2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Tom Kozar

Puchmayr

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

B.C. soccer champions at Special

Olympics World Summer Games

R. Hawes

Salish sucker

Gentner

Nechako white sturgeon

Rustad

Shipbuilding industry in

Esquimalt

Karagianis

Nanaimo Seniors Games

Cantelon

Social inclusion in schools

Austin

Oral Questions

Vancouver Convention Centre

expansion costs

C. James

Hon. C.

Taylor

Macdonald

H. Bains

Investigation into activities of

Ken Dobell

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Karagianis

Liquefied natural gas plant

proposal for Texada Island

Robertson

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Tree farm licence land removals

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Terrace mill closing

Austin

Hon. R.

Coleman

Distribution of booster seats to

low-income families

Trevena

Hon. L.

Reid

J. Kwan

Petitions

C. Puchmayr

Second Reading of Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

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

Puchmayr

Horgan

Ralston

Simpson

Macdonald

C. Wyse

Robertson

Thorne

Fleming

Gentner

[ Page 8829 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

TOM KOZAR

C. Puchmayr: I rise here with a sad note that Tom Kozar, former

BCGEU vice-president, retired BCIT college instructor and lifelong justice

advocate, has passed away. There will be a service of celebration of his life on

Monday, October 29, at 1 p.m. at the Operating Engineers Hall at 4333 Ledger

Avenue in Burnaby.

Letters of condolence can be sent to Tom's family in care of the

BCGEU at 4911 Canada Way, Burnaby B.C., V5G 3W3.

Introductions by Members

R. Hawes:

Today in the gallery we have an extremely special group of people. They are

special athletes that recently competed for Canada in the special summer games

in Shanghai. I'd like to read to the members the athletes that are here: Mandy

Manzardo, Ben Felling, Steven Dew, Jay Laitar, Marc Theriault, Rick Bussey,

Derek Tomm, Bryce Schaufelberger and Hank Vielvoye.

They are also joined by two of their coaches, Bill Johnston and

Jerzy Kusmierek. Some parents and other people accompanying them would be Alan

Felling, Brenda Felling, Kim Mazer, June Laitar and Joe Laitar.

These are very, very special people. I'll have some more to say in

private member's statements. Could the House please make them all very, very

welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's a pleasure to introduce a group of 30

grade 11 students that are in the Legislature today from the Prince of Wales

Mini School, along with their teacher Mr. Andrew Humphries. Would the House

please make them welcome.

[1335]

B. Ralston: I wanted to add to the introduction made by the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission. I want to particularly single out Steven Dew,

who is a constituent of mine in Surrey-Whalley, which only adds to his lustre.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) B.C. SOCCER CHAMPIONS AT

SPECIAL OLYMPICS WORLD

SUMMER GAMES

R. Hawes: I want to talk today about four

simple words: "I know I can." Those words covered billboards, buildings and

windows all over Shanghai during the recently concluded Special Olympics World

Summer Games. What could be a more fitting homage to the hundreds of Special

Olympians that took

part in those games than "I know I can"?

Earlier this year B.C.'s soccer team won a tight battle to earn

the right to represent Canada in the Shanghai games. In China the team played

hard to work their way into a final game against Peru for the gold medal. After

holding the seemingly invincible Peru team to a tie after regulation play, the

Canadian team was able to withstand a fierce onslaught to keep the score to a

tie after two overtime halves. With "I know I can" on the minds of every one of

our players, the B.C. team won the gold medal in sudden-death overtime on

penalty kicks.

The team was ably coached by Bill Johnston, Stuart Coates and

Jerzy Kusmierek. Athletes on the team were Rick Bussey, Steven Dew, Benjamin

Felling, Jay Laitar, Mandy Manzardo, Glen McIntyre, Marc Theriault, Derek Tomm,

Hank Vielvoye and Bryce Shaufelberger.

Bryce is my constituent and has been a tireless worker for the

self-advocates in Mission for many years. He fulfilled a valuable role on the

transition board of Community Living and has been a special games athlete for 15

years. I believe there's nothing that Bryce cannot accomplish when he puts his

mind to it, and that goes for all the other athletes on the soccer team.

Each and every one of these special athletes who are here in the

gallery today can now change the "I know I can" to "I knew I could." You've made

every one of us proud. Bryce, you've especially made me proud because I knew you

could.

SALISH SUCKER

G. Gentner: I was somewhat

invigorated by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano's discussion about

steelhead. Many February days have been spent on the Chehalis catching and, of

course, releasing this remarkable fish. Any fly fishermen can tell you that it's

a remarkable fish.

But I want to talk about a fish that's sort of disenfranchised.

Some 12,000 years ago, as B.C. lay beneath a sheet of ice more than a kilometre

thick, for thousands of years the ice isolated the Chehalis River from the rest

of the continent. Unable to interbreed with other populations of their own

species, the Chehalis River fish began to evolve. The result was a community of

fish species found nowhere else. When the ice sheet retreated, this unique

community began to disperse.

There is one species of fish that was probably the first to

recolonize the newly ice-free rivers of what is now known as the Fraser Valley.

The Salish sucker is listed as endangered and is protected under the Species at

Risk Act. The fish is also protected under the Fisheries Act.

Today it exists within only a few streams, sloughs and ditches in

the lower Fraser. Out of 34 streams in the lower Fraser, the Salish sucker is

now located in only five. Properly managed streams and ditches running through

farmland can save the Salish sucker.

Destroying farmland affects these important ecosystems —

ecosystems that were here well before the arrival of any people. Streams,

sloughs and even

[ Page 8830 ]

ditches in our

farmlands are ribbons of aquatic and riparian habitat. They provide a diversity

of life.

The member opposite ended his remarks and said that steelhead

wins. But there is a new predator — asphalt on our floodplains. It's not what

wins that we should be caring about. It's what we are losing.

NECHAKO WHITE STURGEON

J. Rustad: I rise

today to speak about a noble fish, an ancient fish whose existence predates all

of the current upstart species in B.C. waters today, including the steelhead.

The genetically unique Nechako white sturgeon traces its history back more than

100 million years. It's a magnificent fish that's become endangered, likely due

to human causes.

[1340]

But there is some good news for this fish. A dedicated group of

individuals and organizations are working towards saving the species and making

remarkable progress.

Last year this group released more than 4,000 juvenile fish, and

this year they continued their work by releasing another 4,000 juvenile fish.

More than a thousand students have taken

part in these releases, individually

naming fish and helping to build awareness for the plight of the sturgeon. Even

Canada Post recognized these efforts by coordinating the release of the juvenile

fish with the release of a white sturgeon stamp.

This is just the start. In order to assure the species' survival,

we need to do more. Efforts are being made to build a permanent rearing facility

in Vanderhoof that would be the focal point of both research and recovery. I

applaud the efforts made by coordinator Carla Wainwright, technical working

group members Brian Toth, Steve McAdam, Cory Williamson and everyone involved.

I also applaud Freshwater Fisheries B.C., Lheidli T'enneh, the

Tsawwassen fisheries program, the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, as well as too

many other groups to mention.

The plight of the Nechako white sturgeon is dire, with only an

estimated 600 adult species left in the river. Without continued intervention,

this fish will become extinct along with part of our history and heritage.

Please join me in thanking everyone involved for their efforts in

saving the Nechako white sturgeon.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY IN ESQUIMALT

Karagianis: I rise today to talk about a long and proud tradition in my

community of Esquimalt.

More than 100 years ago pioneer shipbuilders turned out the first

seagoing ships from the shipyard in Esquimalt. Today the Victoria shipyard is

hard at work building Orca-class training and patrol vessels for the Canadian

navy. Four of the eight vessels are now in service.

Thousands of men and women have worked at the shipyards in

Esquimalt over the last century, bringing much-needed employment, drawing and

training a skilled labour force and injecting millions of dollars into the local

economy. It's said that every dollar earned in wages is circulated in the

community ten to 12 times. By that measure, the shipyards have long propelled

Esquimalt, the south Island and far beyond.

This is a local homegrown industry delivering world-class results.

Ships built in Esquimalt include many of the ferries now in the B.C. Ferries

fleet. The Spirit-class vessels, the Spirit of British Columbia and the

Spirit of Vancouver Island are the largest in the B.C. Ferries fleet. Built

in 1993 and 1994, the 167-metre-long ferries can carry nearly 500 vehicles. They

are powered by 16,000 horsepower engines, the most powerful in the fleet.

I think B.C. Ferries made a huge mistake two years ago when it

decided to build its super C–class ferries in Germany. As history has shown,

Esquimalt shipbuilders have the expertise and the experience to do the job.

We cannot buy cars built in B.C. or most manufactured goods, but

we can buy B.C. when it comes to ferries. I call on the province to show its

commitment to shipbuilding in my community by investing in a proud tradition in

Esquimalt, our glorious local shipbuilding industry.

NANAIMO SENIORS GAMES

R. Cantelon: In

September of this year some 3,500 athletes — their campers, their vans and their

entourage — descended on Nanaimo for the 2007 Nanaimo Seniors Games, from

September 13 to 15. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, they were looking for a good time.

Now, it's been said that the seniors generation of this era are

fitter than the younger people of this generation, and I'm here to testify that

my experience tells me that's true. I was standing on the track when Norm Lesage

blitzed by me in the 100-metre dash in a time of 15.02 seconds. Pretty

impressive.

If that doesn't impress you, Ann Fleming from Coquitlam in the

85-to-89 age bracket went by in 19.5 seconds. These people are fit. It was

intimidating, I have to tell you.

I had the privilege to hand out the medals, and as I hung the

medals around these winners' necks, I was very impressed. There was joy in their

faces, and determination. I want to say that there was a spark there that told

me: "I ain't done yet. Not by a long shot." It was an inspiration for all of us.

[1345]

Vancouver Island north happened to win the most medals — 356 medals

of the total. It's a tribute to Diana Johnstone, the host society president, her

very competent board and over 1,200 volunteers that made it a terrific event.

Right from the opening ceremony, which involved a pageant pitting the young

against the old in a musical rendition, from the meals at Malaspina University

that were served — they were tremendous — to the closing ceremony, I want to

tell you that everybody had a good time.

Next year Prince George, 2008, I'm sure. Get ready, Prince George,

because they're coming your way.

SOCIAL INCLUSION IN SCHOOLS

R. Austin: I

would like to talk today about social inclusion as an important value here in

British Colum-

[ Page 8831 ]

bia. I do this as

a result of a recent school district meeting that took place earlier this month

in Terrace.

A motion was put forward by a school trustee suggesting that they

use a newly built but unopened school as a special school for all the special

needs kids in Terrace. The notion that we would segregate children with

differing abilities or challenges than the average child caused anger and

consternation in the community. So much so that parents, self-advocates,

teachers, an elementary student, the president of the chamber of commerce,

social workers and others all descended upon the school district office to voice

their opposition to this motion.

The trustee, upon realizing the stern controversy of his motion,

immediately removed his motion after trying to give justification for the

original motion. This left the audience, nearly 80 people all crammed into the

board room of school district 82, with no motion to speak to. It was decided

that there would be a conversation on this topic without a motion.

