2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Aboriginal war veterans

Fraser

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Barry Stecyk

Hon. T.

Christensen

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Operation Remembrance in Prince

George

Rustad

Diwali

C. James

Vancouver Canucks event in support of

Canadian Armed Forces

Mayencourt

Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame

Puchmayr

Prevention of identity theft and

Internet fraud

R. Lee

100 Mile House Junior Secondary

pledge against global poverty

C. Wyse

Oral Questions

Reorganization of Children and

Family Development Ministry

C. James

Hon. T.

Christensen

Children and Family Development

Ministry renovations

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

A. Dix

Business compensation for Canada

line construction

Robertson

Hon. K.

Falcon

Government response to gang

violence

Farnworth

Hon. J.

Les

Liquor sales at rural agency

stores

Macdonald

Hon. J.

Les

Austin

Petitions

V. Roddick

Second Reading of Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

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

On the

amendment (continued)

S. Simpson

C. Trevena

J. McIntyre

D. Thorne

N. Macdonald

C. Wyse

R. Fleming

D. Cubberley

L. Krog

Point of Privilege

J. McIntyre

Second Reading of Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

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

On the

amendment (continued)

L. Krog

[ Page 9201 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

R. Hawes: In the gallery today — and this is on behalf of you, Mr. Speaker — I'd like to introduce some special guests from Kelowna who are visiting here in the precinct this afternoon. They're Abe Friesen and his wife Lillian. With them is their son Adrian, who lives here in Victoria. Mr. Friesen is the former president of lumber giant Pope and Talbot, and he has recently written a book about the history of Pope and Talbot.

I know you can't use props in the House, but as it says here, this book is an extremely interesting read — over my head. Sorry, I know you're not supposed to use props.

I'd commend everyone in the House to this book, which I also know does actually mention the member for Nelson-Creston, who probably would be extremely interested in getting a copy of this book. So if the House could make them welcome.

I have one more thing. We do have a Member of the Legislative Assembly here who has a daughter-in-law who's currently in hospital, in labour. That member is going to be a grandfather for the first time. That member would actually be you, Mr. Speaker. Congratulations on becoming a grandfather.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: It's close.

L. Krog: I am delighted by the convivial mood in this place today, because I have two classes of grade 5 students joining us from Park Avenue Elementary. Accompanying them are their teachers Trina Wilcox and Ray Schlitz, and EA support staff and their parents.

I think this has been a wonderful demonstration of the civility in this chamber, having warned them about question period. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1335]

Hon. S. Hagen: Joining us in the House today is Vicki Yeats, who is the manager of executive operations in the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. She is here with a group of cross-government employees currently enrolled in the Managing in the B.C. Public Service program, which was launched last Tuesday.

I would also like the House to welcome Karen Lamare from the B.C. Film Commission, who is participating on line. Would the House please make both of those young women welcome.

Tributes

ABORIGINAL WAR VETERANS

S. Fraser: It's the last day in this place before Remembrance Day. With that in mind, I'd just like to remind everybody that it was just in 1992, November 11, that native veterans were permitted to place a wreath at the cenotaph at memorial ceremonies in this province, in this country.

I'd just like to remind everybody that aboriginal people have fought alongside non-aboriginal people defending Canada. With that in mind, I'd like everyone to join me and acknowledge with applause all the veterans in Canada.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: Today I am pleased to introduce a constituent of mine, Vanessa Denay, who just returned from the University of Ottawa where she had an opportunity to sit in on national parliamentary proceedings. She thought it was so exciting that she should, on her return to Victoria, do the same.

She is in the gallery. She is an anthropology student at the University of Ottawa. She's here with her friend Taylor Smith from Cranbrook, B.C., who is studying political science at the University of Victoria. I hope the House would make them both very welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: I have some members of our staff from the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services here today to observe. I think it's great that they're here.

I'm just going to name them. Robert Duffus is here. Linda O'Connor is here. Pat Robinson, Craig Chambers, George Collicott and Allison Andrew are here. Would everyone please make them welcome.

