a party that you want to support, they want that money to be worth just as much as if you are a wealthy person and want to make your donation. But they can't do that if a corporation can step in and donate $1 million. They can't do that if somebody can donate so much to effectively drown out their voices.

They can write a letter to the editor saying: "I support so-and-so." But you know what's next to that letter to the editor? It could be a full page, five pages, the front page of the newspaper demanding that people vote in a different direction, all sponsored by somebody with a heck of a lot more money than they do.

[1345]

That's wrong. That's not how democracy should function. We see the excesses of that in the United States. We see how, unfortunately, the United States has decided corporations are people and that they can spend however much they want to elect the corporation's favourite candidate.

Well, effectively, here the B.C. Liberals have declared that corporations are people too and that the corporation's voice can be just as loud, if not louder — and certainly we've seen louder — than the citizen's voice.

I talk to people in business, people in unions, people in community groups, neighbours, retired folks, young folks. They want their voice and vote to matter. They want it to really matter, because it's them who the government is supposed to represent — their voice, their desire — not who has the most money and not a corporation or a union that has its own desire. They want it to be about the people. That's what democracy should be all about.

If the members for Vancouver-Fraserview, Vancouver-Quilchena and Vancouver–False Creek would tell this House why they refuse to support this — as so far I've seen no indication that they'll vote in support of this — I think that would help us and help their constituents understand why they refuse to listen to their will, why they refuse to act upon their desire, why they believe that a corporate voice is more important or should be allowed to be louder than their own.

This amendment is important. I thank the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for moving it on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver, who have called for this action for over a decade. This will help our democracy. This will make municipal elections fairer. This will make sure that our council is completely representative of the people of the city. This will allay any concerns about special deals — "you scratch my back, I scratch your back" kinds of situations. This will make it about the people, who, after all, we should all be thinking of first.

I am proud to vote in support of this amendment. I hope that the B.C. Liberals will decide that democracy matters more than partisan self-interest and will support this amendment as well.

Hon. C. Oakes: I appreciate the comments that have been raised, and I appreciate the amendment that was put forward, but I don't support the amendment.

Expense limits will be introduced for the next local elections after 2017. Campaign finance rules are important and should apply across British Columbia. We re-

[ Page 3381 ]

spect all British Columbians, and we respect the voices of all communities — whether it's large or small, whether it's Vancouver, whether it's Prince George, whether it's Dawson Creek. We feel that when we move forward on expense limits, it should be consistent across the province.

Our approach to local election rules has been to maintain same rules in all communities, and in making the recommendations, the task force felt that the principle of consistency should continue. Having a different set of rules in different communities could lead to unfairness, confusion and potential compliance and enforcement challenges.

For example, in an area such as the Lower Mainland it can be confusing if a person was able to make a certain contribution in Vancouver but not in Burnaby. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey brought up the examples in Ontario. Well, they have a ward system.

British Columbia is unique. We have local governments, we have municipalities, we have regional districts, we have Islands Trust, and we have school districts. What was very clear as we talked to communities across British Columbia is that there needs to be consistency. That is what this legislation does. Phase 1 talks about transparency, so voters now know who will be making those contributions. In phase 2, which we'll be implementing in time for the next election, we'll be looking at election expenses.

But I have this to offer to my colleagues. We heard that the Vancouver–Point Grey member said every civic party agrees that we need to be looking at this. If every party in Vancouver agrees that we need to look at this, then what reasonableness would suggest is that they could figure out the expense limits for Vancouver. So we are prepared to work with them.

[1350]

Again, this government respects all British Columbians. We respect expense limits for looking at all communities — not treating Vancouver differently than Prince George, differently than Dawson Creek.

[1355]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Corrigan

Simpson

James

Ralston

Dix

Farnworth

Popham

Kwan

Fleming

Conroy

Austin

Hammell

Donaldson

Chandra Herbert

Huntington

Macdonald

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Bains

Heyman

Darcy

Krog

Robinson

B. Routley

Simons

Fraser

Weaver

Rice

Shin

Holman

NAYS — 38

Horne

Sturdy

Bing

McRae

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Wilkinson

Yamamoto

Sultan

Hamilton

Ashton

Morris

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

Coleman

Anton

Bennett

Letnick

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

Dalton

Plecas

Lee

Kyllo

Throness

Larson

Foster

Bernier

Martin

Gibson

G. Heyman: I seek leave to make an introduction to the House.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Heyman: Up above me in the gallery are 30 grade 5 students from the Vancouver Talmud Torah school, along with one of their teachers, Lisa Romalis. A number of other adults and teachers are with them. The Talmud Torah school is in my riding, Vancouver-Fairview. It was founded in 1934, and it's the largest Jewish day school in western Canada, with over 500 students from preschool to grade 7.

The students learn both general and Judaic studies. The school promotes the Jewish tradition of tikkun olam — which, roughly translated, means "healing the world." I hope to see a number of the students in this House taking their seats in years to come. The school has a commitment to relationships, community and educational excellence.

Will the members please join me in welcoming the students of Vancouver Talmud Torah.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the member opposite for the introduction. I'd like to reintroduce a very good friend of mine's daughter, Ava Slykhuis, to the gallery.

Hi, Ava. I hope you're having a fun, fun time in the Legislature today — and your schoolmates. Thank you for coming.

[1400]

Debate Continued

Sections 137 to 213 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the committee rise and

[ Page 3382 ]

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:01 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — LOCAL ELECTIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 21, Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call for committee stage of Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Hon. Speaker, I call that we actually move to continued committee of Bill 23, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH

COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

FUNDING REFERENDA ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:05 p.m.

The Chair: Hon. Members, in our previous session we passed

section 1, so we are on

section

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Heyman: A quick question. The bill says that the referenda held under this act, from the Referendum Act…. It exempts the act from

section 5 of the Offence Act, which says: "A person who contravenes an enactment by doing

an act that it forbids, or omitting to do

an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence against the enactment." I just wonder, from the minister, why this exemption was deemed necessary. I'm just missing something here.

Hon. T. Stone: It's good to be back, isn't it?

In terms of

section 3, the purpose of this section, insofar as having

section 5 of the Offence Act not apply to this act, is simply to remove the general applicability of

section 5 of the Offence Act to this particular act in place of the types of offences that we may want to prescribe that are similar to those that are in the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

G. Heyman:

Section 4 specifies that this act will supersede any contravening or inconsistent municipal bylaw in the region. I just wondered if the minister had particular bylaws in mind or if it's simply a precautionary clause.

Hon. T. Stone: It is simply a precautionary clause, as the member suggested in his question.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

[1410]

G. Heyman:

Section 5 defines the electorate as those residents defined as electors in the Vancouver Charter and Local Government Act, those prescribed to be electors of a treaty First Nation and any other prescribed class in another entity to be added to the referendum.

Can the minister indicate a prospective or prospective prescribed classes, or should I assume that these will be the same as apply in local elections?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, this

section does establish that residents of the transportation service region are entitled to vote in the referendum, and it essentially provides for the ability to prescribe the electorate that we want to define for the purposes of the referendum and to do so, from a streamlining perspective, in conjunction with the local government elections.

G. Heyman: Just for clarity, would there be any prescribed class that might be other than what we would normally think of as residents in the region eligible to vote in a municipal election?

Hon. T. Stone: No, I can't think of any examples of any classes that would come into play here that wouldn't be already contemplated by the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter. It would be very much con-

[ Page 3383 ]

sistent with how classes are defined in those two pieces of legislation.

G. Heyman: I don't want to drag this out, and I won't. Just for certainty, can the minister or the staff provide an example from any other referendum of when a similar clause or a clause identical to this was used? Or is this just simply somewhat anticipatory? I'm thinking that there must be some occasion that has given rise to the development of language such as this, and I can't think of one, so I'm just trying to get some clarity for those people who will be affected by the bill, if and when it passes.

Hon. T. Stone: Really, this section, in particular the subsection the member refers to, subsection (d), is anticipatory. It's nothing more, nothing less. It's really there to ensure that we have maximum flexibility to prescribe whatever classes are necessary for that particular referendum.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

G. Heyman:

Section 6 refers to a commitment that was made by the minister in a letter to the mayors on February 6. If they held a referendum by 2015 — and it appears from recent reports that they at least are on track to have a question prepared and to meet the requirements set out by the minister — it allows the government to cover the cost of a referendum or related costs as prescribed.

[1415]

My questions to the minister, and I may as well ask them all at once: how broadly will costs be covered? Will statutory advertising be covered? How will the parameters of the spending on the referendum be decided? And finally…. Well, I'll save the last question for last.

Hon. T. Stone: Very broadly speaking here,

section 6 does clarify government's commitment to reimburse local and First Nation governments for the costs of administering the referendum. The details of this will be defined in regulation. I do want to say that our intent here is to work very closely with the Mayors Council to define those costs.

Again, the intent is to keep local governments whole. So in terms of the holding of the referendum in and of itself — as per 6(1)(a), anything to do with "the conduct of a referendum," as well as 6(1)(b), "a prescribed matter related to the conduct of a referendum" — it is our intent to cover the incremental costs related to the referendum so that local governments are kept whole.

G. Heyman: The language in the February 6 letter said that the government would pay the costs of the referendum, as long as the referendum was held by June 2015. But the language in the act is permissive. It's not directive. It says: "The government may pay, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, the amount set by regulation under

section 7 (4) (d), to a municipality in the transportation service region…" etc.

So my question to the minister is twofold, or it may be that he just chooses to answer the second question. Why, given the commitment in the letter of February 6, is the language in the act permissive rather than compulsory? Or is the minister prepared to commit today that the regulation will, in fact, specify that the costs will be paid, as long as the referendum is held by a certain date — in other words, reflecting directly the commitment made in the letter of February 6?