The motion was then re-tabled. Passionate speeches were made, and

in the end, all trustees voted against the motion, including the trustee who

voted against his own motion. Now, I happen to know this trustee. He is a

well-meaning and hard-working individual who cares deeply about kids and their

success in the school system, and I mean all kids.

We need to recognize the value of social inclusion and understand

that public schools are just one way — maybe the best way — in which we teach

children to value one another and learn how to interact with kids from all walks

of life, from many different religious or ethnic backgrounds as well as from a

variety of social circumstances. It is where we all learn to cherish the great

diversity that is just one of our strengths here in British Columbia.

While I am sure that all school trustees have to make difficult

choices that balance the need to provide the best public education possible for

all children within the constraints of many fiscal challenges that face us, we

cannot and must not go backwards to a world where we lose sight of the

importance of social inclusion.

I am sure that all members of this House applaud the decision in

Terrace to value all children equally rather than to segregate a segment of the

school population who just happen to have special needs.

N. Simons: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to welcome in the House today

the executive director of the Powell River Association for Community Living,

Lilla Tipton. Joining her in the gallery is the executive director of the

Sunshine Coast Association for Community Living, Glen McLughan, as well as Xerez

Haffenden from SCACL and Randy Younghusband, also from SCACL.

I would like to also welcome Sue Perry from the Sechelt Indian

band and three members from the Texada action network: Chuck Childress, Richard

Fletcher and Rob McWilliams.

Oh, and I can't forget two people accompanying them, as well with

the TAN group, David McWilliams and Sarah Fletcher.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER

CONVENTION CENTRE

EXPANSION COSTS

C. James: When the Premier announced the

Vancouver Convention Centre in 2003, the cost was set at $495 million. Early in

2004 the price jumped to $535 million. A few months later the overrun surged to

$565 million. The Premier said: "That's it. Kaputski. It's done."

By 2005 the price was pegged at $650 million. The minister in

charge said that would be it. That would be the final cost. Well, in 2006 a new

minister, more overruns…. This time we heard it'll be in the range of $800

million.

In 2007, then the Liberals said: "Well, we'll come clean. It's

$883 million." That's four years and $400 million. That's how much Liberal

mismanagement and waste has cost the taxpayers on this project.

[1350]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: Now the Auditor General is casting serious doubt

on that final number.

My question to the Minister of Finance: when is this government

going to hold someone — anyone — accountable for this entire mess?

Hon. C. Taylor: Last spring the minister responsible

invited Mr. David Podmore to come into this project — Mr. Podmore is someone

with tremendous experience in building very large projects — and asked him to go

over the budget as it had been presented to Treasury Board and to look at ways

in which we could ensure what the final number would be.

He spent a lot of time, pulled in other experts to help him as

well, managed to tie down many fixed costs and came forward to Treasury Board

with the $883 million number. As Mr. Podmore has said, as the minister has said

and as I will say, we are confident that number is the number that will result

in the convention centre being built.

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

C. James: Well, you would think good government might have

been bringing in the experts at the start of the project instead of four years

later, when you're a little late on the project.

Interjections.

[ Page 8832 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Members.

C. James: Four years, $400 million overrun. This government

— $400 million in four years.

I'd like to read another quote. "There's no one in the private

sector who could possibly maintain their job when one of their projects has

doubled in price and is two years overdue." That was the Premier when he was

Leader of the Opposition.

This project has been mismanaged by minister after minister after

minister. It's $400 million over budget, and this government still refuses to

hold anyone accountable. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General

pointed the blame directly at the Premier and at their ministers.

To the Minister of Finance: why should we believe her now when she

says they're going to manage a project that has been so mismanaged on behalf of

the taxpayers for the last six years?

Hon. C. Taylor: The minister responsible brought in Mr.

Podmore because of his expertise in this area. Mr. Podmore brought in two other

experts to help as well. We must remember that at this point in the convention

centre build, much had been done, and it was possible to tie down much of the

remaining in a fixed-cost contract.

Mr. Podmore was also able to look at what was left to be done,

work with experts in the field and build in contingencies to that budget to the

extent that when it came to Treasury Board, we were satisfied that this budget

will be the final budget.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: Well, it's impossible for us to believe anyone

from this government when they stand up and tell us anything to do with this

project. The Premier and every minister on that side have lost any credibility

on this entire project on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: It's been four years and $400 million in

overruns. It's time to end the mismanagement. It's time to end the cost overruns

on behalf of the taxpayers.

My question to the Minister of Finance…. She tells us that

everything is just fine now. Never mind all those other ministers. Never mind

that $400 million overrun. Everything is going to be okay now.

My question to the Minister of Finance is, again: why should we

believe her now?

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Speaker, I don't actually recall the

Leader of the Opposition ever having asked me before, so maybe that's one reason

why she could believe me now.

[1355]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

N. Macdonald: The minister is speaking for the government.

The government can switch speakers as many times as they want, but the

government is ultimately responsible. The Premier won't stand here and answer

questions. If the Minister of Finance is going to do it, then she needs to speak

for all of government.

What the Auditor General said is really clear, and here are a few

of the highlights.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: The Liberal government wasted time and money

trying to make the project a P3 — a mistake. The Auditor General says there was

not enough expertise on the board. That is clear, and it's been admitted here

today. That's a mistake, a government mistake. They broke ground before there

was even a completed design — another government mistake. No one even knew who

was going to manage the convention centre when construction began. The Auditor

General says that.

The Premier is responsible for this mess. That is clear. The

government has repeatedly had ministers stand in this House, and what they have

said has been repeatedly wrong.

The question is: why should anything the government says on this

issue here today be believed? The people of British Columbia want to know that.

Hon. C. Taylor: I am very glad that the member opposite

actually mentioned P3s, because it gives me a chance to talk about what we've

learned.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Taylor: Government now has more than 20 major

projects that are P3s. All of those projects are currently on time and on

budget. One of the big lessons we've learned from P3s is that it is a way to

transfer risk away from the taxpayers of the province onto the private partner.

In this case, when we built the convention centre, P3s were very

new in Canada. There wasn't a lot of expertise. There wasn't a lot of

familiarity with the banks in Canada as to this model, so they didn't proceed.

But if you're asking me today whether I would promote a P3 for the convention

centre…. Yes, I would.

[ Page 8833 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: Whatever red herring you throw out, it does

not matter. The fact of the matter is that the Auditor General has come out

today and been very clear that there are a series of mistakes this government

has made. Those mistakes sit with the Premier's office. They sit entirely with

this government, and they have been monumental. This will be the biggest botched

project in the history of this province. Let's be clear on that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: Let me quote from the Auditor General's

report, page 49. It says this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

N. Macdonald: Listen carefully. This is what the Auditor

General says, and I'm sure you'll have a chance to read it carefully. The

Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project "must rely more on the letter of

expectations it signed with the responsible minister" — responsible minister;

let's remember that concept — "as well as direction from government, both for

the guidance on this project's scope" — mistake — "budget" — huge mistake — "and

schedule" — mistake — "and in developing its service plan."

So there's no room to weasel out of this. The government and the

ministers are responsible. The question for today is: who is going to be held

accountable for this botched project?

Hon. C. Taylor: We should remember who actually asked the

Auditor General to do this report. That was the board of VCCEP, and the notion

was that we should learn as we go along. This report actually points out some of

the things that government has been saying all along.

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Taylor: The government has been pointing out all

along that this is a very complicated project; that in fact the inflation in

construction prices was way beyond any expert's possible guess at what would

happen. In fact, there were scope changes, and that came in part from the city

of Vancouver who, before they would approve the project, demanded improvements.

So there were complications to this project, but we can learn as

well. What I learned from this, more than anything else, is that we have to use

P3s going forward.

H. Bains: Lame excuse after lame excuse. That's all we hear

from this minister, from this government. But the Auditor General is very clear.

The ultimate responsibility lies with this government and with the minister.

The Minister of Tourism deputy was on that board, and here is what

the Auditor General had to say in the report: "An outcome of this arrangement,

however, is that the minister responsible can have direct and timely access —

through the reporting partnership of the deputy minister — to board discussions

and decisions and to all governance and project-related material."

The government can't plead ignorance. They knew it all along. So

the question is to the Minister of Finance. When will she stop making excuses

and fire those who are responsible for this boondoggle?

Hon. C. Taylor: When the reports would come up to

government, it was very interesting to be in my seat. It's not really reflected

in the material here, but every time there was pressure put back on VCCEP and

the management and the board to show us how, in fact, they were dealing with

these mounting pressures. I didn't attend one meeting where there wasn't a

question put back to VCCEP as to how they would manage this.

We asked for mitigation measures. We asked if there were any

possible changes in scope because of the city of Vancouver's requirements. Every

step of the way there were attempts made to keep this as closely as possible

within budget.

There is no question that it is a very high number for a

convention centre, but at the end of the day, what we will have is a remarkable

facility in this province. When someone referred to it as being the biggest

whatever ever — boondoggle — I would say that this one isn't wrapped in plastic.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: You know, the Auditor General is very clear. He

made it clear that it was the minister's responsibility. It was the government's

decisions that pushed the cost upward. They tried to force the project onto the

Olympic time lines — clearly mentioned in there. They gave direction to the

board. They knew all along that they were hiding the true cost from the

taxpayers.

Again, to the Minister of Finance. This government has no more

credibility left with the public. The people in charge are still in place. When

will this government get rid of those responsible for their incompetency?

Hon. C. Taylor: Well, in fact, the minister responsible

called in David Podmore, who was new to the project. Mr. Podmore has a

reputation of handling…. I

[ Page 8834 ]

believe I saw a

number of over $3 billion in major projects. He knows how to do big projects.

Changes were made. In fact, one of the first things that Mr.

Podmore recommended was a restructuring of the board and putting it together

with PavCo, which has been accomplished, so changes have been made as we move

forward. Also, as you get to a different time line on the project, you need

different expertise, so now it's a time that we're also thinking about the

marketing side. So changes have been made, and at the end of the day, this will

be a project that we're all proud of.

[1405]

INVESTIGATION INTO ACTIVITIES

OF KEN DOBELL

L. Krog: Ken Dobell was the chair of the

convention centre board. He still sits on that board. In no less than three

consecutive service plans he stated, "I am accountable" — repeat — "I am

accountable for ensuring the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project

achieves its specific objectives."

He's failed, and this government won't do anything about it. He

sits on the board of the Law Society of British Columbia, he sits on the board

of Legacies Now, he is a provincial representative on VANOC, and he is still a

special adviser to the Premier. Now he's under investigation by a special

prosecutor just appointed.

My question to the Deputy Premier: when will she or the Premier

ask Mr. Dobell to step aside?

Hon. W. Oppal: The criminal justice branch this morning

made a decision to appoint a special prosecutor, that being Terry Robertson, a

well-known Vancouver lawyer. As the member of the opposition knows, the branch

is completely independent from my office. The appointment was made under

section

7 of the Crown Counsel Act. I assume that Mr. Robertson, after he's examined all

of the evidence, will make an appropriate decision.

M. Karagianis: Mr. Dobell has many, many responsibilities,

as we have just heard the list of — among them the convention centre, and it's a

mess. Now we've heard the Attorney General explain to us how the justice branch

works.