C. Evans: I, too, would like to welcome Abe Friesen, regardless of whatever he said about me in the book. For the benefit of members, I would like to say that when Abe Friesen ran Pope and Talbot, it was solvent, and nobody in this building ever said anything grumpy about them.

I also wanted to introduce my friend and mentor Ann Fraser-Mol and her friend Peg Close. When I came here, like many of us, I was ignorant and stupid and a beginner.

Mr. Speaker: Member, that's unparliamentary language. [Laughter.]

C. Evans: To whatever extent I might have matured into the job, it's because Ann Fraser-Mol taught me how. Lastly….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: Yeah, lighten up. It's easy.

[ Page 9202 ]

Lastly, I'd like to introduce my friend Spring Gillard, who is from Vancouver and writes about food and farming and stuff like that, and decided she was not too shy to meet you all.

Tributes

BARRY STECYK

Hon. T. Christensen: As has been mentioned, this Sunday is Remembrance Day, and it's an opportunity for all of us to reflect and remember the soldiers who have served our country in the past and the soldiers that are serving our country today.

I want to just take a moment to acknowledge a constituent of mine, who over the course of the last number of months has undertaken a rather extraordinary effort to raise awareness about our troops in Afghanistan and to salute them.

Barry Stecyk is a constituent that has a kettle corn company, HevyD's Kettle Korn. He has arranged to send 600 bags of kettle corn to our soldiers in Afghanistan, each one with a message from an elementary school student in Vernon. He's also initiated the production of a CD that has 26 artists from across the country. All of that is intended to raise funds for the military families fund. It included an all-day concert in Vernon on September 9.

[1340]

It's really a great example of the efforts a single individual can initiate to do something as important as recognizing the sacrifices of our troops in Afghanistan and their families back here at home. As part of Mr. Stecyk's initiative, he has arranged to deliver bags of kettle corn to all MPs and all MLAs. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present one to you.

Would the House join me in acknowledging Mr. Stecyk's efforts.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) OPERATION REMEMBRANCE

IN PRINCE GEORGE

J. Rustad: Mr. Speaker, most of us here understand what it's like to be away from our home and family for periods of time. But imagine what it must be like to be away for months at a time. Imagine what it must be like to not know if you'll ever return home to see your family again.

This is what it must be like for those who have served Canada in the armed services. The sacrifices of our soldiers and their families made on our behalf are enormous. Unfortunately, some of these individuals who have served our country do not have a proper marker on their final resting place. It's estimated that there are more than 3,000 veterans whose gravesites are unmarked in B.C.

This is why we formed Operation Remembrance Prince George. Our goal is to identify any gravesite of veterans in our area without a headstone, so that we can honour their service by placing a proper marker.

The Royal Canadian Legion, the city of Prince George, Exploration Place, the Prince George Community Heritage Commission and many others have come together to help us with this project. Committee members Bob Whipps, Sandy Hewitson, Bob Campbell, Sharon Dow, Carli Boyden, Cathy King and others have been working with our office for more than a year.

To date we've discovered 18 veterans whose final resting places have no markings, and we're still undertaking research on many more.

The values we cherish, such as freedom of speech, democracy and human rights, have been provided and protected by those brave men and women who have served our country. It's incumbent upon all of us to remember them and to honour them. Please join me in thanking everyone involved in helping to recognize and honour those who provided us with a gift we can never repay.

DIWALI

C. James: It gives me great pleasure today to wish all British Columbians and everyone in this House a very happy Diwali.

Diwali, the festival of lights, has been celebrated in India and parts of South Asia since time immemorial. Today it's a recognized part of British Columbia's collective culture, bringing together in celebration people from all religions and all walks of life.

Diwali originated from the word "deepavali," which translates into an array of lights. The word "light" really does sit at the centre of this wonderful festival. On Diwali, as the traditional oil lamps and fireworks illuminate the night, there is a deeper message to be relayed. The theme of light celebrated on Diwali night is a symbol of good overcoming evil, truth and knowledge prevailing over ignorance, and a hope for the entire humanity.