[1420]

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, the regulations will clarify the details on this, and certainly, I will ensure that the regulations fulfil government's intent here to cover the incremental costs of holding the referendum for each of the local governments and the First Nations involved.

Again, I'll go back to the commitments that were made so that they're on the record one further time.

If the Mayors Council determines, from a timing perspective, to hold the referendum concurrent with their municipal elections — beginning with the upcoming municipal elections in November 2014 and then every four years thereafter through to 2022 — or, as a special opportunity, an exceptional opportunity, to hold the referendum outside of the municipal election cycle but no later than June 30, 2015, it is the government's intent to cover the incremental costs for the local governments and the First Nations involved to hold the referendum within their communities.

G. Heyman: I thank the minister for that clarification. I'm sure the mayors and First Nations will be pleased to hear the commitment reiterated. Just a little clarification question. Subsection (1)(

b) says that costs of "a prescribed matter related to the conduct of a referendum" may also be covered.

Can the minister offer an example or two of what might be considered a prescribed matter, as opposed to something related to the conduct of the referendum?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the intent of this particular

section is to ensure that we do everything that we can to ensure that local governments are whole in terms of the costs related to the conduct of holding a referendum.

Section 6(1)(b), in terms of what a prescribed matter might be…. And I think that's what the member was really getting at: what's the difference between a matter that involves the conduct of the election versus a prescribed matter? Again, we want to provide maximum flexibility here so that the true intent of the commitment

[ Page 3384 ]

that has been made to keep local governments whole is actually met.

An example of a prescribed matter that doesn't necessarily relate to the actual conduct of the referendum could be, for example, a requirement to retain ballots for a certain period of time after the election is held. There may be costs incurred by local governments to retain those ballots. It doesn't technically relate to the actual holding of the referendum, the conduct of the referendum. But those costs would certainly be costs that we would feel would fall within the intent of our commitment, which is to keep local governments whole on all of the costs related to holding the referendum.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

G. Heyman:

Section 7 contains a long list of examples where things related to the referendum are left to regulation.

There are, throughout, a list of sections where the cabinet may make regulation.

[1425]

In some cases, they appear to be somewhat intrusive on existing powers of municipalities — at least potentially they are. I'm wondering if the minister could just give some examples — for instance, in (2)(a) — of what the act is contemplating with respect to "specified provisions of the Community Charter, the Election Act, the Local Government Act, the School Act or the Vancouver Charter."

Is there anything particular being contemplated that the minister could speak to today?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, the intent of this entire section….

Section 7, which deals with regulatory powers of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I think at the highest level is here to provide government with the maximum flexibility to effectively streamline this process of holding the referendum as much as possible.

Meaning that the provisions that are already contained within the Community Charter, within the Election Act, the Local Government Act, the School Act and the Vancouver Charter…. Many of those provisions are provisions that make a tremendous amount of sense and that we want to borrow, for the purposes of holding the referendum.

A good example would be through order-in-council, we would pass a regulation that would essentially provide for the adoption or the use of the provisions in, say, the Vancouver Charter or the Local Government Act relating to the chief election officer. Instead of recreating that wheel and going to all of the work of prescribing those details in detail here within the act, we're saying through regulation and in an effort to streamline this process, we will borrow those provisions from these other acts, which are all used to conduct local government elections.

G. Heyman: Just to be clear, then, is it fair to assume that with the possible exception of something contemplated in (2), sections (3) and (4) really contemplate…. Where it contemplates any limitation on powers of municipalities or First Nations, that would be a limitation on specific authorities that were granted already pursuant to this act, rather than any existing ones?

[1430]

Hon. T. Stone: There is really nothing specific contemplated here other than to say that, from a general perspective, we really, truly want to create the maximum space that we can through this legislation for us to borrow, through regulation, whichever provisions are deemed to be necessary to hold this referendum and borrow whichever provisions we deem to be necessary from any of these other acts that are already in place and are used to hold the myriad of local government elections, whether it's school districts or local governments.

There's nothing specific contemplated. We just want to borrow as many provisions from these various acts as we possibly can in an effort to streamline this process, and we will do so through regulations.

G. Heyman: Just for greater clarity,

section 2(b), that says "adapting any provisions of those Acts or regulations with changes that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable" is actually not contemplated for any purpose other than this referendum bill.

Hon. T. Stone: Yeah, the member is correct in his statement.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

G. Heyman: On

section 8, a simple question. Sub (5) says: "A regulation under subsection (1) or (2) ceases to have effect 2 years after the regulation comes into force." And (1) or (2) refers to the creation of regulations. I'm just wondering: why the sunset clause?

[ Page 3385 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Assuming that I understand the member's question, the intent — as the member referred to it, the "sunset" element — of this is as follows. The regulations that will be created for the purposes of conducting the referendum will only have life for as long as necessary to actually conduct the referendum. Once the referendum has been held and is behind us, then the regulations in question will no longer be valid.

G. Heyman: The reason I asked the question is because

section 9 refers to the possibility of additional referenda that, presumably, would be subsequent to two years from now. Again, I'm not clear what the relationship of

section 8 is, then, to

section 9.

Hon. T. Stone: Well, the simple answer is this. Once the referendum is finished, the regulations that were created to assist in the conducting of that referendum will expire within a two-year time frame. Should there then be a subsequent referendum held, let's say, to concur with the next municipal election cycle — which, as the member rightfully put it, would be, presumably at that point, two years later — the act would continue to apply in that second referendum as it did in the first, meaning the necessary regulations would be recreated and adapted as necessary, pursuant to the act, to provide for the conduct of that subsequent referendum.

[1435]

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

G. Heyman: My friends opposite are eager to dispense with this bill, but I'm not quite done.

Section 9. When we were in committee stage on this bill three weeks ago, I spoke at some length about our concerns about the referendum process in general, the opposition to the referendum, the negative impacts that I and some of my colleagues thought would flow from the referendum.

We used quite a bit of time to make those points. They're recorded in Hansard . I don't feel the need to make them yet again, in this chamber at least. But one of the things that caused great concern — and in a sense, it's reflected in another bill that we will be looking at in third reading, when we are finished with this one — is that

section 9 apparently makes a requirement that any additional funding that isn't attained through the first referendum must be sought through a subsequent referendum and a subsequent referendum and a subsequent referendum and, yet again, another subsequent referendum.

In other words, we've got perpetual referenda on TransLink funding. From our perspective, it was bad enough, the delays that were contemplated by one referendum, which is a test and a requirement not being applied, as the minister himself noted in estimates, to any other transportation project within British Columbia — certainly not highway construction and not even other modes of transit. So we thought: "Okay, election promise one-off." But apparently, we're going to keep going.

Any time the mayors require additional funding to fund infrastructure or investments that are needed…. And that may well happen. Trying to contemplate the financial needs for a couple or three decades going forward is going to be a pretty big pill for the public to swallow, and after the first referendum they may not even want any more.

So I have a couple questions about

section 9. Basically,

section 9 says, if I read it correctly, that any additional funding — "an increase of the limits on or rates of a source of revenue," a "modification of assessment mechanisms" or "an amendment to an enactment to enforce a source of revenue" — must go to referendum, unless the minister means that the Mayors Council may present in some other way to the minister, pursuant to sub (2), a demonstration of "the need of the authority for additional funding sources" and, under sub (3), "that a majority of the electors in the transportation service region supports the proposal…."

The first question, I guess, is: is there any mechanism, other than a referendum, that would meet the requirement of sub (3)? Let's start with that question.

Hon. T. Stone: The intent of this

section is, again, to provide maximum clarity, which I think is owed to the mayors. I think it's a legitimate question to ask: when the province says, "Should a new funding source be requested," what exactly does that entail? We've tried, through this section, to provide the clarity around what a new funding source would look like, and what would, therefore, trigger the requirement for a referendum.

[1440]

Without going into the extensive discussion back and forth we had three weeks ago on this bill, particularly in second reading, we've said that if the mayors want to expand transit and transportation, they can do so. If they choose to do so with existing funding levers — namely, property tax, the farebox — there is no requirement for a referendum. If, however, the mayors determine that they wish to request of the province that new funding sources as defined in this

section should be part of the funding package to fund the expansion of transit and transportation, then that is what triggers the referendum.

Again, we're trying, through this section…. The intent of this

section is to provide maximum clarity to the mayors as to what exactly, from a new funding source perspective, triggers a referendum.

I would end on this note. In the beginning of

section 34.1(1) where it says "In this section," it's the words "additional funding sources…." And "sources" is the key word that I think, really, one must focus on here.

[ Page 3386 ]

The mayors will not have to ask for a referendum to be held, generally, for funding for TransLink. It's should they desire a new funding source that is not currently provided for and approved by the electors within the region. It's that new funding source which will trigger the referendum.

That's all I have to say about that.

G. Heyman: With respect to the minister, a normal reading of "additional funding sources" might mean something new. But the definition….

Well, it's not a definition in the sense of a

definitions section, but in section (1), "additional funding sources" means: "(

a) a source of revenue for, or funding of, the authority, other than a source of revenue or funding that is available to the authority under this Act, (

b) an increase of the limits on or rates of a source of revenue…(

c) the modification of assessment mechanisms…or (

d) amendment to an enactment to enforce a source of revenue…."

So additional funding sources really means that if you want another dime, you have to go to referendum. I assume my reading of that is correct.

I'll ask the minister that question, if my reading of subsection (1) correct, and in addition to that, if subsection (3) means a referendum is the only means to demonstrate to the minister that a majority of electors in the transportation service region support a proposal for additional funding sources. Or is there another mechanism that might be acceptable to the minister other than a referendum for the purposes of subsection (3)?

Hon. T. Stone: In the first part of the member's question, dare I say the member is incorrect. When the member says, "If they want to raise a single dime of new revenue, it must go to a referendum," that's simply not correct. I've said quite consistently that the Mayors Council has available to them a number of other levers, including property tax, the farebox.