The question is very clear. Will the Deputy Premier or the Premier

ask Mr. Dobell to step aside while the special prosecutor is doing his

investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Speaker, you know, the last time I

looked, we had due process and fairness in this country. Under our system, the

Crown Counsel Act mandates the appointment of special prosecutors where it would

be in the public interest to do so.

In this case, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General concluded that

it would be in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor — that being

Mr. Robertson. Mr. Robertson will report back in due course, and a decision will

be made at that time with respect to whether or not charges will proceed.

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PLANT

PROPOSAL FOR TEXADA ISLAND

G. Robertson: The government is

entertaining a proposal for a liquefied natural gas plant on Texada Island,

which is just about 70 miles from Vancouver. Picture this: a supertanker a week,

a massive LNG terminal and gas-fired power plant pumping out up to about four

million tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, just upwind of the two million people

in the lower mainland.

This project is so outrageous and egregious that any government

that is serious about climate change and a healthy environment would not even

consider allowing this proposal to go forward. Will the Minister of Environment

intervene to stop this proposal and prevent an environmental catastrophe?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, just wait.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Gee whiz.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1410]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Listen, I had the pleasure of meeting with three

gentlemen who came to see me this morning. I know they entertained the NDP

caucus with some of their concerns — Chuck, Richard and Rob. I assured them,

unlike what the member says — and it's not untypical for the NDP to try and say

something that's not exactly true — that the government is not entertaining a

proposal from WestPac for an LNG port. There is a company out there that's

actually talking about a proposal. No proposal has come to government.

But it's not untypical of a socialist to actually want to stop

anybody from having any idea other than their own, especially that member across

the way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

Member has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: That was a question to the Minister of

Environment — not anti-environment. So I'll start again.

We're talking about a highly explosive supertanker the size of an

aircraft carrier cruising through the Gulf Islands, right by Vancouver, halfway

up the Inside Passage every week. People around Georgia Strait, people in the

lower mainland are against this proposal. A recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed that

84 percent of coastal residents are opposed to tankers on our coast.

So who is this government listening to? Is this government

listening to the people of the south coast?

Interjections.

[ Page 8835 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Members. Members.

Take your seat again.

Member, continue.

G. Robertson: My question is simple. To the Minister of

Environment: is the government listening to the people of the south coast or

listening to corporate lobbyists, ex-ministers like WestPac board of directors

member Geoff Plant? Does this government and its Minister of Environment support

the notion of an LNG plant on Texada?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Take your seat.

Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's funny how the tune changes when they

hear the truth. But I'll tell you. I'd take advice from Geoff Plant any day

compared to that member across the way — any day.

As I said before, there is no proposal to government — none

whatsoever. But the interesting part here is that I didn't hear a question from

the member for North Coast about an LNG plant that actually is planned for

Kitimat, that actually went through an environmental assessment process and

that's in the process of maybe being built.

I didn't hear from those members across the way when there was one

planned — the same company — for Prince Rupert and they changed their plans and

came down to Texada Island. I didn't hear anything from them then. But it's

getting a little closer to their homeland, I guess you could say. Now they want

to start asking questions and actually inferring things that aren't correct. As

I said, there's no proposal.

This is the type of thing that had us through the dismal '90s.

Every time somebody came up with an idea, the group of socialists would say,

"No, that doesn't fit with us. You can't have it," and booted them out of the

province. No wonder they doubled the debt.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not continuing.

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS

B. Simpson:

It has become clear that the Minister of Forests failed to protect the public

interest when he approved the release of Western Forest Products private lands.

[1415]

I have a straightforward question to the minister. Aside from cash

donations to the Liberal Party, what payments did the people of British Columbia

receive when he allowed Western Forest Products to buy out of their social

contract?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that under the Forest

Act, companies can ask for their lands to be removed from a TFL. The member

knows that each one of these requests is examined on merit and is done so by

staff — my staff making a recommendation to me.

I looked at that recommendation, which was to allow this exclusion

to take place. I stand by that decision.

TERRACE MILL CLOSING

R. Austin: This

government's failed forest policy has created chaos in the industry, and the

minister continues to refuse to help communities facing mill closures. Terrace

has just found out that the last mill in town will be closing indefinitely,

another devastating blow to my home community.

Will the minister commit today to finally start doing his job,

come up to Terrace and work with my community to explore all possible options to

address the closure of this mill?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have $1.03 exchange. We have the lowest

housing starts in a couple of generations in the United States. We had the

subprime mortgage crash in the United States. The price is way down for our

products going through to the largest market that we have. The company has

actually advised me that they'd never seen in 30 years…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …all these features coming through with

regard to a commodity that they actually produce.

For the member to actually say that anybody's policy affects the

dollar and the housing starts in the United States just shows an abject

misunderstanding of commodity markets in the world.

DISTRIBUTION OF BOOSTER SEATS

TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

C. Trevena: Two days ago the Minister

of State for Childcare released a list of groups that she claimed made requests

to get booster seats, and we know that some of those groups didn't actually get

booster seats or the number of seats that they requested.

Yesterday the minister did say that she still had dozens of seats

in her office, so I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Childcare if she can

tell the House how many booster seats there are sitting in her office.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm more than happy to say that clearly, it

wasn't the best way to proceed. Certainly, in terms of the distribution, it's

ongoing. We are in a work-in-progress with our partners — with the British

Columbia Automobile Association…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 8836 ]

Hon. L. Reid: …and, indeed, with the B.C. Association of Family

Resource Programs.

I regret very much the negative attention that has been brought to

bear on our partners in this exercise, because I think they continue to do

glorious work on behalf of the province.

The seats available across British Columbia — we're continuing to

deliver them. And we're continuing to deliver more seats as we go forward.

We, indeed, will ensure that we increase the usage of booster

seats in the province, because it's vitally important. This is the only age

group — five to nine — where the level of injury has not gone down.

J. Kwan: We know that there are booster seats in the

minister's office. We know that there are booster seats in other Liberal MLAs'

offices as well.

Let me just recap. The minister uses taxpayers' money to buy

booster seats and taints the whole process with sleazy partisan politics, and

now she's hoarding these seats in her office.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: She's refusing to tell British Columbians how many

seats are left, sitting in Liberal offices. Surely someone, anyone from the

government bench over there, would stand up and tell the minister to do the

right thing. Release those booster seats to the community.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, pose your question.

J. Kwan: Surely anyone — the Deputy Premier — will stand up

and tell the minister to do the right thing and actually ensure that this

process is followed without any more partisanship.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

J. Kwan: Let the government offices distribute those

booster seats.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to assure the House that any

undistributed seats will go to the B.C. Automobile Association for distribution.

[End of question period.]

B. Simpson: I rise on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance if

she would ask the comptroller general to audit the release of private lands from

tree farm licences — a simple question that was taken on notice by the House

Leader for the Minister of Forests.

The minister has not risen today to provide an answer. I

respectfully ask that the minister inform this House when I may expect an

answer.

Hon. M. de Jong: With greatest respect to the member, he

has not raised an appropriate point of order.

C. Puchmayr: I'd like to introduce a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Puchmayr: I'd like

to introduce a petition. The undersigned agree that the minimum-wage earners

deserve a raise after six years. They call on the Premier to follow the

leadership of the NDP and allow the minimum wage to be raised to $10 an hour.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong:

Continued second reading debate on Bill 43, Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007.

Second Reading of Bills

GREATER

VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

C. Puchmayr: I believe I still have a bit

of time left on the debate. I'm going to back up to where I left off before the

lunch break.

I spoke about the air quality in the Fraser Valley and my concerns

with the structure of this board. That is a board that is going to be governed

by accountants, by the Vancouver Chamber of Commerce — now called the Vancouver

Board of Trade — and appointments by the government. In taking away the

democratically elected component that exists currently in the TransLink board….

One of the concerns that I express with this is the fact that when

you're making calculations on economics…. For instance, if someone were to

calculate the advantages of a toll bridge, and this bill allows for tolling to

take place on any crossing over, I believe, 50 metres….

[1425]

Tolling can now be implemented by an unelected board of directors in

many different places in our communities. So an accountant making those

calculations could make the calculations purely on what is the best return for….

For instance, if those tolls were put in

[ Page 8837 ]

a position of a

P3 or a private company that needed to maximize profits for those tolls, what is

the impact of that on the airshed? Are we now creating a form of governance that

may very well take the argument of economy, the argument of environment…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Members in the House, can we just have a little bit of silence.

Continue, Member.

C. Puchmayr: It will take some very important arguments

away from local government, away from the communities and away from people that

live in those affected areas, and it will turn those over to accountants, to

people that may have totally different vested interests in the configuration of

transportation in the lower mainland. That is certainly concerning.

I know we talk about the old governance model, and the old

governance model was democratic. Some will say that it wasn't democratic because

you didn't actually elect a TransLink board of directors. You elected

councillors and mayors, and the councillors and mayors ended up being in those

positions. That's still certainly a lot more democratic than the system that is

proposed in this legislation.

This legislation absolutely strips democracy. I think there's an

old saying: democracy is the worst political system in the world besides all

others. Sometimes it's difficult to work on a consensus because different

communities have different vested interests, and that was one of the beauties of

the former governance of the TransLink board. People could sit down with New

Westminster and say: "We are concerned about traffic in the north sector of your

border. We're putting a road in. What is the impact?"

We could sit down and say: "Okay, we would like some restrictions

to truck traffic after certain hours of the evening." There was a compromise

that was made prior to the development of South Point, for instance. There was a

compromise made, and there was some mitigation made with respect to sound

barriers when New Westminster went to Burnaby and said: "Look, we want a better

sound attenuation if you're going to put this project through on the borders of

our community."

That's the beauty of being able to have input from the grass

roots, the people from the residents' associations up into the councils, and

then that would go to a joint group which was the governance — which was the

transit authority, who were really democratically elected and then appointed to

those authorities. Taking that away is wrong. Taking that away is absolutely

going in the wrong direction.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

I want to read a quote from the Transportation Minister talking

about one of his trips to China. He makes a very interesting quote here. He

probably did it a bit tongue-in-cheek, but sometimes when people jest, they do

have some heartfelt comments they make through that. He says: "No one there ever

questions the need to build infrastructure like this. Now, granted, China has a

bit of a different governance structure, but in many ways it is the ideal

governance structure."

He goes on to say: "China really has the ultimate…." He then uses

his real name. He then notes that the Chinese don't have the labour and

environmental restrictions that we do. "It's not like they have to do community

consultations," he goes on to say. "They just say, 'We're building a bridge,'

and they move everyone out of there and get going within two weeks. Could you

imagine if we could build like that here?"

Hon. K. Falcon: It was a joke.

C. Puchmayr: And I made those comments in jest.

But sometimes, when I look at the minister across, I think this

would be utopic for him to have this type of ability. I really, truly believe

that he feels this would be a great way to build.

[1430]

If this is so much in jest, then why does he bring forward a form of

governance that will actually trample on the democratic rights of a

municipality? If this was in jest, why is he introducing this type of

legislation which, in fact, does exactly that? It gives the ability to move

quickly, to railroad, to put systems in place with virtually no consultation.