It's a time for renewal, a day to celebrate one's family, friends and good relations. Music, dance and good food are some of the expressions of celebration that mark Diwali. It's also a time of deep reflection, a day to remind ourselves how much more in common we have today as members of the larger British Columbia family.

For these reasons and more, Diwali is now a much-awaited and truly meaningful part of British Columbia. As hundreds of thousands of people come together to celebrate one of the most significant events of the year, I am proud to celebrate Diwali with them. I want to wish everyone a very happy and prosperous Diwali.

VANCOUVER CANUCKS EVENT IN SUPPORT OF

CANADIAN ARMED FORCES

L. Mayencourt: With Remembrance Day taking place this weekend, it is an opportune time for all of us to pay our respects and gratitude to those who have chosen to serve our country. As we give thanks to those who have paid the ultimate price and veterans in our Armed Forces, we also have thousands of individuals who are currently serving. We want to thank them for serving our country here and abroad.

[1345]

[ Page 9203 ]

Tomorrow night the Vancouver Canucks are going to be honouring the Canadian forces. They will be playing host to the Colorado Avalanche at General Motors Place. This event that's just before Remembrance Day will honour the Canadian Forces and will feature over 170 Canadian Forces members in attendance along with their families. Many of the Canucks' real good fans have generously donated their tickets for tomorrow evening's game to members of the Forces.

The Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, and selected Canadian Forces personnel will be on hand for pre-game ceremonies. Petty Officer 1st Class Michael Broadley will be singing the national anthems, accompanied by a 35-piece band.

Canucks fans will also have several opportunities to show their support for the Canadian Forces throughout the evening. During the intermission there will be an on-ice skills competition between Canadian Forces personnel — army versus navy, and navy versus air force.

"Support our troops" banners will be set up at multiple tables around the concourse of GM Place, and that's an opportunity for us as private citizens to go up and write a note to our troops that are in Afghanistan. There will be video announcements from the Canadian Forces throughout the night. "Support our troops" pucks will also be distributed following the games.

I first learned of this a couple of weeks ago from Al De Genova, who is a city of Vancouver parks board commissioner. He started this project. I want to also acknowledge Al for his good work in our community for our veterans.

CANADIAN LACROSSE HALL OF FAME

C. Puchmayr: I wonder how many people know where the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame is located. Well, it's right in the heart of the lower mainland — in New Westminster. The Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame is at 65 East 6th Avenue, next to the Canada Games Pool.

This Saturday the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame is having its annual induction ceremony. Some of the inductees are as follows.

Mike Smith played Junior A lacrosse for the Richmond Road Runners. He went on to play senior lacrosse for a decade with the Vancouver Burrards, where he sipped champagne from the coveted Mann Cup in 1975 and 1977 at the national championships.

Art Webster came to the west coast in 1975 from the Brampton Excelsiors and went on to a 16-season career with the Victoria Shamrocks and the Victoria Payless, where he won two Mann Cup titles and went on to coach four more national championships.

Alex MacKay is touted as the best defenceman in his time. He played for the Vancouver Burrards in the 1949 Mann Cup championship and went on to a have a successful coaching career as well.

Kerri Hardill is a pioneer in women's field lacrosse. Her last international tournament was the 1994 Commonwealth Games, played right here in Victoria, where she was selected the most valuable player of the tournament.

Finally, in the team category, the men's world field lacrosse champions, Team Canada, beat the United States 15-10. It was the end of Gary Gait's illustrious career, and he went out in style, scoring four goals in the final period to end Canada's 28-year gold medal drought. The team was coached by former New Westminster Salmonbellies coach Frank Nielsen.

So please join me in honouring all the 2007 inductees. The next time you're in New Westminster, you can spend some time at the shrine of Canadian lacrosse, the Hall of Fame.