They could raise property taxes tomorrow. I come from Kamloops. We pay a hospital tax in Kamloops. There's no hospital tax paid in the Lower Mainland. The trade-off was very clear when that deal was struck that local governments are to make up that difference, and make up that difference with property tax. There has been quite a bit of analysis done over the years that I think calls into question whether or not the mayors have actually used all of that tax. But I digress. Nevertheless, it's their choice.

[1445]

Any new funding sources, beyond those that are available today, that require the provincial government, the province of British Columbia, to actually do something through legislation, whether it be through

an act of the Legislature or regulation…. It is those new funding sources requiring the province to enable them that triggers the referendum.

On the second part of the member's question, I think the member was asking if I could contemplate anything other than a referendum that would be acceptable, that would meet the test "to the minister's satisfaction," as detailed in subsection (3).

I'm not going to speculate about what might be acceptable to a future minister. What I will say is that as the Minister of Transportation, as the current minister who is responsible for this legislation and who is responsible for fulfilling the commitment that we've made to the people of the Lower Mainland, I will be satisfied by the results of a referendum. That's where I am today; that's where the government is today.

G. Heyman: Well, I appreciate the minister correcting my trying to speed up proceedings by simply not repeating every word in 1(a). Obviously, I meant ones that weren't sources of revenue or funding that's available to the authority under this act.

I think the minister has, in fact, confirmed that other than that, if the Mayors Council wishes to raise an additional dime — although I'm sure they would want to raise more than that — for a particular purpose, for service or infrastructure, they would need to do a number of things to satisfy the minister. Presumably, they would have to, according to what this minister has said, do it under a referendum.

He has clarified, I think — he will correct me if I'm wrong; if I'm correct, there's no need to — that if his government changes its mind at some point or if a future minister changes that minister's mind, a demonstration of a majority of electoral support other than a referendum could be, under this act, acceptable.

Finally, I simply point out to the minister that in terms of whatever legislative changes the government would have to make to allow new funding mechanisms, the fact that they will be restricted to a particular rate or form of assessment or limit is purely a device of the government's own choosing. They're clearly stating in this bill that that will be a feature of additional funding sources. In fact, that is what's going to force the mayors to go to a referendum for additional funding.

I've spoken at length about why I think that's problematic. It's deeply disappointing that this minister has chosen to, in fact, in my view, go beyond what an election commitment was — an ill-thought-out election commitment, in my opinion, but beyond it nonetheless — to create, in effect, what I would consider perpetual referendum — with the exception of subsection (4), which I might refer to as the faint-hope clause.

It says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may repeal this

section by regulation." Is it the minister's intention to use regulation to repeal the

section following the first referendum referred to in

section 2 of this bill, which will either happen in 2015 or sometime before 2022? If it isn't already the minister's intention to repeal this

section of the bill, the perpetual referendum section, what

[ Page 3387 ]

particular conditions might lead the minister to consider repealing this

section by regulation?

[1450]

Hon. T. Stone: Again,

section 34.1 is all about providing maximum clarity for the Mayors Council today on what is deemed to define additional funding As we have discussed, it also provides for what's required, what must happen to demonstrate to the minister's satisfaction that a majority of the electors have actually approved the referendum.

Subsection (4) is here to provide, again, maximum flexibility for the future. As per my last response, I'm not going to speculate on what may or may not happen in the future with subsequent ministers or subsequent governments. We are very much committed to delivering on the commitment today, here and now, that we made to the people of the Lower Mainland that a referendum will be held if the Mayors Council requests new funding sources as defined in this

section today to fund any expansion of transit and transportation.

G. Heyman: I hate to get too hypothetical, but if we have a referendum and for some reason the referendum fails — we know that some of them pass and some of them fail — the end result will undoubtedly be continued congestion and gridlock, which has not just lifestyle implications but economic implications, and not just for the region but also for the province.

In that instance, would the minister contemplate even the vaguest possibility that he might or some future minister might at some point say: "You know what? We need to do something about this. We can't risk having a referendum fail again. I'm repealing this section, and we're going to approach it some other way"?

Hon. T. Stone: My simple answer to the member's question is no. I'm not going to speculate or contemplate what might happen in the future. I am very much focused on delivering on our commitments of the people of the Lower Mainland region here and now today — and very proud to do so.

K. Corrigan: I'm sorry if there's any ground that has been covered — I won't cover a lot — but I wanted to clarify a couple of things for my own satisfaction with regard to

section 9 and the changes to the South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority Act that are contained in this section.

Just to be absolutely clear, 34.1(1)(b), which defines "additional funding sources" as including "an increase of the limits on or rates of a source of revenue for, or funding of, the authority under this Act." That applies to property taxes if there's a desire to have property tax rates increase. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Stone: The answer is no. This does not apply to property tax.

K. Corrigan: Are property taxes not "a source of revenue for, or funding of, the authority under this Act"?

Hon. T. Stone: No. This

section does not in any way, shape or form deal with property taxes. It deals with additional funding sources. As I have stated on the record a couple of times now, the purpose of this section, the intent of this section, is to provide maximum clarity for the Mayors Council.

In the fulfilment of our commitment, where we said there will be a referendum if the Mayors Council desires additional funding sources to fund that expansion, we wanted to be really clear as to what "additional funding sources" means, and that's why we have provided for this section.

[1455]

K. Corrigan: The definition may be of "additional funding sources," but you have to look to what the act says is included, and frankly, I don't think it does provide maximum clarity. My question that I just asked and that was not answered….

That may not be what the minister intended. That may not be what the framers of this piece of legislation intended. But, very specifically, are not property taxes a source of revenue under this act? Because if it is, it looks to me that any increase in property taxes would then be qualified as part of the additional funding sources, and it would have to be demonstrated that a majority of the electors wanted it.

Hon. T. Stone: I'm glad the member is cross-referencing with the act. That's the way to do this.

We do believe that this provides maximum clarity. I think, as the member should know well in looking at the act, that this new

section will apply to…. While the act does provide for property taxes, it does not set any caps. It doesn't prescribe any rates. It doesn't set any limits on property tax. So the mayors have complete authority today within that act to establish new levels of property tax, new rates of property tax, without requiring them coming to the province. There's no involvement whatsoever of the province of British Columbia in that.

Now, I'll give the member a couple of examples of other levies or taxes which would fall under this provision, 34.1. That would be specifically the fuel tax and the hydro levy. Again, like property tax, the fuel tax and the hydro levy are provided for in the act that the member points to, but they're also provided for with very clear limits. So if the Mayors Council wants to go beyond those prescribed limits as detailed in the act, then that would certainly trigger the provisions, as detailed in this new section, 34.1.

[ Page 3388 ]

K. Corrigan: Just for clarity, is the minister saying that because subsection (

b) says "an increase of the limits on or rates of a source of revenue" — because it references limits and rates and because there is no limit to property taxes now — that's the reason it doesn't apply to property taxes?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes.

K. Corrigan: I understand that if you're talking about the fact that there are no limits, but I don't understand, if the "rates of a source of revenue," which is the second part of that phrase…. If they want to increase the rates, would that not apply to property taxes?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the answer is no. This particular

section relates to "an increase in the limits on or the rates of a source of revenue" that is detailed under the act or in the act. There is no prescribed limit to property tax detailed in the act, so that doesn't require the provincial government to do anything. We're not involved in that. The mayors can increase property tax without requiring any action on the part of the province. Therefore, the provisions of

section 34.1 would not be applicable in that situation.

[1500]

K. Corrigan: So if you take out "increase of the limits on…." They are two separate pieces. "Additional funding sources" means an increase of the rates of a source of revenue, which could include property taxes. Would that not…?

The minister is referring to the act. But the natural reading of it — could it not be…? If a local municipality or a regional district — Metro Vancouver — decided that they wanted to increase the amount that goes onto property taxes, would that not be the rates that are paid for those property taxes?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I'm going to be very, very general about this. The intent of this

section is to define, as clearly as possible, what "additional funding source" means in the context of what would actually trigger the requirement for a referendum.

What

section 34.1 provides for here is: should the Mayors Council determine that they want to propose a new funding source that requires the province of British Columbia, through regulation or otherwise, to enable that new funding source, a funding source which is currently not provided for within the act, then 34.1 would apply.

As well, should the Mayors Council want to increase the rates on existing funding sources, which are provided for in the act, that have set limits on those rates — like the hydro levy, like the fuel tax — then that also would trigger the requirement to hold a referendum. That's clearly detailed within this section.

[1505]

If, however, the Mayors Council wants to increase the rates of revenue sources that don't have set limits in the act or aren't dealt with in the act and are entirely within the purview of local government — do not require the provincial government to do anything — then that would not trigger the requirement for a referendum. Property tax is one good example of a source of revenue that the mayors have completely within their grasp today to raise or lower as they see fit, requiring no action on the part of the province of British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could clarify, then, whether property taxes are a source of revenue under the act. I'm not talking about rates or limits. I'm talking about whether property taxes are cited as a source of revenue under the act presently.

Hon. T. Stone: The simple answer to the member's question is yes. Property tax is cited in the act, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. Property tax is specifically cited within

part 3 of said act.

K. Corrigan: Just one more question. It is a source of revenue under the act. So I don't understand why, if the greater Vancouver regional district were to increase the rates of a source of revenue under the act that the minister has just said is a source of revenue under the act, it would not fall under additional funding sources. It may not be the intention, but so far the minister has not convinced me that that would not be included and, therefore, that there would have to be a referendum in order to allow that.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I'll try one more time.

Section 34.1(1)(a), in defining "additional funding source," says: "a source of revenue for, or funding of, the authority, other than a source of revenue or funding that is available to the authority under this Act." Property tax is already available to the authority under the act. So this

section would not be applicable to property tax in that context.

Likewise, subsection (

b) indicates "an increase of the limits on or rates of a source of revenue for, or funding of, the authority under this Act." Well, there are no specified limits on property tax in the act, so this

section does not apply to property tax in that instance either.