Let's talk about the 30-year plan. This board of governance has a

need to go to the public after their initial 30-year plan. Wow. I'll be 83 when

they finally have to come to the community. Actually, even in some of the

legislation it goes on to state that…. It isn't cut and dried. They have to make

the best effort to go to the community — the best effort. It doesn't even say:

"they shall."

They're going to make the first plan now. They don't have to

factor in the growth strategies. They don't have to factor in 2021. They don't

have to factor in the GVRD plan that the United Nations awarded the GVRD $30,000

for, a plan that facilitated growth in a very constructive way. They don't have

to do that. They can merely make a 30-year plan, not go to the public

whatsoever, and that will be the guiding principle of the new governance

structure on transportation.

As someone that lives in a community that endures 300,000 vehicles

a day, Monday to Friday, cutting through, I shudder to think of the impacts that

this will have.

New Westminster was very positive when it came to the needs of

goods movement in the area. We looked at it, and we actually took a share of the

goods movement in our community. We did a responsible thing, but we did so with

consultation; we did so with mitigation.

We sat down with the government, we sat down with TransLink, and

we said: "This is what our needs are in order to facilitate this policy. Here's

where we need to go. We will buy in, but there are certain things that we need

to do in order to get an end result." That's gone. That doesn't even exist

anymore.

[ Page 8838 ]

What

happens, Madam Speaker, is that now this board writes their 30-year plan and

they say: "You know, we think we need to shove another 200,000 cars a day

through New Westminster. Well, New Westminster owns the road network. Jeez,

maybe there's a way to get around that. Let's just run it through."

They have the blessing of government, they have the blessing of

the Vancouver Board of Trade, they have the blessing of their accountants, but

they don't have the blessing of the people. The people in the community are

losing their say.

Look at some of the people that were elected and sat on TransLink

boards or boards of transportation. Some of them paid their political price for

that. Some of them are no longer there. For some of them, their political

careers ended over that. Some people will say rightly so, and some people will

say it was a bum rap. But you know what? It was democracy.

If they were sitting on the board or chairing the board of

TransLink and they came up for re-election as a city councillor or mayor and the

end result was that they lost their job because of that, that's democracy. You

live by it, and you die by it, but at least you have the ability to do it. At

least you have the ability to have a democratic process.

We're losing a lot of that in this province. We're losing the

rights of the community to have a say. We've lost it in most of the independent

power projects. We're losing it with regards to B.C. Ferries. We look at the

increases in the fares since this new sort of quasi-private board has taken

over. We're losing it on transportation.

I shudder to think that we're continuing to lose the ability of

communities to get up and say: "I don't believe in this. I want to see something

different." Sometimes it's just a matter of having some open consultation, and

we're not seeing open consultation here.

[1435]

We're not seeing people overwhelmingly saying: "Get rid of any form

of democracy on TransLink and replace it with an unelected, undemocratic board

that has abilities to implement taxes, to amass and develop lands, to hold

lands, to impose taxes on homeowners and not on businesses."

That has to be a concern, and we only need to look to some other

jurisdictions for what happens when you open Pandora's box with respect to

taxation for transit on property taxes. It just balloons. It just absolutely

balloons.

So I need to vigorously oppose this bill. We certainly have some

extreme concerns, and at the very least, the concerns are with respect to the

fact that it becomes undemocratic.

Why does the new board not have cycling interests or environmental

interests or transit user interests? Wouldn't that be a quality board — to have

people who actually use transit to sit as part of this governance? Well, they do

now. There's an open process where people can go to TransLink and they can voice

their opinions.

I believe it was the mayor of Langley a few years ago…. I remember

there was a bus that was chartered by Langley to go out there and oppose a

position that the board was taking. I think it was on the vehicle tax.

You know, there was an ability for a grass-roots movement to go

out there and say to a board, "You can't do this," and say: "If you do this,

next time I go to the polls, each and every one of you, I'm going to make sure

you're not re-elected."

That's gone. With a stroke of a pen from the Lieutenant-Governor,

that will be gone. Again, that concerns us on this side immensely. Every time

you take somebody's democratic rights away, people need to be concerned. People

need to speak out. Communities will be speaking out.

Look at just recently with the Auditor General — the report on the

massive overrun of the convention centre. The Auditor General said: not enough

expertise on the ground on the convention overrun.

Well, you know, Bill 36 actually had a provision in there where

the board had to have a certain amount of expertise in that field. That's gone —

boom. Now they don't have to have any expertise. We're just seeing a $400

million cost overrun on the convention centre because of a lack of expertise.

We're bringing in legislation that could impose a massive tax on every homeowner

in the region because something is bungled — because of poor representation, not

expert representation. That concerns me greatly, Madam Speaker.

It even allows for a screening panel, and it recommends they set

their own remuneration. I don't even know what it is now. I don't know what the

parameters are. It just says they get to sit down and decide how much they get

paid. Are they going to be governed by a conflict commissioner? Is there going

to be…? You know, we have to fill out a document, and it has to go to the

conflict commissioner. We have to make sure that we're not holding shares in a

company while voting on a certain position that we're taking.

Well, how many people in chambers of commerce and boards of trade

sell cars? I think almost all car lots are members of chambers of commerce. I

think most of them. I've gone to chambers of commerce meetings and listened to

people who are in the business of selling cars. There's nothing wrong with being

in the business of selling cars.

But when you're deciding as a director…. "Jeez, do I build a

bridge that for every transit lane takes about ten lanes of cars off the road?

Gee, am I going to want to build a bridge with the taxpayers' money that's going

to take cars off the road, and I'm not going to sell as many cars? Or will I

build a bridge that's going to maximize single-occupancy-use vehicles because

it's to my advantage as someone that sells cars?"

[1440]

It's bizarre that we would actually set up a structure where there is

the ability for that to happen. I'm not saying it's happening. It may never

happen, but the ability is there. The ability is there for someone to manipulate

the direction of transportation for purely selfish reasons.

The first reason I'm seeing that is most at risk is the

environment. I remember often turning on the radio and hearing about air

inversions and health warnings as far east as Hope. They were telling people

with respiratory problems not to leave their homes —

[ Page 8839 ]

Abbotsford,

Chilliwack, Hope. Can you imagine if somebody has a vested interest in putting

more cars and more single-family homes out there and not having a good planned

growth? Could you imagine what that will do to the children in that area, to the

lungs of the people that live in that area?

In closing, I would like to stress that we are strongly opposed to

this legislation. It is wrong. It takes away people's democratic rights, and we

will continue to vigorously oppose it.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to take my place to speak on Bill

43, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007,

sponsored here by the Minister of Transportation.

It's always a great day for me to stand in this place and talk

about transportation. I'm a member, as you know, hon. Speaker, from the lower

Island, not the lower mainland. We have significant transportation issues and

challenges in my community, and I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak

about those in the context of this piece of legislation, which creates and

amends the existing TransLink and GTVA relationships for my colleagues and those

on both sides of the House that live and reside in the lower mainland.

When I glance at the bill, I see an attempt by the Liberal

government…. This is the same Liberal government that spent the latter years of

the 1990s talking about the importance of putting democracy back to local

governments, putting powers back to local governments. They trumpeted their

Community Charter, hon. Speaker. You may well remember that. It was a

centrepiece in the election campaign in 2001. The B.C. Liberals were going to be

on the side of communities. They were going to listen to people. They were going

to have a ground-up approach.

Well, how far we've fallen from that lofty goal that was set so

many years ago. I know my friend from the southern part of the Peace, Peace

River South, is probably aghast at how far he and his colleagues have gone from

their initial intent of empowering communities, empowering local government to

make the changes and to make the decisions that will build stronger and more

effective communities from the top of the province to the bottom, to the coast

and to the border of Alberta. How far we've fallen.

Unaccountable, undemocratic and contemptuous of local government —

these are the comments that I've been listening to as this debate has proceeded.

It strikes me that that's inconsistent with what the government said they were

going to do when they were elected. In fact, it's a polar opposite. The

Community Charter, if I recall, was supposed to empower individuals within

communities to build the community that they would like to see.

Transportation policy is at the root of the climate change debate,

hon. Speaker. You're well aware of that. People talk about energy here in

British Columbia and across the world. The burning of coal, which was an

initiative sponsored by those on that side of the House until very recently, and

those sorts of activities are contributing to an increase in greenhouse gases,

but nowhere more so than with the automobile.

I'm struck by a government that says on one day that they want to

solve problems and on another day they create them. I'm thinking that if I was a

private company that was given the opportunity to build a bridge and make people

give me money to cross it, I would be encouraging people to use that bridge. I

wouldn't be encouraging public transit. I wouldn't be encouraging smart growth

or compact communities. I'd be saying: "Come use my bridge — only $1.50 today.

Come between two and four in the afternoon, and you can cross my bridge for a

buck."

That's what I would do if I was an entrepreneur, if I wanted to

increase my revenue. I'd want to get people in their cars on my bridge. How does

that square with the green team on the other side or the epiphany-riddled

Premier? He says one day that he wants to solve these problems, and the next day

he creates more problems. Tabling this legislation, Bill 43, is a classic

example of that.

We've had a number of contradictions recently. Just in the past

two weeks, while the House has been in session for the fall sitting, we've had a

number of contradictions for the epiphany-riddled Premier. He said that he

wanted to reduce sprawl. He said he wanted to have transportation initiatives on

the lower mainland that would increase densities and provide livable region

strategies with the sorts of policies that would make them work.

[1445]

One thinks you would empower local governments to do that. This bill

does the exact opposite. It rips control away from local governments and puts it

in the hands of what they call business expertise.

Now, I've got nothing against business. I encourage

entrepreneurship. I see it around my community every day, across the province.

It's what makes things work. But if you're going to say to a contractor, "Build

a bridge; charge people for using it; charge whatever you need, just make a

profit, and let's get that traffic going back and forth," I'm going to say:

"Give me eight lanes. Let me fill them up."

It's like selling hamburgers. It's pretty basic stuff. If you get

paid for every car that crosses the bridge, you're going to want more cars to

cross that bridge. You're not going to want expanded transit. You're not going

to want the Evergreen line out to the northeast. You're not going to want

SkyTrain to Tynehead. You're going to want cars on a bridge.

That's the plan on that side of the House, and they want to reduce

the ability of local politicians, local governments, to affect those policies,

so they pass it on to their Liberal-appointed friends. Let's get Ken Dobell on

that. Once the special prosecutor is finished, I'm sure he'll be able to serve

his time and then come back and do good work for the B.C. Liberal team. I'm sure

he'll be able to do that.

The challenge we have with this legislation is that if you're

going to have regional transportation authorities, they should be regional. They

should be represen-

[ Page 8840 ]

tative of the

people in that community — not business expertise, but communities.

Here on the south Island I've been raising issues with the

Minister of Transportation since I was elected. I've looked at the Sea to Sky

Highway. I've looked at $600 million, $700 million, $800 million to get people

to the ski hills faster. I've seen $1.2 billion, $1.3 billion, $1.4 billion for

a transit line from the airport so that we can get them from the airport to the

ski hills faster.