PREVENTION OF IDENTITY THEFT

AND INTERNET FRAUD

R. Lee: I rise in the House today to talk about consumer safety. This is becoming an increasingly important issue in our society today. Last week I attended an event organized by the Canadian Chinese Consumers Association. This association was established in 1986 in this province to provide consumer-related information to Canadians, especially those consumers who need assistance in making wise decisions. Thanks to a dedicated group of volunteers, this organization has been providing consumer education such as the recent publishing of a consumer information booklet.

I would like to focus today on the potential traps for consumers, including Internet fraud and identity theft — things we should all be aware of. Identity thieves steal key pieces of personal information either physically or in other ways, without your knowledge, and use it to impersonate you and commit crimes in your name. In addition to names, addresses and phone numbers, thieves look for social insurance numbers, driver's licence numbers and banking information.

[1350]

You may be asking yourself how you can protect yourself on line. Well, there are a number of things you should be aware of. Fake websites are designed to trick consumers and collect their personal information. Beware of Internet promotions that ask for personal information. After completing financial transactions on line, make sure you sign out of the website and clear your Internet files and cache memory.

As identity theft and Internet fraud have become very common in this day and age, education is the key. I encourage everyone to learn what they can do to protect themselves against falling victim to these criminals.

100 MILE HOUSE JUNIOR SECONDARY

PLEDGE AGAINST GLOBAL POVERTY

C. Wyse: I am honoured to have this opportunity to tell the House of a world event involving youth in my riding of Cariboo South. Recently the students at 100 Mile House Junior Secondary School in 100 Mile House joined with many others to set a new Guinness world record as part of the Stand Up and Speak Out event.

[ Page 9204 ]

On October 16 and 17 more than 43 million people in 127 countries took a pledge to take a stand against poverty. Over 76,000 Canadians took

part in more than 500 Stand Up events across the country. These people spoke out to demand a more urgent political response to the growing crisis of global poverty and inequality.

I am proud that the members of my constituency were part of that effort. The event was initiated by Lisa Posnikoff, president of the 100 Mile House Junior Secondary parent advisory committee. The school's principal, Mark Wintjes, also supported the event. He gave a slide presentation which students viewed prior to taking their pledge. The students then stood together for one minute in their school gymnasium.

The worldwide Stand Up and Speak Out event called on world leaders to keep their commitments made in the millennium development goals. These goals are a global promise signed by 189 countries to halve poverty by 2015. These nations have promised to end poverty, inequality and hunger, and to ensure that basic education, clean water and sanitation are provided to everyone.

The students at 100 Mile House Junior Secondary have pledged to support these goals. These students are our future, and they will be holding today's leaders accountable for their promise to achieve these goals.

I ask the House to join with me in recognizing the students at 100 Mile House Junior Secondary for their commitment to the future and to the betterment of lives of others around the world.

Oral Questions

REORGANIZATION OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY

C. James: A very simple question to the Minister of Children and Family Development. He's admitted to putting the Premier's plan for regionalization on the back burner. Will he tell this House today how much money he's wasted on that botched reorganization scheme?

Hon. T. Christensen: The government believes firmly in the principle of community engagement, of engaging our local service providers and the broader community in determining how we can best provide services to vulnerable children and families.

We embarked on a process in 2002 towards the establishment of regional governance authorities. In early 2004 we chose to put on the back burner the establishment of non-aboriginal governance authorities and disbanded the planning committees that had been set up in that respect and focused our efforts on aboriginal planning committees.

On that front, we now have two interim aboriginal authorities. We continue to work very closely with the aboriginal community, with first nations leaders, to move forward on that very important agenda of enabling aboriginal people to have a more effective decision-making process to guide services to aboriginal children.

The funding, which was approximately $5.2 million, that supported the non-aboriginal planning committees…. That work has been valuable in the ongoing work to engage communities in supporting services.

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

[1355]

C. James: We're now four weeks into the fall session, and another minister is evading questions and not being straight with the public.