G. Heyman: I'm almost prepared to move on from this act. We are moving on to clause-by-clause on Bill 22 shortly, but I would ask the minister and his staff to look closely at

section 24 of Bill 22, specifically 196(1)(b)(

i) and (ii), and then, having read that, repeat to us whether or not he believes the mayors have the ability

[ Page 3389 ]

to raise money through an increase in the property tax — without limit.

The Chair: We're currently dealing with Bill 23, and we haven't passed Bill 22 at this point. Unfortunately, with the way that the legislation is currently going through this committee, Member, it's difficult for that question in the way it's currently been phrased. If you could phrase it a different way, that would help the Chair.

[1510]

G. Heyman: I appreciate your guidance, Chair and I'm trying to think of a way.

My understanding of what the minister has said is that there is no constraint on the mayors from raising additional revenue through the property tax. I have perhaps somewhat inappropriately referenced a

section of the act, but nonetheless, I would ask the minister to just determine with his staff once again if that answer is absolutely accurate or if there's some reconsideration necessary for the answer.

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly stand by my previous response. We believe that my previous response is an accurate reflection of the treatment of property tax in the context of

section 34.1.

H. Bains: I think the confusion, maybe, is this. In the current act, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act,

section 196 talks about property tax and the limitations — how much property tax can be raised in the investment year. It says exactly, when the investment plan is being prepared that particular year, how much revenue through property can be raised. It's based on the established rate. Then, subsequent years, it's no greater than 103 percent or $18 million. Is that not correct? So there is no….

The mayors do not have authority to raise it as much as they wish, lower or raise. There are limitations under 196. Is that not correct?

[1515]

Hon. T. Stone: I think, even though we're maybe crossing over a bit into the next bill that we're going to be dealing with, that really changes the goalposts here relating to the replacement of base and supplemental plans with a new investment plan and so forth.

I will say to the member for Surrey-Newton that he is incorrect in his

interpretation of the current

section

Section 196 of the act provides for the indexing of property tax, as he pointed out, the ability for TransLink to effectively rely upon a 3 percent increase in property tax per year without requiring any additional action on the part of, or approval of, the Mayors Council.

However, this act also provides for the ability, through the supplemental planning process — which, again, is being replaced in the next bill we're going to be talking about or discussing — for the Mayors Council to determine that property taxes will be increased beyond the 3 percent that's indexed in

section 196.

In any event, none of this requires the province to do anything. This does not require provincial action, provincial enablement of anything. So it is our belief that, as written, any changes in property tax would not fall within, or be applicable to, the new provision of 34.1.

G. Heyman: Well, I think the meaning of the existing act is plain, on the face of it. I'm prepared to move on, but I think it's important to state that on this side we're just not getting the minister's answer. We don't think it's correct. There'll be an opportunity to revisit this in Bill 22.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:19 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH

COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

FUNDING REFERENDA ACT

Bill 23, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

[1520]

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH

COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 22; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 3:21 p.m.

[ Page 3390 ]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

G. Heyman: Well,

section 2 is essentially a consequential amendment. It fundamentally deals with the issue of budgeting.

We spoke during second reading about the Acuere report and comments on governance in general — some of the concerns that the mayors had about what real meaning existed with approval of long-term strategic plans or long-term investment plans if they didn't have approval of the annual operating budget which actually implements the features of that plan.

To some extent the minister recognized that in his February 6 letter when he said: "TransLink's board will be expected to prepare budgets, oversee operations and implement plans consistent with Mayors Council approved strategies and plans." Yet there is no place in Bill 22 where actual control over the annual operating budget is given to the mayors, and certainly no input.

If I look at the subsequent addendum to the Acuere report that was commissioned by the mayors following the tabling of Bill 22, the purpose of their subsequent report was to see how much further Bill 22 came toward meeting the various tests of good governance that they had laid out — the division of various governance functions at the policy level, management level and implementation level that was found in what they referred to as leader regions, specifically Stockholm and London.

If we look quickly at the subsequent report, they note:

"With specific regard to the preparation of annual plans and the review of annual budgets, it is noted that in the capital region the Victoria Regional Transit Commission has a significant role defined in the B.C. Transit Act. The Mayors Council should propose that it be given the ability to prepare plans and review budgets at least in a manner similar to the role of the VRTC."

They in fact have done that and more.

There's nothing in here about budgeting. If you go on further in the report it notes:

"The absence of the Mayors Council from a role in the preparation of annual service and other plans, which is where many of the more important local changes in bus services, service levels, etc., are made, combined with the comparatively remote nature of the TransLink board, is unlikely to enhance responsiveness."

[1525]

At another spot it notes that the bill does not explicitly give the Mayors Council real policy-making authority, certainly no budget-making authority or approval.

My question to the minister is: given his comment in the letter of February 6, does he not see some potential problems inherent in giving the mayors the appearance of final approval over long-term policy and strategy — and I'll say more about that in the appropriate sections — without giving them any role whatsoever, and certainly not the role in creating or approving the annual service plans and operating budget?

Hon. T. Stone: I want to start off by saying that I am thrilled that we are now dealing with this bill. This bill fulfils another commitment that we made to the people of the Lower Mainland. The Mayors Council has been asking for a number of years now for more authority. They've been asking for more authority and the accountability that comes with that authority over the decisions relating to regional transportation in Metro Vancouver. I am very proud that I'm the minister delivering on that commitment.

This is very significant. The provisions in this bill represent a significant transfer of responsibility and authority from the TransLink board to the Mayors Council. The Mayors Council will have complete authority over the long-range plan, the 30-year plan. They will have complete authority over the ten-year investment plan. Assuming they assume the two seats that are available to them on the TransLink board, through their chair and their vice-chair they will have a direct say and a vote on the annual budgets and the annual operations as well.

The specific amendment here provided for in

section 2 of this bill is simply to strike the word "commissioner" out. The purpose for that, I think, as the member knows well…. Part of this very significant transfer of authority from the TransLink board and from the commissioner's office to the Mayors Council — this enhancement of accountability and authority that the Mayors Council will now have — is in rolling in the functions of the commissioner's office relating to customer satisfaction and customer complaint processes, the establishment of fares and any adjustments to fares, as well as the disposal of assets.

That's all that's really dealt with in this particular section, and that's why the word "commissioner" is effectively struck from the act as a result of

section 2.

G. Heyman: I think, as the minister would agree, that he as minister might want to bring in some changes in transportation policy, or any of his colleagues in cabinet might want to bring in some new government policy. And if by chance they were not able to have input into the budget necessary to implement that policy, it would be meaningless. If they didn't have a majority in the voting that would ultimately happen on that budget, it would be meaningless, and the policy initiative would be stymied even if, in fact, on paper that was the policy.

[1530]

It should be no surprise to the minister that the mayors themselves have been extremely concerned about their absence from control over the annual operating budget in order to give life to their policy and strategic plans — which they have yet to be able to make, but they hope to have approval over, at least — although whether they have meaningful input into it remains to be seen and will be debated in future sections.

I would like to propose the following amendment to

[ Page 3391 ]

Bill 22, and that would be:

[ To amend

section 2 of the Act by deleting the text shown as struckthrough and adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 7 (3) (

c) is amended by striking out "the commissioner and".

Section 7 is amended

(

a) in subsection (3) (

c) by striking out "the commissioner and".

(

b) in subsection (7) (

b) by striking out "and"

(

c) in subsection (7) (

c) by adding ", and"

(

d) in subsection (7) by adding the following paragraph:

(

d) be approved by resolution of the mayors' council on regional transportation. ]

The Chair: Proceed. Do you have further comments on the amendment?

On the amendment.

G. Heyman: The amendment is fairly straightforward, I think. Approval over a long-term investment plan, approval over strategic planning has been given to the Mayors Council, although the board certainly retains the role, along with TransLink senior staff, of preparing that plan. That is an issue that I will address subsequently.

I have many years experience in governance. I think the minister has experience in local governance. The minister believes that the direction to TransLink board is "to prepare budgets, oversee operations and implement plans consistent with the Mayors Council–approved strategies and plans," but frankly, there are no words to that effect within the act. Even those words were not enough to satisfy the mayors.

They have been quite clear. They would like…. In fact, they think that to give their role real meaning, they need to be able to develop and approve the annual operating budget in order to implement a strategic plan on a day-to-day basis.

In fact, there are a number of powers of the commissioner that are given to them. They are responsible for fare increases. They are responsible for receiving and responding to complaints. They are responsible for all kinds of things that may in fact be occasioned by the annual operating budget — the need for a fare increase, if the budget doesn't fund the priorities they have in a strategic plan; complaints that are driven by service decisions or allocations of funding within the annual operating budget that don't line up with the vision of the mayors.

It seems pretty clear and simple. If you're going to make the mayors accountable for any host of things, including a strategic plan and a long-term investment plan, then they should have the rest of the package, which is the ability to engage in the preparation of the budget on an annual basis; the annual priorities, because the budget does reflect the annual priorities; and the ability to prove that. That is found nowhere in this act.

That is why I am proposing this amendment — to give the mayors the responsibility to approve the annual operating budget, which gives life to the strategic plan and ensures that the budget and the annual priorities are entirely consistent with the direction of the strategic plan and the long term priorities of the mayors that in theory, at least, will be the long-term priorities of TransLink.

[1535]

Hon. T. Stone: I rise to say very clearly that we certainly will not be supporting this amendment — and very, very simply for this reason. We believe that good governance comes about when you have a group of locally elected officials — in this case, the mayors — who are responsible for the strategic level of the operation. Through the amendments that are contained within this bill, we are transferring significant responsibility to the mayors with respect to the 30-year transportation plan.