What have we seen in my community? What have we seen on the

Malahat? I know the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is interested in this. How

about $1.95? That's what the government has spent on Vancouver Island since

2005. Maybe $2.50 — that's about it.

We talk about dealing with climate change. We've got ministers on

that side of the House that turned a blind eye to a removal of 12,000 hectares

of forest land in my community so that there could be more urban sprawl. How

does that reconcile with the green team over there?

The epiphany-riddled Premier, you would think, would have thought

ahead and said: "That doesn't make any sense." He would have turned to his

cabinet colleagues in the south Island, the two lone members of the cabinet from

Vancouver Island, and said to them: "Member for Saanich North and the Islands

and Member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, what do you think? What do you think about

that? Do we need a transportation authority on the south Island to deal with the

congestion?"

Maybe we should invest in commuter rail. There's a dandy idea. Why

wouldn't we, as a Legislature and as a government on that side of the House,

look at the challenges on the south Island and say: "If we're going to manage

growth, if we're going to have smart growth and we're going to have compact

communities, why don't we see density across the rail line?"

I know my friend from Nanaimo-Parksville would understand that.

Why would we encourage regional sprawl and growth on the wild, rugged west coast

of Vancouver Island, where there is no transportation infrastructure, when we've

got opportunities on the east side of the island with the E&N corridor, with the

Vancouver Island Highway project that was built in the 1990s to move people

around? Why wouldn't we encourage that?

A. Dix: Who built that?

J. Horgan: Who did build that? I think it was the New

Democrat government. Those on this side of the House had the foresight to say,

"If we're going to have growth, let's do it in a planned and manageable way to

benefit communities, not to benefit big business" — not the corporate interest,

but the public interest.

It was a slow, slow road to "unaccountable, undemocratic and

contemptuous of local government." It started with the lofty goals of the

Community Charter. Then we had: "Oh, wait a minute. That's not working so well.

We'll have the Significant Projects Streamlining Act."

Isn't that something? The Significant Projects Streamlining Act.

In other words, if local people, if those that are elected in local communities

don't want something to happen, we're going to have to do something about it.

What better way to do it, with respect to transportation, than through Bill 43,

the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act?

What better way indeed. Let's say to local representatives: "We'll

have a council of mayors. You guys can get together and review the good thinking

and the rocket science that comes out of the business expertise–riddled panel."

We can look at their work and say to you, council of mayors: "What do you

think?"

[1450]

You don't have any authority. You don't have any veto. You don't have

any say, but you can wave your hand over top of this, and we'll call it regional

governance. We're going to expand the capacity of this board. We're going to

increase the gas tax out in the valley. We're going to take more money out of

people's pockets and encourage them to drive on the bridge because they won't be

having any public transit until 2013.

Why not invest today in the Evergreen line? That's what we're

saying on this side of the House. Why not see more buses right now — today?

That's what we're saying on this side of the House. Why would you allow an

entrepreneur to say: "Come and bring your car to my bridge. It's only $2.50

today. Cross while the going's good"? It makes no sense at all. That's not

demand management. That's insanity, led by those on that side of the House.

Here on southern Vancouver Island — my community of Malahat–Juan

de Fuca — I have two ribbons of highway. I have the West Coast Road coming from

Port Renfrew through the now recently privatized forest lands of Jordan River,

Shirley, Otter Point and into Sooke. And I have Highway 1, the Malahat, coming

into the Victoria approaches. Two ribbons of road. Between those two ribbons of

road is a perfectly practical and perfectly usable rail line.

People in my community, local governments, the municipality of

Langford, the municipality of View Royal, the municipality of Esquimalt and the

city of Victoria have come together with local developers, community

representatives, biking enthusiasts and other transportation advocates, and

they've said: "Let's invest in commuter rail." They've come to the government of

British Columbia. They've come to the Minister of Community Services, and

they've said: "Why wouldn't you invest in transportation alternatives in our

community?" The response has been silence — absolute silence.

I suppose those communities should be grateful because when we

look at what this government plans for the lower mainland, we'd rather not have

that visited upon us here on southern Vancouver Island. But the fact remains

that the disparity between the investments that we're seeing in transportation

on the lower mainland versus the investments we're seeing in the south Island

are stark, graphic and disappointing — profoundly disappointing.

[ Page 8841 ]

It's

billions of dollars to get to the ski hills for my friend from West

Vancouver–Garibaldi — billions of dollars to get from the airport to the ski

hills. Now, that's all well and good for your corporate friends who are flying

in to see if they'll invest in bridges and other road-based, car-based modes of

transportation, but what about people in other parts of the province?

What about those who can't get through Highway 16? My friend from

Skeena, those in the northwest, cut off by natural disasters over the winter.

What was the help from the government? "Well, we'll get to you in a minute.

We're burrowing a hole down Cambie right now, putting people out of business.

That's what we're doing. We're investing all of our time and energy in putting

small businesses out of work as we end Small Business Month."

It's a shame that we haven't heard yet in the debate….

B. Ralston: They're anti–small business.

J. Horgan: They're anti–small business. The public interest

is never on the top of their priority list. The corporate interest always is

and, of course, getting to the ski hills.

Now, I've got nothing against skiing at all. I'm not as agile as I

once was, but I've been known to go down the bunny hill now and again with my

family. I enjoy it very much. But I don't think I need to cut 20 minutes off my

trip to Whistler for 800 million bucks.

If we could have a quarter of the cost overruns on the convention

centre for Vancouver Island to implement commuter rail, the greenhouse gas

savings alone would help meet the challenges that the epiphany-riddled Premier

has brought before us with his climate change agenda, which I think we're going

to be seeing in the next number of weeks. When that comes forward, I'll look

forward to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head standing in her place and saying:

"We're going to invest in commuter rail because the member for Malahat has been

right all along. The members from Esquimalt, Juan de Fuca, have been right all

along."

The B.C. Liberals are going to actually earn some respect, rather

than waiting for election day and saying: "Vote for me, and I might give you

something." That's the sort of "vote for me" attitude. "I've got a community

charter. I'm going to give power back to the people." That's what the Premier

said. That's what the member for Vancouver–Point Grey said in the 1990s.

Boy, oh boy. We've come a long way — unaccountable, undemocratic,

contemptuous of local government.

The biggest contradiction of all has to be Bill 30, which we

passed in this place in 2006, I believe it was. That was a piece of legislation

that overrode decision-making on land use in electoral areas of municipalities

when it came to independent power projects. I've had other members talk about

this in other debates. I think it's germane to Bill 43 inasmuch as it symbolizes

the underlying ethic of the government across the way, the corporate ethic.

[1455]

Business expertise trumps common sense in local communities time and

time again. Why not allow your corporate supporters to build projects that reap

windfall profits to them at the expense of local communities? That's what it's

all about, isn't it, at the end of the day? We weren't elected to come in here

and speak for the people in our community. Well, we on this side of the House

were. Those on that side of the House were elected to get larger campaign

contributions from larger corporations. That's the focus, and we see it in

spades with Bill 43.

Public-private partnerships for transportation initiatives will

not reduce demand. What we need is a project and a plan that consists of

community input. I heard my friend from Vancouver-Kensington talk about that,

and I know my friend from Whalley will do the same thing. Community input will

lead to transportation initiatives that will move people around effectively in a

climate-friendly way, in a way that will help build and shape smart growth, not

sprawl.

Again, I have to go back to my colleagues from the south Island

that sit on the government benches. I ask myself as I go home every night, hon.

Speaker: what would compel you to allow 12,000 hectares of land to come out of a

forest reserve, to come out of a tree farm licence for one purpose only, and

that's to lead to urban sprawl, which will lead to more congestion, more

transportation challenges on the south Island? Why would you do that?

What compelling reason could there possibly be to allow a forest

giant — a profitable forest giant — to take those lands that were part of a

social contract, a covenant between community and company in the 1950s? Why

would you allow that land to come out? Again, a former Forests Minister from

bygone days…. Why would they allow that to happen?

The challenge with transportation is that if you're going to be

building communities, you need to have an infrastructure in place. I know that

with Bill 43, the intent of the government, as they say…. I heard the minister

clearly in his rant this morning, when he was heckling and ridiculing our critic

while she was putting forward our perspective. His view was that business knows

best. That's the way you build a transportation infrastructure.

I would suggest to you, hon. Speaker, and others will suggest to

you throughout the course of this debate, that communities are better placed to

do that, and individuals within those communities — cyclists, those who are

looking for better pedestrian walkways and compact communities, complete

communities where you can live, work and recreate. It's just a slogan for the

people on the other side of the House — B.C., "The best place on earth."

Well, it's certainly a very nice place. It's a super, natural

place. I thought that was a pretty good slogan. Beautiful British Columbia —

that's undeniable. Best place on earth is a bit boastful for my taste. My mother

taught me not to be boastful — to acknowledge the splendour that surrounds us.

To put a logo on things and say we're the best place on earth is a bit boastful

for me.

Interjection.

[ Page 8842 ]

Horgan: I see my friend from Mount Pleasant agrees with me, so I'll

continue.

Although I know that the member for Kamloops wants me to stick to

the point and from Quilchena, he wants me to stick to the point, I have to go

back to this sprawl on the west coast of the Island, because it is germane. If

you're planning for transportation, surely to goodness you've got to plan

communities. If you're going to be planning communities, you'd think that at the

top of your list would be local representatives and local government.

When we pass this bill — and I'm sure that the government majority

will ram it through, and we'll be ripping away the accountability of local

government and making the undemocratic board that the minister is so anxious to

see with its expertise and business acumen — I'm hopeful the minister will then

set his sights on trying to improve things here on the south Island. Maybe,

perhaps, the representatives at the cabinet table from the south Island will

speak up for a change and say: "What we need here is infrastructure so that we

can get people out of their cars, onto bicycles, into public transit to move

people around in an efficient way, in a climate-friendly way, to save lives, to

do something about the Malahat."

The minister knows full well, after a two and a half year study

and $2.50 worth of expenditure, that there are significant challenges on the

south Island. They're not addressed by releasing private forest lands for sprawl

on the west coast of the Island. They would be addressed by using the

infrastructure that is in place smartly and listening to communities, listening

to local representatives.

It's the antithesis of this bill, however. But I'm hopeful, after

they've made the mistake in the lower mainland, that when we get to the south

Island, we might actually have some creative thinking, some positive thinking,

inviting communities back to the table rather than booting them away from the

table, as this bill does.

[1500]

The Community Charter — that's where we started. That was the

promise. That was the dream from Vancouver–Point Grey. We're going to put power

back to the people. That's what they said.

They were elected, and what have they done? The Significant

Projects Streamlining Act; Bill 30, with respect to IPPs; and now Bill 43.

Unaccountable, undemocratic, contemptuous of local government. It's pretty

simple.

If I were the mayor of Vancouver, I would be thinking: boy, oh

boy. Here I am. I'm about to host the Olympics. I thought this was a

partnership. I thought we were working together, putting in place infrastructure

to make these things happen. I look across from Cambie Street, and I see this

great, cavernous hole. I see small business people wondering what the heck they

bought into. What was visited upon them by — what I would call the government of

British Columbia, but I think I heard the minister and the Minister of Finance

say — the funding partner? What has the funding partner done to us?