This minister is one in a very long list. A $400 million cost overrun at the convention centre — no answers for the public. Partisan photo ops before kids, an out-of-touch minister in charge of child care and millions of dollars given away in forest lands — with nothing to protect the public. Rising gang violence — and we get dismissive reactions from the Solicitor General. Now we have one more.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: The Minister of Children and Family Development refuses to disclose exactly how much he wasted on a botched reorganization over the last six years. So again to the minister: will he come clean? Will he tell British Columbians the total cost — not the last-year cost, not the cost for the board, but the total cost — of reorganization that he's now put on the back burner?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: The Leader of the Opposition may want to get off her script. I answered the question. Approximately $5.2 million was spent in '02-03 and '03-04 towards the planning committees for non-aboriginal authorities — the planning committees to switch governance.

In 2004 we discontinued those planning committees, and we focused on the aboriginal side to establish aboriginal authorities. We're having great success. I note that the members on the other side didn't mind showing up to the celebrations of those successes when we established interim authorities. I would hope that in this House they would reflect that success as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Once again, what we see from this government is one answer from one minister and another answer from another minister.

Interjections.

[ Page 9205 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: In March 2006 the minister's predecessor told this House in estimates that $31 million had been invested in governance planning in the Ministry of Children and Families — $31 million spent on regionalization that's now been put on the back burner by this minister.

My question to the minister: if it's not $31 million, what is the accurate figure that you've wasted and not spent on children and families programs?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: It's clear that the Leader of the Opposition is confusing the process towards the establishment of aboriginal authorities with the process towards the establishment of non-aboriginal authorities.

The process with respect to non-aboriginal authorities was discontinued in 2004. Yes, we have continued very much and very committed to the establishment of regional aboriginal authorities, and we're having great success on that front.

If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we shouldn't be working with aboriginal communities and aboriginal leaders to find ways to ensure that aboriginal people have a more effective voice in directing the delivery of child and family services to aboriginal children in this province, then she should stand up and say that.

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY RENOVATIONS

N. Simons : Can the minister confirm that he and his leadership team recently held five days of meetings at a resort in Chase instead of using that brand-new, half-million-dollar boardroom on Fort Street?

Hon. T. Christensen: I can confirm that our leadership team and others in the staff from time to time have meetings in various locations around the province. They did recently have a meeting — I believe it was a two-day meeting, not a five-day one, but I can confirm that for the member — at the Quaaout resort, which is outside of Chase, British Columbia.

[1400]

They felt that it was important in terms of moving forward on the agenda to have further discussions with aboriginal stakeholders, to reflect on where the ministry is at and to ensure that we do move this important agenda forward in terms of how we engage with communities — how we engage, in particular, with aboriginal communities to improve services to aboriginal children and families.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: I think that the priorities of this ministry are changing every minute, and I believe that they're completely in chaos. I think that the outrage expressed by members of first nations across this province speaks to that very loudly and very eloquently.

First, the absolute waste of $560,000 on a new boardroom, and they can't even use it. I'd like to know if this minister knows the chaos that exists not only in the non-aboriginal authority development but in the aboriginal authority development. Will he do what's necessary…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: …and put the funding of his ministry where it's needed — where the children are getting the services they need, the families get the services they need and the social workers get the help they need to do their jobs?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Minister.

Hon. T. Christensen: This ministry has over 4,200 employees and over 150 offices around the province. We serve communities right across the province, and we actually believe it's worth getting out there and talking to them about how we can serve them.

This ministry has about a $1.9 billion budget. This is a ministry that has doubled funding in services in child and youth mental health over the last five years. This is a ministry that has added almost 200 front-line workers in the ministry and is adding more as we speak. This is a ministry that in the Prince George area moved from a position where we were horrendously understaffed in the late 1990s to a full-staffed complement, 38 percent higher today in terms of child protection workers.

A. Dix: It was the spring of 2006. It was a previous minister, it was a previous deputy minister, and unbelievably, at MCFD headquarters there was a previous renovation. In 2007 — new minister, new deputy minister, new renovation — $560,000. It looks like a movie set up there.