They will be responsible for a ten-year investment plan, which replaces the fairly cumbersome current base and supplemental planning process. They will be responsible for fare adjustments. They will be responsible for the disposal and sale of assets. They will be responsible for customer service and complaints processes. They will also approve the compensation of not just the TransLink board but also the president and CEO and the executive at TransLink. Again, very significant authority that's being transferred to the Mayors Council through this piece of legislation.

We are retaining a professional TransLink board to oversee the annual budget and the day-to-day operations of the operation. We believe that the amendments that this bill provides for will ensure that the annual budget, the annual plan, that the TransLink board will be responsible for must be in alignment, must be congruent with the ten-year investment plan and the 30-year strategic plan, which are the purview of the Mayors Council.

Furthermore, I would like to say very clearly on the record again that there have been for quite some time now and there will continue to be, even after these amendments, two seats on the TransLink board that have been very cold for the last number of years because no butts have been sitting in those seats. Those two seats are reserved for the Mayors Council chair and vice-chair to fully participate in the deliberations of the TransLink board and vote on all of the proceedings of the TransLink board. So there is a tremendous linkage there as well.

Again, in

summary, we'll be opposing this amendment. We believe that the legislation as written provides for a very significant transfer of authority to the Mayors Council, and this again represents the fulfilment of a key commitment that we made, not just to the mayors but to the people of the Lower Mainland.

H. Bains: It just fails me to understand why this government constantly likes to pick a fight with the mayors. Here we are talking about, in the Lower Mainland, one of the most important projects and a policy debate that

[ Page 3392 ]

we have, which is public transportation.

The mayors have fingers. They have the feeling. They are the ones who make land use decisions. It only makes sense to give them the authority not only for strategic planning and long-term investment but also to control the budget as well. It just makes sense. They all go hand in hand.

For this government and the minister to stand up and say, "Well, they gave them two seats on the board back sometime…." The minister probably needs to go back in the debate that we had, in this House and outside, between the mayors and the then minister at that time. They rejected that notion right from the beginning. They didn't want those two seats given to them. They want an overhaul of the governance model that existed there.

And the overall governance model — you didn't go far enough again this time. You had an opportunity to work with the mayors and allow them to take the responsibility, because they do want to take the responsibility. They are the people who actually make those decisions, and they are the right people to make those decisions when it comes to land use decisions and transportation.

[1540]

Every expert in the world agrees that those two decisions go hand in hand. We all know that. The minister will stand up and agree with that as well.

Why just pick and choose and decide what kinds of powers, what kind of responsibility you want to give to the mayors, when the mayors are saying they will make it work if you give them the responsibility that they are asking for? But the government….

First, they gave them two seats, and they rejected that. Now they are saying: "Look, give us the responsibility to approve the operating budget as well." You're not giving it to them. I don't get it. The mayors don't get it. And the public out there doesn't get the debate that is going on and the fight that the government has always tried to pick with the local mayors. I just don't understand that.

They are the ones. If they are going to be responsible for strategic planning and long-term investment and if they are to find money, then give them that responsibility so that they will find money and they will be responsible for the operating budget as well. I mean, it just makes sense.

I don't know…. What is it with this government that they cannot understand? It is something that is mind-boggling, the result being that the buses that we need, the extension to SkyTrain that we need, the new Broadway corridor, the extension into Surrey are being held back. That's the result of the government's inaction and constantly trying to pick a fight with the mayors.

I support this amendment. I think it is a commonsense amendment. It is a commonsense approach to dealing with the issues, and I think this is something that will get you out of a jam, Minister. It'll make you work with the mayors, and mayors are committing, in return, to work with you so that we can have the public transportation project back on the rails, back on track. People in Surrey, especially, are looking forward to the expansion of SkyTrain and public transportation, and it's not being served, as the minister is continuing to pick a fight with the mayors.

I think the public is suffering. Many of them want to leave their cars behind to go to work or to do their business or to go shopping, but they can't because there is no public transportation for them in their neighbourhood.

I think on one hand, we are talking about climate change and how responsible we should be to our future children. On the other hand, we're not helping the citizens who want to help us as far as clean air and leaving less of a carbon footprint. I think it just makes sense that we agree to this amendment, and I strongly urge the minister and everyone on that side to vote in favour of this amendment so that we could get on with business.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the amendment that has been put forward by our critic, and I'm standing to support it. I think it makes a lot of sense. What has happened with the provisions in this bill is that the government, the minister, through bringing this bill forward, has essentially said, "Here, you can have all the crappy stuff. You get to decide remuneration of the senior folks. You get to increase the fares. You get to have two seats," which none of the mayors wanted. They have not sat there, because they realize they have no real power over transportation in the Lower Mainland.

The minister is shaking his head. To the minister: why is it? Is it because they just don't want to do the work? It's because they know there is no power on that board, and they are not going to agree to a system where they have no power.

How about if the provincial government decided they were going to get a private board to set the budget and run the budget of the province of British Columbia? That is exactly what this government is doing under this bill and is continuing to do. They're saying, "You can have all the bad jobs, the lousy jobs, and we're not going to give you any real power," and the mayors are realizing that now.

Since 2007 we've had nothing but a mess of transit, and the people of the Lower Mainland are hurting because of it — a mess — because we have continual decisions written on the backs of napkins. We are going to blow up TransLink, a democratically elected board that manages to come to unanimous decisions about transportation and strategic planning for the Lower Mainland. We're going to blow up transit because a former Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, was in a fit of pique. That's how decisions are made by this government, and it's outrageous.

[1545]

We have another decision, that we're going to have a referendum system, which is going to be a mess. We just

[ Page 3393 ]

had to pass a bill on that because the Premier, out stumping in the election, on the back of a napkin once again said: "Oh, we're going to have a referendum." What a horrendous way to plan for transportation in the province of British Columbia.

There is no real power unless the mayors, the locally elected representatives, have control of the budget. That's what they used to have. They planned an award-winning system. Things were going well. We were moving forward. This government, because they decide that they want to control the decisions on transit, brings a piece of legislation which provides no power whatsoever, no real power to the local mayors. We'll see how it plays out over the next while. The referendum, I think, is going to be a mess, and I also believe that this is going to do absolutely nothing.

The minister was talking about the fact that there is going to be participation in the long-term strategic plan, the ten-year plan, but the local mayors are constricted in that as well, and perhaps they have less power instead of more in that regard, because they have to consider the provincial transportation plan and consider the province's objectives, including their financial objectives.

They don't get to control the taxes, they don't get to control the revenue sources, they don't get to control the spending, and they don't get to control the objectives. So really, there's absolutely nothing here for the mayors — a little bit of window dressing, but it is nothing if you don't have control of the budget.

It's very unfortunate because I think that if the mayors, the local municipality, locally elected representation, had had the ability to shape the transit plan over the last several years, we would have been decades ahead, years ahead of where we are now. We've gone backwards instead of forwards.

I stand in favour of the amendment. I think it's a good one. I think it's very unfortunate that we've had this incompetent government running Lower Mainland transit for the last several years. They've put us in the mess — the funding mess, the expenditure mess and the planning mess — that we are in now. So I heartily support this amendment.

Hon. T. Stone: Seeing no other members on the other side that want to speak to this amendment, I just wanted to again…. This is why we're all here. This is democracy in action. I do respect everyone's perspectives on this.

I will reiterate again that we are not going to support this amendment. I'm not going to go back and rebut every item that was mentioned by certainly the critic but by the member from Burnaby as well.

I will say this. We said to the people of Metro Vancouver in the last election that we were going to transfer significant authority. We were going to rework the governance of TransLink such that the Mayors Council would have a significant enhancement of their authority. That's what this bill does. But I think any reasonable person would also expect that along with authority comes accountability. You don't get one without the other.

We think that we've struck a very good and sound balance through this legislation, and it's why I do not believe that this amendment is necessary — a really good balance between what is always recognized as the three key levels of good governance.

As I've said all along, we looked at models all around the world. We looked at the models and the recommendations that were detailed in the Ken Cameron report, which the Mayors Council commissioned a year ago, where it was very well laid out that the three key levels of good governance structure are policy, which invariably should be elected officials…. Well, that's what the Mayors Council will have as a result of these amendments. They will have complete authority over a 30-year plan and a ten-year investment plan.

The second level of good governance is management on the operational level. That's where we believe, as in Ken Cameron's own words in the report commissioned by the Mayors Council, that this should be a board with operational experience. That is the TransLink board. That is why the TransLink board will continue to have authority over the annual budget.

[1550]

Last but not least, there's the implementation level of good governance, and that's where TransLink, its management and the staff and contractors and the people who work for TransLink come into play.

Back to the management operational level, again, I'll reiterate that there are two seats on the TransLink board which have been available for the Mayors Council to assume for a number of years now. I would suggest that over the years some of the mayors perhaps haven't figured out how to take yes for an answer here.

They've been invited to participate fully in the operations of TransLink over the last couple of years on the TransLink board. They have opted, for their own reasons, not to assume those two seats. Those seats are still available, and we encourage the mayors to assume their rightful place at the board table of TransLink.

Again, we will be opposing this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

G. Heyman: I would like to propose an amendment to

section 2.

[ To amend

section 2 of the Act by deleting the text shown as struckthrough and adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 7 (3) (

c) is amended by striking out "the commissioner and".

Section 7 is amended

(

a) in subsection (3) (

c) striking out "the commissioner and".

(

b) in subsection (7) (

b) by striking out "and"

(

c) in subsection (7) (

c) by adding ", and"

(

d) in subsection (7) by adding the following paragraph:

[ Page 3394 ]

(

d) be consistent with and implement the long-term strategies and investment plans approved by the mayors' council on regional transportation. ]

The Chair: The amendment appears to be in order. Does the member wish to speak further on it?

As the amendment seems to be substantially similar to the last amendment, with the exception of the revised

section (

d) at the end, perhaps we could focus our remarks on that section.

On the amendment.