The funding partner. That's a little bit of a downgrade — isn't

it? — from the province of British Columbia. But that's how they refer to

themselves over there with respect to the Canada line.

A. Dix: No P3s in her back yard.

J. Horgan: Yeah. P3s if necessary, but not necessarily P3s.

I heard the minister say today with respect to P3s that they're

the greatest things since sliced bread. Yet with respect to the Cambie line and

the devastation of small businesses here in Small Business Month….

No, no, no, we can't have that. Maybe it wasn't the right way to

go. "Maybe it was a mistake," she said. Well, it's only a mistake if it affects

you. All politics is local. That's absolutely right.

As I look at the clock, hon. Speaker, I see I have more time on my

hands. I know the minister is anxious to hear my views on these issues, so I'll

continue on. He often talks about how humourless I am. I'm sure he's not really

referring directly to me. It's more my species than anything else.

The Greater Victoria transportation commission came to the

minister a year and a half ago — might have been two years ago now — and asked

for a one-cent-a-litre increase in the gas tax. I believe, at the time, gas was

selling for about 86 or 87 cents a litre, and the minister said that consumers

would not stand for it. Consumers would not stand for a one-cent-a-litre

increase.

That one-cent-a-litre increase would have gone to public

transportation on south Vancouver Island. It would have gone to improving the

bus system and towards implementing commuter rail, light rapid transit down

Douglas Street. It would have been for the betterment of the community, the

public interest. Again, I refer back to the public interest.

Since that time, gas prices went as high as $1.22 a litre. Not a

scintilla of that increase, from 86 or 87 cents to $1.22, went toward public

transportation. Every penny of it went to Exxon, Shell and other large

multinational oil companies. That was an outrage.

We on this side of the House mounted a campaign against those

increases. I didn't hear one peep from the other side about consumers not

standing for it. We asked for a one-cent-a-litre increase for transportation

issues on the south Island. The minister said consumers wouldn't stand for it.

As I read this legislation, the government fully intends to

increase the gas tax not just in the GVRD but extending all the way out to

Abbotsford and Chilliwack. I'm wondering how those consumers are going to stand

for it. What's the difference? What's happened?

There are more epiphanies on the other side. Epiphany-riddled — I

think I've coined that phrase. I should trademark that, because it seems every

other week something shiny goes by, and the government says: "Ooh, let's follow

that for a bit." What's going to happen then? That's what we say on this side of

the House.

Hon. K. Falcon: Is that a consensus position, or is that

your own position?

[ Page 8843 ]

Horgan: We're developing a consensus position on this. That's right —

absolutely. It's evolving.

This bill will make TransLink less accountable. There will be less

political oversight, more environmental costs, fewer transportation choices. It

reduces the ability of communities to affect what goes on within their borders.

Local governments have been neutered. Their powers have been taken away. It's

contemptuous, it's undemocratic, and it makes for an unaccountable board.

I know my time has almost run out, hon. Speaker, and I can sense

that you're disappointed by that. I will take my seat, but before I do that, I'd

like to leave a message with the members from the cabinet that reside in the

south Island. Give a thought to us this Christmas, give a thought to commuter

rail, and give a thought to increasing transportation funding in the south

Island.

[1505]

I. Black: You're not going to break into song, are you?

J. Horgan: Don't know where, don't know when, but I know

we'll meet again some sunny day.

To the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the member for Saanich

North and the Islands: spare a thought for those of us who live in the gridlock

here in south Vancouver Island. Spare a thought for my constituents who have to

use the Malahat to get back and forth to work every day, putting their lives at

risk when the rains come and the fog comes and the snow comes in the winter

months.

Maybe contemplate just for a moment in your hearts, if you have

the opportunity, investing in public transportation on south Vancouver Island,

investing in improving the quality of life here in British Columbia, the part of

British Columbia that you represent — the local governments, the local residents

that sent you to this place to stand up for their interests, not the corporate

interest but the public interest. That's our mandate. That's what we should be

doing.

Thank you very much for the time, hon. Speaker. I've had a

delightful afternoon.

B. Ralston: I rise to take my place in this debate, and I want

to make a couple of comments about the proposed governance structure that this

bill recommends to govern transportation in the south coast or the lower

mainland. Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about these assumptions that are

made as to how the new entity will be financed.

It is striking, the degree to which this governance structure

shows contempt for the democratic structures of British Columbia. It's very

striking. It's often been said that the British parliamentary system is a system

of amateurs advised by professionals, and I think that is meant very seriously.

I remember a famous American political commentator who said he

would rather be governed by 15 people picked at random from the Boston phone

book than the entire faculty of Harvard. There's a presumption in democracy that

elected people will make the best decisions, and if they don't, the people they

represent will correct them either through their representations or at election

time.

But here the presumption is very clearly different. It's striking

in its contempt for elected officials. I refer, to give an example, to the

mayors council, which will have some very minor role in the governance structure

— nominally there in the structure, but a very minor influence.

What the prospective member of the mayors council on regional

transportation must do, in

section 209, is swear an oath. I'm reading from the

section: "I will, when exercising my powers and duties under the South Coast

British Columbia Transportation Authority Act as a member of the mayors council

on regional transportation, consider the interests of the transportation service

region as a whole."

Now, it's a striking proposition in the sense that it expresses a

complete lack of confidence, an arrogant contempt for those elected mayors who

have much experience in running a transportation system and certainly in

interpreting the land use patterns and the property tax financial decisions that

would be required in running such an enterprise.

To subject them, before they can take their place in this

organization, to this process of taking an oath to consider the system — the

transportation service region as a whole — strikes me as arrogant in the extreme

and says everything that needs to be said about this minister's lack of respect

for local government.

The mayors council has a role in the screening panel in selecting

directors for the new entity. Again, it's striking that in

section 170 of the

proposed act, an eligible individual as a director "does not hold elected public

office of any type…."

[1510]

So it's not simply that you're not a member of a council that might

be…. That you can't be a member of a school board, can't be an elected official

of any type, again expresses a contempt, an arrogance, for those people who

choose to serve their community in whatever capacity. I suppose you can't be a

diking commissioner. You can't be on the harbour authority. Any position in

which you hold elected public office, you're disentitled to be a director of

this agency.

The screening panel is set out, and these are the people who will

select the directors. Another wise political scientist said that the greater the

degree of remove from direct representation and the more levels you have to work

through in order to get to the ultimate decision-maker, the less democratic it

is. This board is constructed like a Russian doll. There's an entity inside an

entity inside an entity inside an entity before you get to the real

decision-makers.

I would like to review what's in the screening panel. The mayors

council is entitled to appoint someone. But they can't appoint one of their own,

because that would be an elected official. So the mayors council has to select

someone other than an elected official. They certainly can't select one of their

own to do that.

The Minister of Transportation can select someone, and it's

directly, in this particular case. Presumably,

[ Page 8844 ]

that will be

someone who's very supportive of the minister's position. One would assume that.

Next, the Institute of Chartered Accountants is entitled to

appoint someone. The Institute of Chartered Accountants does appear before the

Finance Committee. Their CEO, Mr. Rees, made a presentation to the Finance

Committee earlier this year. I believe he appeared before us in Mission. But

there's nothing in what the Institute of Chartered Accountants does that

suggests, inherently, an interest in transportation per se.

I looked at what they called their checkup document, which is

their annual review of the economy in British Columbia. Their recommendations

are conventional business recommendations that one hears from chambers of

commerce from time to time, but nothing terribly striking.

In their review of the mainland southwest development region, what

they do talk about is air quality. It's striking that they do talk about that.

They have some observations about ozone data, but they don't tie that in any way

to transportation. I don't think it's any great revelation that air quality,

particularly in the Fraser Valley, is tied to emissions, but they don't really

talk about that in any way whatsoever. So they record the levels of ozone. They

mark that as an indicator of public health, but they don't appear to connect

that in any way to transportation.

I don't want to express any distaste for the accountants.

Obviously, they perform a valuable societal function. No person who does their

taxes that have any complexity would want to be without the advice of an

accountant from time to time. Certainly, they perform a valuable function in

industry, business, non-profits, universities — whatever. But there's nothing

inherent, I would say, in this particular Institute of Chartered Accountants

that qualifies them to appear on the screening panel.

Next, members of the Vancouver Board of Trade. Now, it's striking

that for an organization that purports to govern the region, it's the Vancouver

Board of Trade. It's not the Surrey Board of Trade. One of the members of this

chamber is a former president of the Surrey Board of Trade, and I expect he'll

probably vote against this legislation because of that. It's the Vancouver Board

of Trade — not the Abbotsford Board of Trade, not the Tri-Cities Chamber of

Commerce, not any other business organization in the lower mainland.

[1515]

Why is the Vancouver Board of Trade given such primacy? Why is it

selected instead of any of these other business organizations? Surely one would

have thought that the Surrey Board of Trade, being the leading business

organization south of the Fraser River, might have been considered for that. But

no. It's the Vancouver Board of Trade.

I really wonder about the choice of the Vancouver Board of Trade —

again, a very respectable organization. I was recently reading a piece in

B.C. Business where the then president, Dan Muzyka, attempted to put

together a group to look at the future of the region. I agree with what he was

setting out to do. He was saying that it's very clear that after 2010 there's

really not very much of a business vision for this province. He was supported in

that by someone who's on the city council in Vancouver.

Councillor Peter Ladner said: "But all booms end, and when you

look beyond real estate speculations and one-time Olympic construction, our

productivity is declining; our research-driven, high-growth new industries are

lagging behind their competitors; and head-office employment is declining." He

warns: "The foundations of all this growing wealth…. They're shaky at best."

That's not a New Democrat. That's Peter Ladner, who is a representative on the

city council in Vancouver.

In order to address this problem, this lack of vision, Mr. Muzyka,

very much in the manner of the regional scope of this entity that's proposed,

tried to put together an organization to develop an economic vision, to engage

in regional economic development within the very same region that this entity is

proposed for. One can't think of an activity that's more integrally related and

tied to the economic development of the region than the transportation system.

Certainly, that's a very important aspect of economic development.

Land development, the future growth of communities, the business

development that would follow — all those things are integrally tied up in that

vision of the region. But what Mr. Muzyka found when he tried at the Vancouver

Board of Trade to put this group together to do it was that despite his very

considerable qualifications…. I certainly in no way want to suggest that there's

anything wrong with Mr. Muzyka's approach. I support it totally. He expresses

his frustration in this article.

The Vancouver Board of Trade and its members didn't support him in

creating this organization to create a vision for the economic future of the

lower mainland region, the very region that this transportation entity will

cover. So I'm a little troubled by the fact that the Vancouver Board of Trade,

given this history of inability to develop an economic vision he proposed to

2025, is going to be placed in a very influential position to select the

leadership who are going to drive this transportation entity forward, develop a

ten-year plan and a 30-year plan.

They've failed as a group, not through any lack of effort on Mr.

Muzyka's part, to develop an economic vision for the region. Why would they be

any more successful in promoting a transportation vision for the region than the

economic vision that they failed at doing?

I'm troubled by that, and I expect the minister will have an

answer for that. Perhaps we can debate that when we get to committee stage of

the bill.

The other entity that's included as one of the members of the

screening panel is the Greater Vancouver Gateway Society. That is, I gather, not

an organization that was set up by the minister to promote the Gateway project.