G. Heyman: Hon. Chair, that's exactly my intent.

I pointed out in my earlier remarks that the minister made a commitment to the mayors in a letter of February 6 with respect to TransLink governance. He promised a number of things, amongst which was the following sentence. "TransLink's board will be expected to prepare budgets, oversee operations and implement plans consistent with Mayors Council approved strategies and plans."

Now, in earlier comments by the minister he referenced, in effect, the intent and content of that commitment. He said that the budgets must be congruent. Those were his words mere moments ago — in effect, reiterating his commitment to the mayors.

I've already spoken, and I won't repeat myself. So have my colleagues spoken about the important connection between setting long-term strategic goals and priorities and then implementing them on an annual basis by being able to create priorities through budgeting. I think we all know that. I think virtually every member of this House has had some experience with budgeting and strategic planning. A number of us have had significant experience managing operations, as well as sitting on the boards of a variety of sizes of private and public enterprises and non-profits.

I don't think anybody who has had that experience would believe that the inability to approve a budget is consistent with approving a strategic plan or being responsible for a strategic plan. That is why we moved the first amendment. It failed. I accept that.

[1555]

But I invite the minister to give meaning to his promise in the February 6 letter and meaning to the words that he said in the chamber mere moments ago and place in the act, rather than expect an appointed board that meets in secret, that is not accountable to the public and is not elected to operate in good faith….

I am simply, through this amendment, asking the minister to put his own exact words in the bill to make real and give life to the commitment he gave to the Mayors Council on February 6 that the budget must be consistent with Mayors Council approved strategies and plans — that he give it life, that he give it meaning.

It's not the same as creating and approving the budget, but it is codifying a promise that he made on February 6 and repeated in this House.

Hon. T. Stone: I'm not going to drag on my comments on this particular section. I do thank the member opposite for his efforts. I'm not going to recommend that this amendment be supported, and it's for this simple reason.

Section 207 already provides the intent of what the member is, I think, trying to accomplish through his amendment here today.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

G. Heyman:

Section 4 requires TransLink to publish information from the Mayors Council on the TransLink website. The language speaks to publishing by requirement of the act.

I'm curious as to whether the Mayors Council will have the option to publish other material beyond that which is required by the act but which they may think, for one reason or another, it is wise to publish.

Hon. T. Stone: I appreciate the question. Whether or not TransLink would post information that's not specifically prescribed by this amendment I think would be a matter between TransLink and the Mayors Council. But I would certainly encourage collaboration between both parties on that.

G. Heyman: To clarify, this isn't meant to be read as a prescription on anything that isn't required by the act. I don't mean to flog this, Chair. I just want clarity.

Hon. T. Stone: No, this

section is not intended to be prescriptive or limiting in any way.

Sections 4 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

G. Heyman:

Section 11 deals with a new category of minister-appointed directors who can be reappointed for up to six years. My question to the minister is: does the minister have a sense of who, or what qualities the directors that the minister may appoint would have?

[1600]

Is there a sense of a range of skills or a particular makeup or representative sectors that the minister may tap for these directors? Can the minister say what relationship the directors will have with the provincial government?

[ Page 3395 ]

Hon. T. Stone: As is the case with the member, I've had the good fortune of serving on a number of boards over the years, whether it be the United Way or Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. I think, as the member knows quite well from his experience, the best functioning boards are those that have a range of capabilities.

Well-functioning boards have a pretty well-established matrix of capabilities. There's always a fair bit of ongoing work that's required — sometimes heavy lifting — to make sure that the overall complement of individuals on a board are people that are complementary in terms of the skills and the strengths that they bring to that particular board.

In answer to the member's question, I certainly will place a high degree of confidence in individuals that will be a good complement to the existing board members that may be on the board at that particular time. Certainly, we'll want to make those appointments in consultation with the chair of the TransLink board.

But first and foremost, I'll be looking for people — the government will be looking for people — that we believe will be able to strongly articulate the province's transportation vision and, generally, our transportation agenda to ensure that those provincial priorities are accurately and well represented at that TransLink table.

G. Heyman: Could the minister just elaborate a little bit on the relationship that these appointees may have with the provincial government? I ask specifically because later on in the bill there is a reference to…. I understand I'm not on the section, but this does seem like the appropriate place to ask the question. There's a provision that, if I recall correctly, says that the provincial appointees aren't prohibited from presenting the views of governments. I'm wondering how the minister envisions the relationship between provincial appointees and his office.

Hon. T. Stone: Generally speaking, as the member knows well, there are literally hundreds of appointments that government makes to a wide variety of commissions, agencies, Crown corporations. The appointment of these two board appointees to the TransLink board by the Minister of Transportation on behalf of the government of British Columbia really will be no different. The criteria that will be employed to find the best people possible for these positions will be no different than the criteria employed for any of the other government agencies, boards and commissions.

What will really be important, however, is, through these two individuals, to provide the TransLink board with every opportunity to be in sync with and in touch with provincial priorities, provincial strategies relating to transportation. It is so critical over the coming years, with the growth that we know is going to take place in the Lower Mainland, that there be as much collaboration and synchronization — if I may use that word as well — of TransLink and Mayors Council regional transportation priorities and provincial priorities….

[1605]

There is way more to gain when there's collaboration. So we see the appointment of two provincially appointed representatives on the TransLink board as just one tool in the toolbox, so to speak, to foster a much tighter relationship between provincial priorities — provincial economic and social priorities — with those of TransLink.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

G. Heyman:

Section 12 both reduces the number of appointed directors from nine to seven and provides for maintaining the overall size of the board with respect to the two minister-appointed directors. I just wonder if there are some transitional provisions contemplated for existing directors that may be brought in by regulation. How exactly will the transition be handled?

Hon. T. Stone: This

section is here to fulfil our intention by regulation — with effect from January 1, 2015 — to temporarily keeping the number of directors at nine. This would allow appointed directors to continue — those directors that are currently on the board. It would enable those directors to continue the fulfilment of their board responsibilities for the duration of their terms without rescinding any of those appointments.

I should point out that the terms of three current TransLink board directors expire at the end of 2014. So the board would be reduced to seven appointed directors, with the effect from January 1, 2015, by appointing or reappointing only one director. So two, effectively, come off as a result of attrition.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

G. Heyman:

Section 14 deals with the requirement for the screening panel to consider board remuneration relative to similar organizations across Canada. Can the minister indicate where TransLink falls on remuneration generally, relative to comparable organizations across Canada? Are there particular organizations that the minister has in mind?

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of the question of what other similar organizations in Canada could potentially be considered, that is ultimately up to the screening panel.

That being said, examples of similar organizations could be other large transit organizations in other parts of Canada — in Toronto the TTC or in Montreal the STM. Certainly, here in British Columbia there would be

[ Page 3396 ]

a lot of useful comparables or comparable organizations. The health authorities, Crown corporations and other like organizations would likely fall into the category of organizations that would be comparable to that of TransLink for the purposes of this section.

[1610]

G. Heyman: My assumption is that the minister or the minister's staff have done some research into remuneration in comparable organizations across Canada. Presumably, that's what led to this clause. I'm wondering if the minister foresees an increase or a decrease in remuneration levels generally, following the enactment of this clause, or if he thinks we're in the ballpark already.

Hon. T. Stone: The executive compensation at TransLink will be determined in large part by the efforts of the screening panel as part of their recruitment process but at the end of the day ultimately — and particularly as a result of the amendments contained in this bill — will be approved by the Mayors Council. It will ultimately be up to the Mayors Council to say yes or no and provide final approval on the compensation levels.

That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't add that it certainly is our expectation in government that organizations like TransLink — it's certainly throughout the public service, throughout Crown corporations; we would also extend this to TransLink — are going to manage the taxpayers' dollars very carefully and be fiscally prudent. Part of that is doing everything they can to contain executive compensation.

The Chair: Shall

section 14 pass?

G. Heyman: That was 14?

The Chair: That was 14.

G. Heyman: My apologies. I was looking at the wrong number.

section 15, I think I know the answer to this, but it's probably worth clarifying.

Section 15 talks about the screening panel. It prohibits the screening panel from varying remuneration above comparable public sector organizations in B.C. The previous

section talked about the screening panel considering board remuneration relative to similar organizations across Canada.

Actually, I'm not sure I understand the reason for this. There appears to be a difference here. In one

section they're looking at Canada; in another one they're looking at B.C. The first one asks them to consider; the second one prohibits. I'm wondering if the minister sees any potentially irreconcilable difference between the reference points in these two clauses or if there is a specific reason or intent in how they be read together.

[1615]

Hon. T. Stone: The previous section, as the member knows, dealt with the screening panel determining what it believes to be the appropriate compensation levels. In this

section the intent is to ensure that those determined compensation levels — those levels as determined by the screening panel — are consistent with compensation levels in comparable organizations in British Columbia.

G. Heyman: How would that work in practice? If

section 15 prohibits the screening panel from varying remuneration above comparable public sector organizations, what is the purpose of 14? Is it simply that if B.C. levels are too high compared to the rest of Canada, the encouragement here is to lower them? It doesn't appear that they can go up.

The Chair: As the minister confers, it has been brought to my attention that there is some question as to whether or not 14 has been passed yet. We have yet to pass 14.

G. Heyman: So you're saying that I should restrict my questions solely to 15?

The Chair: I'm saying that if the committee would like to pass 14, we can move to 15. But we have yet to actually pass

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

G. Heyman: I'm a by-product of a long week, as we all are. Do I need to repeat my question?

The Chair: I think the minister is fine.

G. Heyman: The question was, if 15 is prescriptive and prohibitive, notwithstanding 14, therefore, is there any possibility under 15 to go anywhere other than down?

Hon. T. Stone: While

section 14 dealt with the screening panel coming up with desired compensation levels based on similar organizations in Canada,

section 15 provides for ensuring that those compensation levels that the screening panel has come up with are not higher than those for comparable organizations within British Columbia.

At the end of the day, I think the practical result of the one-two punch here, between sections 14 and 15, will be that the lesser compensation level of the two will be the compensation level that would be proceeded with.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

[ Page 3397 ]

G. Heyman:

Section 19 sets out requirements for an executive compensation plan to be developed by the board and approved by resolution of the Mayors Council. I'd just note that it says that the compensation plan must be initially submitted to mayors within four months of the bill's enactment.

The plan must outline the compensation or ranges and be in accordance with similar compensation levels in B.C. and across the country. The compared organizations must be listed until a new compensation plan is approved. The compensation in place at the first reading of this bill remains in place.

[1620]

But there appears to be a trend, and I just want to flag this. Throughout a variety of sections of this act, it refers decision-making authority to the Mayors Council but doesn't speak to the seeking of guidelines from the Mayors Council, the seeking of a mandate from the Mayors Council, discussion with the Mayors Council around parameters, in this case with respect to executive compensation, or even asking the opinion of the Mayors Council. That shows up throughout this bill.

My question to the minister is: how does the minister see this playing out? Is there an intent to enact regulation at some point if adequate policies aren't put in place? Does the minister believe the requirements of the act are sufficient on their face that approval without any discussion is adequate? What exactly might take place if there's some form of dysfunction because there are gaps in the act in terms of communicating between the various levels of preparation and decision-making authority?

Hon. T. Stone: A very good question from the member from Fairview. The significance of this

section is that, first and foremost, it establishes a methodology to determine executive compensation that, at the end of the day, will ultimately be approved by the Mayors Council.

It also ensures, similar to sections 14 and 15, which we've just discussed, that such executive compensation will be determined such that it's roughly comparable to executive compensation at similar organizations across Canada and certainly no higher than comparable B.C. organizations.

At the end of the day, TransLink and the Mayors Council are going to have to establish between them a methodology and a process that they both have confidence in. TransLink will do most of the work at actually pulling all of the comparables together and making the recommendation around executive compensation, but the Mayors Council will have the final say, and they will say yes or no.

This is just one of a number of, I believe, transitional matters that are going to require some heavy lifting between TransLink and the Mayors Council in the short term to establish a process that they both have confidence in moving forward.

G. Heyman: I'm not going to presume that setting compensation for positions at this level is a matter of collective bargaining, although there's always some aspect of negotiations with people you wish to hire. I learned over many years of negotiations experience that there is an inherent danger of not seeking some sort of mandate before the fact from the people whom one is representing or for whom one is developing proposals or policies, even though they may have final ratification over that.

[1625]

There's a certain dynamic that takes place when the input that people have is simply left to yea or nay. So I would expect in a functional world that some sort of policy and mechanism for seeking input, ideas, mandate, relevant perspectives from the Mayors Council would in fact be a function of both the board and senior management of TransLink.

My question was: what happens if that's not the case? There's an absence of reference for any role, other than approval, in both this

section and many other sections in the act. Is there any contemplation of regulation that directs the development of policies, protocols, working relationships, anything perhaps more prescriptive to the board or management of TransLink that would actually direct them to hold discussions with the Mayors Council on a number of issues prior to the development of the particular policies — in this case, a compensation plan — prior to actually presenting it for a final vote?

Hon. T. Stone: There is nothing prescriptive being contemplated here, through regulation or otherwise. The authority to establish executive compensation will remain a matter between the TransLink board as well as the Mayors Council, with final approval on those compensation levels resting with the Mayors Council as a result of the amendments provided for in this legislation.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

G. Heyman: We've referenced this already, in part, and I appreciate the clarification that the minister gave.

Section 20 says that despite the requirements of subsection (1) of clause 191, the directors act "with a view to the best interests of the authority," which is certainly not a typical language or concept for good board governance — that provincially appointed directors are not prevented from providing the view of government. The minister spoke, I thought, quite well with respect to the benefits of having the view of government presented, and in fact, that is why one would have provincial government appointments.

My question to the minister is: can the minister contemplate a situation where there is some conflict between the requirement of those directors to act with a view to

[ Page 3398 ]

the best interest of the authority and the clear knowledge that the view of the government that appointed them is something quite different?

Will the directors be allowed the flexibility, following the debate at a board meeting, to in fact meet the requirement of subsection (1) of clause 191, or can the minister foresee situations in which the provincial appointees are essentially told either that something must happen — they must vote a certain way — or they must oppose something and vote a different way on that?

[1630]

Hon. T. Stone: To answer the member's question, I'll say this. Certainly the intent here, what we're contemplating with the appointment of two provincially appointed directors, is really to mirror with this new subsection (1.2) what is provided for in the act today in

section 191(1.1) pertaining to the two directors that are there to represent the interests of the Mayors Council.

That section, the existing subsection (1.1), provides for the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council, as statutory directors, to present the views of the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation to the board. So we're simply mirroring for the two provincially appointed directors what we believe is already there for the two Mayors Council representatives.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That all being said and at a higher level, certainly the provincially appointed directors will adhere to the same provisions that all other directors will, including those detailed in

section 191(1) that deal with the directors adhering to the principles of integrity and honesty and not acting from a position of bias, and so forth.

I certainly hope that answers the member's question.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

section 22.

G. Heyman:

Section 22 mandates that the board must take provincial transportation and economic objectives into account when developing long-term strategy and have that strategy approved by the Mayors Council. This is significant. If you'll bear with me a moment, I just want to quote something from the report commissioned by the Mayors Council, the subsequent report on Bill 22.

Near the end of the report they talk about a "single-transportation system approach" and that "the proposed revisions to the act are silent on the identified need for there to be one plan for surface transportation in the region" and that "without such a coordinated approach, there's a risk of massive investment in both road and transit infrastructure projects which might be at cross-purposes with each other." That's the context in which I ask this question.

First of all, what does taking "into account" mean to the minister? In defining that, perhaps the minister could talk a little bit about the scope and limits of taking it into account. Does it mean that they must be consistent with, that they override regional transportation objectives which are often linked quite inextricably to the spatial objectives of regional planning?

I obviously appreciate the interest of the provincial government in having the province's objectives taken into account, particularly the transportation ones and to some extent the economic ones, but it's unclear how this actually works, especially because the act itself is silent on what forms of consultation will take place.

[1635]

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows,

section 22 first repeals a subsection related to the submission of long-term strategies that are actually subsequently integrated into

section 202.1 further in the act. As importantly,

section 22 also requires the consideration of provincial transportation and economic objectives when TransLink and the Mayors Council are developing a long-term strategy.

What we are trying to do here…. Again, we view this as another tool in the toolkit — similar to the two provincially appointed directors, frankly — to foster a tighter collaboration and the sharing of information, the sharing of planning between the province and TransLink.

We are working, for example, on a refreshed ten-year transportation plan of which TransLink and the Mayors Council's regional transportation plan will be an integral piece. We are also committed to refreshing the provincial transit plan. Obviously, TransLink and the Mayors Council — their thoughts and plans related to expanded transit and transportation on the Lower Mainland will be an important part of the refreshed provincial transportation plan.

We believe that this amendment is important because it's another way to encourage better collaboration and the sharing of information between the work that TransLink does and the provincial economic and social priorities.

G. Heyman: Well, it does make sense. It obviously makes sense that there be communication. If I can ask the minister to place his mind back on the comments from the consultant's report about there appearing to be a disconnect or at least no obvious coordination between provincial planning and investment in road infrastructure and transit infrastructure, the minister has explained this as a form of collaboration as the TransLink board and the Mayors Council develop the plans and strategies.

Does the minister see this as a two-way street in terms of discussion with not just TransLink but other regional organizations responsible for transit planning as the province develops its road infrastructure plan?

[ Page 3399 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, as the member knows well, there is a tremendous array of public and private organizations that form the highly integrated transportation system that we have in British Columbia, whether it's YVR and CN and CP in the private sector, or our ports, or whether it's B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit, TransLink and others.

[1640]

There are a myriad of different efforts on an ongoing basis between all of these public and private transportation agencies to integrate and better coordinate the strategic investments in transportation and infrastructure. I think a great example of that is the Pacific Gateway Alliance, which represents the coming together of a whole bunch of different public-private partners — $22 billion in phase 1 and $25 billion of commitments in phase 2, most of which represents private dollars. But the public sector is very much there at the table as well.

The end result of those investments is a world-class transportation network that's all about the moving of people and goods across British Columbia.

We're always looking for ways to improve the interaction and the collaboration that we have with our many other stakeholder partners in the transportation systems across British Columbia.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

G. Heyman:

Section 23 introduces amendments to replace "base plan" with "investment plan." It also adds the term "key initiatives" alongside that of "major capital projects" that must be listed in the plan.

It goes on to allow for limits to be placed on borrowing in the investment plan, in addition to existing borrowing limits. Can the minister explain the addition of the term "key initiatives" — what it means — and provide some examples that might be different than major capital projects?

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of the phrase "key initiatives," really this is intended to represent non-capital items. A good example of that for the member would be the U-Pass program.

G. Heyman: Sorry, I missed that example.

Hon. T. Stone: The example I cited was the U-Pass program.

G. Heyman: Clearly, these would be programs and not capital.

[1645]

Hon. T. Stone: For the most part, programs would not be represented as capital items. They would not represent capital items. There could be some very minor capital items that could be considered programs. But again, for the most part, programs would be non-capital items.

G. Heyman: Just a quick question. Does the minister have any sort of demarcation line in mind between major and minor?

[1650]

Hon. T. Stone: I'll say this in response to the member's question. The initiatives are intended to represent program improvements where there may be a small capital component.

The major capital projects are defined in the act. In

section 192 they are defined as "'major capital project' means a capital project that is estimated to require at least $50 million towards the capital cost of the project."

But again, that doesn't necessarily map entirely over to the concept of an initiative, which is more about a program improvement which, for the most part, may not involve much capital.