It's a separate Gateway council, which was founded in 1994. I have a list of the

executive members. Again, they will be no challenge to the vision that the

minister is advocating — the exclusively business vision, I would say, and one

aspect of business, not all of business.

[1520]

I'm not sure that their website was up to date. There were people

such as the president and CEO of

[ Page 8845 ]

the Vancouver

Port Authority, the president of the B.C. Wharf Operators Association, the

president and CEO of the B.C. Trucking Association, the president and CEO of the

Vancouver International Airport Authority. And in yet another interlocking

directorship, I suppose, in some respects, the Vancouver Board of Trade is on

the Gateway Council. There are representatives of railways, maritime employers,

associations — things like that.

Really, the Gateway Council appears to be basically another aspect

of the same thing, although it's styled as a separate entity. It seems very much

like the kind of point of view that one would get from the Minister of

Transportation or the Vancouver Board of Trade. So although the members of the

screening panel appear to be appointed by different people, they all appear to

come from the very same perspective.

That is a legitimate perspective, but in my view and in the view

of the members opposite, it's certainly not the only view, nor is it desirable

to create a board of directors populated exclusively by people who have that

view. This board of directors is not accountable and has very little political

scrutiny available to it. Really, it will treat the regional transportation

services more as a utility than as a development mechanism, a community-building

exercise with the environmental and social land use implications that, of

course, any transportation system has.

The government has clearly said that as a result of the Premier's

brainwave on the beach in Maui, they're embarking on a process of climate

change. They're going to consider that.

It's significant that the governance review began before this

change in the direction by the Premier. As a result, the governance review and

the structure that is now before us in this legislation do not consider those

goals at all.

It's not just me saying that, because I know the members opposite

might be a little bit skeptical about me saying that. It's the David Suzuki

Foundation. David Suzuki has said publicly that his climate change team is

working very closely with the Premier's office. They're giving the Premier his

advice on climate change, but none of that appears to have been listened to in

putting together this legislation when you look at the financial implications

and the sources of revenue that are proposed.

I know that TransLink is now a much-maligned and defunct

organization. But back in April 2006 the TransLink chair Malcolm Brodie made a

presentation to the Surrey and Langley chambers of commerce, which I was able to

hear, and I kept a copy of his speaking notes. He spoke about the challenges in

financing TransLink. This is a person who the minister praised earlier in his

speech yesterday and is recognized as…. Mind you, he is an elected official, of

course. He's the mayor of Richmond, so I suppose that diminishes him somewhat in

the esteem of the minister.

Nonetheless, he did set out the challenges that TransLink faced,

and I want to read a little bit from what he said about those because I don't

want to be accused of misquoting him.

[1525]

"We found efficiencies in many areas, but with demands

for more expansion come long-term revenue challenges. As business leaders,

you all know that transportation improvements don't come without a cost.

Please allow me to explain why TransLink funding options are so limited.

"Our main three sources of revenue are fuel taxes, fares and

property taxes. First of all, our share of fuel tax revenue — 30 percent of

TransLink's budget — is volatile due to fluctuating gas prices and

consumption. We've already raised transit fares, and there is a danger of

increasing them again since higher fares reduce ridership.

"We've

also reached the limit, in terms of property taxes, that people are prepared

to support, with two increases that were approved by municipalities through

the GVRD."

Now Metro Vancouver, I add in parenthesis.

I'm continuing to quote:

"While TransLink will receive some federal New Deal

funding, the funding is only certain for five years, and it can't be used

for operating expenses. We're also facing increased construction costs, a

23-percent increase over the life of our transportation expansion plan."

He goes on to talk about the difficulty of the parking

site tax, which this bill would abolish, but he says:

"Because the funds support debt incurred for capital

projects, we can't abandon the tax outright without eliminating some $150

million to $200 million worth of vital capital projects, but we continue to

look for alternatives."

He concludes with some comments about the importance of

the transportation system and it being vital to the provincial and national

economies.

Now, I thought that was a pretty good

summary from the chair of

TransLink about the sources of revenue and the difficulties with those sources

of revenue. Just so I can review, there are three sources: fuel taxes, fares and

property taxes.

What does this bill propose as the three sources of revenue for

the new transportation entity? Why, fuel taxes, fares and property taxes — the

same three areas that Mr. Brodie pointed out have some inherent difficulties as

a form of stable funding for the operation.

The tax on transportation fuel — or the gas tax, as it's sometimes

called. There are some assumptions built into this plan about gas tax revenue.

If I could turn to this document now, in the TransLink governance review at page

43, where they looked at projected TransLink expenditures and revenues — because

they did a business model for the proposed new entity….

What they assumed on the revenue side: "On the revenue side, it is

assumed that property tax revenues would increase by 3 percent, that fuel tax

revenues would increase by 1 percent a year and that fares would increase by the

rate of inflation. No new taxes or levies are assumed."

Keep in mind that assumption about the increase in fuel tax

revenue, because what the Premier's very close climate change advisers from the

David Suzuki Foundation say is that that doesn't accord at all. It's completely

in contradiction with the climate change

[ Page 8846 ]

objectives of the

very elementary climate change plan that's been thus far discussed, because it

envisages reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector by a

substantial amount.

If you're going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the

transportation sector, you're going to encourage…. At least not a 1-percent

growth per year over the life of the plan. You're going to increase or perhaps

have it stable, but surely your long-term goal would be to have it decline.

That's a source of revenue. Mr. Brodie already points out that the

gas tax revenue is inherently unstable because of fluctuations in price and

vehicle usage. So the proposed financial plan for this entity doesn't make sense

in terms of the other commitments that the government has made.

[1530]

Maybe the Minister of Finance didn't know that. I find that hard to

believe. Maybe the Premier didn't tell him. I find that hard to believe. Maybe

the two ministries or the Premier's office and the Ministry of Finance are

working in isolation. That's possible. Certainly, on such an important, major

public endeavour, these considerations would be taken into account. But there's

nothing in the plan to suggest that that's been taken into account.

Mr. Ian Bruce of the David Suzuki Foundation, the Premier's

climate change adviser, says:

"TransLink estimates that to achieve the B.C. emissions

target, the percentage of trips now made by transit would have to grow from

11.5 percent today to 25 to 30 percent by 2020, more than doubling transit

ridership within the metro service region.

"Although there are no studies or estimates on the level of

transportation service required in B.C. Transit service areas to achieve the

B.C. government's emissions target, a similar increase in ridership may be

required for other B.C. Transit systems as well. Enhanced transit service

will be most cost-effective and practical at shifting commuter trips from

cars to transit when larger communities also pursue contact development.

"The province faces serious problems if current transportation

trends continue on a business-as-usual basis. In the lower mainland vehicle

ownership is growing faster than population, largely due to the lack of

alternatives to the personal automobile."

The Premier's climate change adviser from the Suzuki

Foundation says that the other measures are good measures — the California

vehicle tailpipe measures and the low-carbon fuel standards. He goes on to say:

"These policies will be unlikely to halt, let alone reduce, overall greenhouse

gas emissions from B.C.'s vehicle fleet." This is for a couple of reasons. It'll

take quite a while to phase in those new vehicles, and secondly, without

significant investment in transit service and other sustainable transportation,

more vehicles and longer vehicle trips will negate the emission reductions by

the California standards.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I want to read it, just so that it's clear that it's the advice of

the Premier's climate change adviser at the Suzuki Foundation who's saying this.

It's not something fanciful that I have extracted from any document.

Mr. Bruce says:

"Foremost" — he's referring to the TransLink governance

review panel — "the panel's recommendations were based on TransLink's

financial projections contained within the ten-year plan, a plan that was

not designed to provide sufficient transportation infrastructure to reduce

carbon emissions to the levels envisioned by the B.C. government.

"Secondly, the panel assumed that fuel tax revenues would grow

at 1 percent, the then current rate of growth of fuel — gas and diesel —

consumption. Under the province's new climate change targets, however,

transportation fuel consumption in B.C. will need to decrease by 33 percent

by 2020 to achieve B.C.'s emission target. Therefore, we have prepared a

series of recommendations in this document that are consistent with the B.C.

government's climate change goals."

There you have it. The financial assumptions that are in

this document on one of the three sources of revenue — which Mr. Brodie says

raised, in the old entity, 30 percent of the budget — are completely flawed.

This projection was prepared before the Premier's climate change direction and

has assumptions that, if the Premier is to be believed or these targets are to

be seriously tackled, will not come to pass. So the revenue structure on which

this entity is founded has had one of the three legs of the stool kicked out

from under it at the beginning.

I really wonder whether this is good policy, and I'm not sure that

all the professional experts that the minister would pack onto this board of

directors wouldn't tell him the same thing. I don't see why this problem can't

be addressed now.

[1535]

Apparently, this document, this bill, these financial assumptions and

these revenue projections are prepared in the absence of any consideration of

what the David Suzuki Foundation's climate change specialist says about the

targets that have been set for reductions in the transportation sector.

I have very serious concerns about the financial viability of this

entity, if that advice from the David Suzuki Foundation — Mr. Bruce — is taken

seriously. Maybe it won't be.

There are some skeptics who deride the Premier's conversion to

climate change and say that the targets are not really serious, that this will

not come to pass, that it's simply being concocted for political purposes. I

seriously hope I'm wrong on that, but what this bill posits, holds out as its

projections for revenue and what the David Suzuki Foundation says are a complete

contradiction.

At the committee stage I hope the minister, if he chooses to

listen to me, will provide some answers.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to take my place today to debate

Bill 43, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007.

While I'm always happy to stand in my place and speak about issues

that are important to British Columbia, I must say, on this particular piece of

legis-

[ Page 8847 ]

lation, that it

is a bit melancholy. It is a bit of a sad day, because it's a piece of

legislation that is regressive. I think that it was introduced, in terms of what

it accomplishes, in a pretty spiteful way, and it certainly does not address the

real issues we face around transportation and transportation planning in the

lower mainland.

One thing that the legislation does do is it fairly, in some ways,

reflects the minister's personality. I think the legislation does that. I think

the legislation bullies in the ways that it deals with things. It's not

accountable. It creates structures that are not accountable.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just be sure your language is not

unparliamentary.

S. Simpson: Absolutely, hon. Chair. I will be conscious of

that.

I think that in some ways it is more ideological than practical in

some of what it accomplishes. Part of the challenge with that is that the bill

doesn't actually get at the problem. There are significant problems with the

transportation planning and the transportation system in the Greater Vancouver

area, and there are issues, certainly, that this minister and this government

could have addressed, but they haven't addressed them with this piece of

legislation.

Rather they've accomplished a number of other things. I want to

talk through those things over my time to be able to participate in this debate.

I would make an observation. I've been watching with interest the

debate that's gone on around Bill 43 to this point, and I was reflecting back on

a comment that I've heard referenced by the government side a couple of times.

They've talked about muzzling and those kinds of things. Yet I find it very

interesting that so far, to this point in debate on this bill, it's been members

of the opposition — with the exception, of course, of the minister — who have

spoken to this bill.