Section 23 approved.

G. Heyman: Chair, I'm wondering if the minister would care to agree with me that a short five-minute recess might be in order.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:53 p.m. to 5 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

section 24.

G. Heyman: Beyond the substitution of "investment plan" for "base plan," can the minister explain the impact of the other changes in this section?

Hon. T. Stone:

Section 24 repeals sections 195 to 197, as the member knows, and it substitutes new sections. The significance of these new sections is that they provide for new processes which incorporate elements of the base and supplemental plans that were provided for previously by allowing TransLink to include proposed higher taxes that would come into effect only if the Mayors Council approves the investment plan.

This amendment continues the current provision of the 2 percent escalation of transit fares and through the 3 percent annual escalation of property taxes.

As well, this

section would continue the current provision of requiring approval of short-term fare increases of more than 2 percent per year, but this approval will now be in the hands of the Mayors Council, which was previ-

[ Page 3400 ]

ously in the hands of the commissioner.

G. Heyman:

Section 196 was a

section that we talked about at length because it seemed to pertain to an answer the minister gave in a previous discussion. The minister claimed that the Mayors Council had the authority to raise property taxes without limit. I claimed and my colleagues claimed that it didn't appear that was true.

I think now what the minister was referring to — and I'm going to ask him if he can confirm this — is that it's actually subsection (2) that waives the limit that appears to be referenced in 1(b). Or if I'm not quite getting the interaction of the two subsections there…. But if I'm right, I'm a little perplexed as to what the purpose of 1(

b) is.

[1705]

Hon. T. Stone: In answer to the member's question, no, in the previous discussion we were having, I wasn't specifically referring to

section 196(2). However, I was and am referring to

section 196 as a whole.

Section 196(b), for example, is the subsection that provides for a carryover of the indexed 3 percent increase in property tax that is currently contained in the act.

Subsection (2) provides for the right of the authority to go beyond that 3 percent indexed amount of property tax and does require it to be included in the investment plan. But again, the investment plan must be approved by the Mayors Council at the end of the day.

Really, all we have provided for here in this new

section 196 is to ensure that the provisions that were previously delivered through the old process which we're eliminating, the process of a base plan being developed, containing the 3 percent escalation in property tax each year that could only be changed through a supplemental plan, that might have included an additional property tax increase above the 3 percent, that the supplemental plan had to be approved by the Mayors Council.

We've replaced that base and supplemental planning process with this new investment plan, and it's here in this

section 196(1)(

b) and 196(2) — that provide for the ability to include property tax above that 3 percent and include that in the investment plan. But subsequent provisions also ensure that that must still be approved by the Mayors Council.

G. Heyman: I'm a little perplexed, given subsection (2), why subsection 1(

b) exists. On the one hand, why do you have a subsection that places a limit on the amount the property tax can be raised and then provide in the subsequent subsection the ability to ignore it?

[1710]

Hon. T. Stone:

Section 196(

b) is really just the establishment of a floor on property tax. It's, essentially, how we're taking the old provisions of the old base-planning process and rolling that forward, so there's a floor established, from a property tax perspective.

Section 196(2) enables the authority — again, with the subsequent approval of the Mayors Council — to include within the investment plan a provision for property tax above and beyond that floor. I hope that makes sense.

G. Heyman: I understand what it does; I don't understand the purpose. I don't understand why the act simply wouldn't say that the Mayors Council would set the rate of the property tax in the investment plan — period, full stop.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I'll try to be as clear as I can on this.

Section 196(1) — and in particular, subsection (b) — is really about establishing some certainty around what that base level of funding is. This was dealt with previously through the base-planning component of how the plans work at TransLink.

Section 196(2) is the subsection which provides the authority — and ultimately, the Mayors Council — with the flexibility to increase the property taxes beyond the base level, beyond that floor which is provided for through the annual 3 percent increase.

G. Heyman: I'm almost certain the answer to this is yes. But if I remember the minister's comments from a previous discussion, any additional rate of increase that was approved pursuant to subsection (2) would not be considered an additional source of funding and therefore subject to a referendum.

Hon. T. Stone: The answer to that question is yes.

Sections 24 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

G. Heyman: This

section repeals a previous

section that required TransLink to present the Mayors Council and the commissioner with copies of the base plan, supplement and outlook. The new

section requires approval from the Mayors Council for an investment plan and long-term strategy, and the long-term strategy requires approval every five years. The investment plan requires approval every three years. The long-term strategy is required on or before August 1 of every fifth year after 2013. So TransLink might wait as long as 2018 for the first approval.

For me, this and the next

section are kind of key, and they go to the heart of governance and some of the points that I was making previously. I think the minister has claimed, both in his February 6 letter and in comments with respect to this bill, that this bill gives the Mayors Council much of the authority that they sought and a significant role in policy.

[ Page 3401 ]

[1715]

I want to return to some comments that were made in the report that was commissioned by the Mayors Council. I will say up front that the report does say that Bill 22 goes some distance toward meeting the tests of good governance and good division of powers between policy-making boards, operational boards and staff. But it also says it doesn't get all the way there.

Among the things that it says is that Bill 22 "does not, however, explicitly redefine the role of the Mayors Council as the policy body or place the TransLink board in a position to explicitly take policy direction from the Mayors Council."

It said that "assuming that…the Mayors Council and the TransLink board are supportive of making the proposed new arrangements work well, a number of issues would have to be resolved and preferably documented in a series of protocols," an agreement on planned processes to ensure that the Mayors Council is involved prior to approval.

I've spoken, to some extent, about this, this feature of governance and involvement of boards in policy-making, at different stages of this debate. My own experience is that boards that present fully developed plans for approval….

Or, sorry, staff. Oh, in this case it's the board presenting to the Mayors Council, which is, in effect, another level of board with approval-making authority but not any legislated or regulated right to be involved in the development of that policy. My own experience, having chaired a number of boards, is that it is very difficult to get it right when the finished product is presented without involvement in the preparation or consultation around key issues.

The reason for that is that people believe, often wrongly, that even though they have the vote, they can't really change the direction, because they haven't been involved or consulted.

Now, I've spoken to the new chair of the board. I've spoken to mayors. I know that the mayors have some concern. I know that the chair of the board understands — and I assume the minister understands this as well — that you can't have a functional policy-making structure where TransLink and the board of directors would operate in a vacuum, close themselves in a room, accept no input or discussion with the Mayors Council and present them with a fait accompli in terms of policy, in terms of the investment plan or in terms of the long-term strategy.

That's why it's a mystery to me that there is no provision whatsoever in this bill or even a reference to "procedures or policies will be set by regulation" or "the board and the Mayors Council will develop protocols between them to ensure full involvement or consultation on the development of the investment plan or the long-term strategy." It's just silent.

Now, I would hope that nobody with the skills necessary to serve well on a board would think that they could get away for very long with this division. It's concerning, given the significant level of alienation experienced by the mayors over a protracted period of time from what should have been their role as an elected policy-making board.

The report is very clear. The role of policy-making should fall with elected officials, whether they're elected boards or elected regional officials who are appointed to boards as a result of being elected by people to represent them.

That is a sound governance structure. It's one that's in place in London and in Stockholm, which have been referred to as leader regions, but it's not in place in British Columbia, in Metro Vancouver, and hasn't been for a number of years. As a result of that, we've got, if you'll pardon the unintentional pun, a form of gridlock.

I know that the minister has worked hard to try to address this. I believe he's done that in good faith. And I thought, in fact, in the first reading of both the bill and the minister's letter that there was more here than there appears to be.

I know that the media certainly believes that. Upon the introduction of Bill 22, the headlines said: "The Mayors Got What They Asked For," "You Should Beware of Asking for Things," "Sometimes You Get What You Ask For," "The Mayors Have Full Authority."

[1720]

Well, in my view…. And I learned this the hard way. I used to come to boards with my brilliantly, fully fleshed-out plans that I developed with staff and say: "Here it is. You have every right to vote no." I wondered sometimes why I was met with stony silence and why there was an increasing level of alienation of board members from the decision-making process.

I learned the hard way that it was important to bring people in and have broad discussions with them prior to developing policy recommendations or even details about implementation. It's a lesson that I've carried with me, and I'm sure the minister understands that.

I need to ask the minister why — given the points made in the governance report; given the history; given the alienation of the mayors for a number of years; given the intent, I think, of the minister's letter that the mayors fully believe they will now be engaged in the development of the investment plan and the long-term strategic

[ Page 3402 ]

plan — there isn't something in the legislation that directs the board.

I mean, the minister may say, "Common sense directs this," and I agree, but common sense often gets us nowhere in the real world. We both know that. We've both seen that on far too many occasions. There's nothing in here that kind of says to the board and TransLink: "This is the expectation — that you will collaborate, consult."

Even though the board and staff at TransLink will develop the investment plan and the long-term strategic plan, and the Mayors Council will approve it, this is not a separate, siloed process. This is a collaborative process. It needs to be, in order to work for the best interests of the transit system, the residents of Metro Vancouver and the economy of not only Metro Vancouver but the province.

I was a bit long-winded, as I am occasionally prone to be, but my question to the minister is: why is this silent? Your letter didn't read to me as if it were silent. I thought there were expectations in there. There's nothing in the act. I'm not sure that there's an intent to specify anything through regulation. I think there needs to be some clear signal of expectation or, at the very least, that the minister says: "If this doesn't work because the province still has significant control over the makeup of the board, I'll take steps to make my intent clear that this is a collaborative and iterative process and not simply: 'We develop it here; you vote over here.'"

My question to the minister is: can the minister elaborate on his intent on how the process should work in terms of the development of the investment plan and the long-term strategic plan? What steps, if any, does the minister intend to take, or has the minister discussed with the chair of the board of TransLink, to ensure that this, in fact, is the case and we don't get a worst-case scena