Not a single member from the government side has spoken. Not a

single member from the lower mainland who represents a constituency on the

government side has spoken. It makes me wonder if maybe they are a little bit

concerned about this bill. Maybe they're a little bit shamed by what this bill

does and doesn't do.

[1540]

Maybe it's because they know that this bill is undemocratic, and

maybe it's because they know that what this bill looks to do, when we talk about

muzzling, is muzzle every mayor and every city councillor in the lower mainland

and stop them from talking about these critical issues.

What is this bill, and what does it actually do? What the bill

does is it restructures, essentially, the governance of transportation planning

in the lower mainland. The way it does that is it takes authority away from

elected officials. It takes the board of TransLink…. It is made up of mayors and

councillors who are elected in their communities and then come to the TransLink

board, make decisions at that board, are accountable at that board and,

ultimately, can be held accountable in their constituencies, back in their

communities.

We certainly know that happens. All you'd have to do is ask George

Puil whether the chair of TransLink can be held accountable. It probably cost

him his seat on Vancouver city council, because the people of Vancouver objected

to the way that he dealt with his role as chair of that board.

So people are held accountable, and that is increasingly so as

transportation — the notion of transportation planning, the relationship of

transportation planning to land use planning, to climate change and to the

environment — becomes more inextricably linked for people in their minds, and

increasingly as people in the lower mainland and across the province, for that

matter, look at the connection between those issues and how important they are

and why we need to be working together on those issues.

Hon. Speaker, what you have is a situation where this board of

elected officials now has been dismissed by the minister. The minister has

decided that. This is a board that certainly thinks more about transportation in

the lower mainland than the minister, that has a balanced view of transportation

and sees transportation as more than pavement, that has a concern about the

environment and a concern about air quality, that thinks about the social

condition and people who need to take buses and use transportation — all things

that the minister is oblivious to and certainly doesn't comprehend.

What they did is they began to challenge this minister in his

approaches, and they also — and we'll talk about this a little bit more as we go

along — began to ask the government when it was going to step up and actually

invest some resources in making transportation work.

Of course, this government has abandoned transit, abandoned buses.

They've walked away from that. They put multi-billions of dollars into pavement.

Those commitments are all there and solid, but the commitments are a pittance

when it comes to buses and transit. The rhetoric is high; the commitment is a

pittance.

Mayors and councillors have asked those questions, and the

response of the minister with Bill 43 is essentially to dismiss local

government. They've dismissed local government, and in its place there will be

an unaccountable board — a professional board, an expert board.

We have no idea who this board will be made up of, but what we do

know is who is going to make those choices. What do we know? We know that five

people are essentially going to make those choices. What we know about those

five people is that four of those folks come to that table with a perspective.

It's not a bad perspective, but it is a narrow perspective in terms of the

interest of transportation and transportation planning.

They come to that table from the board of trade, which obviously

represents business interests in the Vancouver area. They come to that table

from the chartered accountants, who represent, certainly, the economic and the

business interest. They come to that table from the Gateway Council, which

represents large goods movement and business, and a representa-

[ Page 8848 ]

tive, of course,

who will be named by the Minister of Transportation. Then the mayors got to name

one, and that's all good.

But I have a suspicion, and my suspicion is that when this expert

board gets appointed, it's going to kind of look like the committee that

selected it. What you'll have is nine people on this board, and seven of them or

so will reflect the view that those four groups reflect — the board of trade,

the Gateway Council, the chartered accountants and the minister. Then there

might be one or two others on that board who reflect something else, because

you've got to at least put a face on it of some kind to show that it's not too

crass.

[1545]

The reality of it will be that when those votes come, all of those

votes will be determined by the folks who represent a single perspective.

What we know is that transportation, increasingly, is not about a

single perspective. It really is about this issue that we talk about here and

people talk about around the province and around the world. People talk about

sustainability, and they talk about what sustainability actually means.

When we talk about sustainability, we are not talking just about

the three legs of the stool, as it's often called — about the economic, the

environmental and the social. Those are what we're talking about. But there's

also a fourth leg, which I like to talk about, which is engagement. We'll talk

about that a little bit in a minute.

What we do know is that those other three pieces need to be dealt

with in a coherent and holistic way. The concern I have is that we are putting

in place a board that is not accountable, is not elected and cannot be held to

account by the people of British Columbia with the tool that they have to hold

all of us to account: come election time they decide whether to keep us around

or throw us out on our ear. That's all good, but this board isn't going to be

held to account at all — not in that way at all.

As a consequence, when decisions are made around issues related to

sustainability, if those decisions are weighted in an inappropriate way towards

one of those three legs of the stool — towards the economic leg of the stool —

it will create significant problems in the region. It will create environmental

problems. It will certainly create challenges for the Premier's pursuit of

climate change, to get the six million to nine million tonnes he wants out of

transportation. It will create problems there.

Also, as my colleague pointed out, one of the three funding

sources here is fares. If it doesn't deal with the social implications of the

fare structure, it will then hurt those people who are most vulnerable and who

most need to use the service. If it doesn't look at those things and weigh them

in balance, it certainly will impact the Premier's desired intention, which he

talked about at the UBCM, to double the amount of people that use transit.

If you don't make it easier and more affordable and more

accessible for people to get on that transit, that's not going to happen. To

date, of course, we have had very, very few commitments around transit from this

government — 20 buses in six or seven year, something like that. That's the

commitment so far.

What we have is a real challenge around whether we can meet

climate change, whether we can meet those sustainability challenges. One of the

things that has to happen, I believe, for that to occur is that you have to have

a board that is able to deal with those things and that is held accountable by

the people of the province and the region.

We don't have that. This expert board that's going to get put in

place won't be accountable to anybody.

The other thing that this particular piece of legislation does —

which was pointed out and referenced by my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, who

went into this in some depth and I think outlined the situation quite well — is

it doesn't deal with the biggest challenge that transportation has in the lower

mainland, which is that it's starved for resources.

It doesn't have resources because this government has failed to

commit the resources necessary to make transit work in this region. They have

failed to commit it. I suspect it's because they have no commitment to transit,

so why would they bother?

What do we know? Let's talk about who responds to this. It's

interesting. I have a response to this, but I'm not the only person, as others

here aren't. Metro Vancouver, the GVRD at that time…. Some of their senior

officials looked at this proposed legislation, the last incarnation of it, and

it hasn't changed very much. They looked at this legislation.

[1550]

Now these are people who understand the region. These are people who

understand planning. Unlike the minister, they actually have some concept of

sustainability in planning, something the minister has never understood.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: Yeah, really.

These are people in the community who actually are thoughtful

people who have a vision, unlike the minister, whose vision is pavement.

What did they say? What did these senior officials report to the

GVRD board? What they said is that this new board of directors under the new

structure will be much less accountable and have less political oversight.

That's what they said. They said that this board won't be accountable, unlike a

political board. They said that there isn't political oversight.

This becomes a real challenge, because the transportation

authority needs to be seen primarily as a planning tool. That's a key part of

its role, to look at planning and the future of transportation. What's being

created here, as the staff from the GVRD, now Metro Vancouver, said, is that it

looks like it will be managed much more like a utility — I find that interesting

— that serves transportation demand, instead of a tool to begin to get us to

sustainable transportation.

[ Page 8849 ]

Another thing that these senior officials from GVRD, now Metro

Vancouver, said is that this private sector, the privatization of the authority

— which is what we're talking about here, the privatization of TransLink — would

probably be more expedient in some ways in terms of how it would deal with

stuff, and I suspect that's true. They don't have to worry about things like

being accountable and transparent and all those things, so I imagine they'll get

things done quite a bit quicker.

I would expect that the minister would think that's okay, because

accountability has never been something the minister has seen as very important.

Accountability and the minister are hardly ever in the same phrase.

Part of the problem here is, as it says: "There is no obvious

motivation…to seriously consider external effects such as the environmental

costs of transportation choices" — that's the problem here; there is no place

where that gets looked at — "their impacts on transportation demand beyond

revenue production and how transportation investments can influence land use."

Part of the problem here, these senior officials are saying — and

I think that they're right — is that there's no reason to believe this new board

is going to deal, in the context, with the breadth of issues they need to deal

with. They're not going to deal in a holistic fashion. They're not going to

consider those significant issues.

Another thing they said is that part of the problem that the new

structure creates is a lack of coordination between regional transportation and

regional land use. This is a good point. The connection of the current board,

the board until this legislation passes, obviously…. There is a real connection

there. You have the GVRD, Metro Vancouver, which has responsibility, along with

its member municipalities, for dealing with land use issues.

Many of those same officials are sitting on the board of

TransLink. That discussion is happening with many of the same people. That's

going to stop. What you're going to have now is a situation where the private

board, the board of experts, is going to be operating on their own accord. The

GVRD is going to be doing that land use planning work.

Hopefully, they're still going to continue to advance that, as are

local governments, as they look to build more smart-growth communities, as they

look to deal with the development of compact communities, as they look to

balance transportation needs with land use planning and housing and density

planning. Yet you're not going to have the same degree of coordination there

that we saw before.

Another thing that this group of experts said, and it was pretty

important, is that to make business expertise the central focus of what will be

the effective governing body for transportation is to take a dangerously narrow

view of transportation, and I think that's true.

Of course you want business expertise there, but that cannot be

the paramount concern. The paramount concern has to be the future of our

communities, how people live, how we deal with our environment, how we deal with

our social infrastructure and how we advance our futures. That's what has got to

be paramount.

[1555]

While business is a component of that, it is just a component. If

this board, as many of us are concerned, is narrow in its perspective — no

matter how skilled these people may be at that perspective — if it doesn't have

the broader perspective, the broader interests and the ability to engage

significant debate around this, then it's going to create real problems for

finding solutions that work.

The last point this group at the GVRD, or Metro Vancouver, pointed

out to their board is, I think a big part of the problem. It's the problem that

will not be resolved by this piece of legislation, because it's still going to

be starved for money. The new authority will still be starved for money to

accomplish what it needs to. It says: "The lack of funding and limitations in

funding sources is what is responsible for the degree to which Greater

Vancouver's transportation system has not expanded as originally envisioned."

I think that's true. For us to have met the requirements around

transportation — to have built the northeast line that should have been built,

to have the 500 buses that we should be talking about south of the Fraser and

Surrey, to be building out and making the commitments and looking at the future

of rapid transit south of the Fraser, to be having serious discussions about

what happens down the Broadway corridor — to begin to have those discussions,

you can't do it without having some notion that there will be a commitment of

the resources there.

As my colleague the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca said, and said

quite rightly, there are many other communities around this province that have

equally important and imperative demands for transportation, and those aren't

being met either.

There is a serious lack of commitment of resources, certainly, for

the lower mainland. As others in this House have said, and said quite rightly,

there is a serious lack of commitment around resources in many other communities

in the province, as well, to meet their transportation demands. Until that

problem gets solved, we're not going to fix the shortfalls around transportation

and around transit planning. Unfortunately, the government to this point has

chosen not to make those investments. They have chosen not to commit those

resources.

When we talk about whether this is, in fact, the idea that people

advised the minister to put forward…. My colleague earlier today in debate, the

member for Vancouver-Kensington, observed that when the panel on governance was

doing its work it reported out to the minister that the government, that panel,

had received