My question to the minister is this. If your leadership team needed the boardroom, even though there's another boardroom in the building, even though it's a leased building…. If they needed a room for 50 people, why aren't they using it?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's a rather interesting question. It's being used today, in fact.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

[ Page 9206 ]

Members on both sides, listen to the question, and listen to the answer.

Minister, continue.

Hon. T. Christensen: This is a boardroom that is getting frequent use. It is a valuable asset for the ministry to ensure that we can work with our staff, to ensure that we can work with our stakeholders in moving an agenda forward that better serves children and families right across the province.

It's a boardroom that was renovated under budget. It's a boardroom that now provides video conferencing facilities. It's a boardroom that is large enough to accommodate up to 90 people. It is a boardroom that will serve the ministry and serve the people of British Columbia very well in the years to come.

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I think we know why we're in trouble at the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The minister thinks that a $200,000 project that comes in at $560,000 is under budget. In the next shuffle, which I'm sure will come soon for him, he'll get responsibility for the convention centre.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: In 2006….

Interjections.

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

We all know it's Thursday, so let's just take a little bit of time and reflect on where we're at right now.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: In 2006 the Premier sent over a senior official to the Ministry of Children and Families. They did a renovation. I'd like to ask the minister how much that cost. I'd like to ask the minister why, in 2007, it was justifiable to do another major renovation on a leased building, unless he was trying to be tenant of the year. I'd like to ask the minister when he is going to stop with the constant internal renovations and start devoting services to children and families.

Hon. T. Christensen: In the last two years alone, the last two budgets, we've added over $164 million for supports for children and families. We are focused on meeting the needs of children and families across the province.

At the same time, we as a ministry are going to ensure that our staff have the space and the supports they need to better serve children and families. We have more than 150 offices across the province. We have over 4,200 employees. We have about a $20 million annual capital budget to ensure that we have the space necessary to support the work the ministry does. We have about a $13 million budget to support office expenses, office materials and supplies.

Again, the 4,200-plus employees across this province that work for the Ministry of Children and Family Development have the resources they need — much better than they ever did under that NDP government — to meet the needs of children and families across the province.

BUSINESS COMPENSATION FOR

CANADA LINE CONSTRUCTION

G. Robertson: Yesterday this government paid lawyers to fight off the Cambie small business seeking damages in the B.C. Supreme Court from the devastating impact of Canada line construction. The lawyers actually attempted to have the merchants' case thrown out on a technicality. So not only is this government destroying the small businesses, but they're denying them their day in court. The judge, thankfully, ruled against this government and its Canada line partners, and the case will be heard.

My question to the Minister of Small Business and Revenue: how do you feel about writing big cheques to lawyers to continue your fight against small businesses rather than fairly compensating those merchants directly?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member well knows that we're not going to comment on cases before courts…

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: …but there's more to come.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Hon. K. Falcon: The best

part is to come.

Mr. Speaker: Please take your seat.

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's listen to the answer.

Hon. K. Falcon: I will say this. There is one big cheque we sure did write, and that was a cheque for $435 million to build the Canada line that they

[ Page 9207 ]

opposed. And I can tell you that our biggest problem with that project is going to be all the NDPers trying to cram up on the stage and claim credit when that opens.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: It is absolutely deplorable that this government is letting the situation degenerate into a legal battle with small businesses. It is totally disrespectful of these hard-working families and of the whole province's small business community. It's also a horrendous waste of taxpayer dollars. The Premier and his Transportation Minister led the charge on the Canada line project from day one, and they created this mess.

Will the Transportation Minister stand up in this House today, show some leadership again and lead the funding partners in compensating the small businesses on Cambie?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, it's always interesting when I listen to these opposition members, because so often what they say on that side is very different from what they did when they were in government. But the members might want to remind themselves that under the NDP, they also were building a rapid transit line. They may recall that. It was called the Millennium line.

I understand there were a number of small businesses that were impacted pretty dramatically, which were appealing to that government for exactly the support that he's now espousing. It's a mockery, Mr. Speaker, because they did nothing when they were in government.

I can tell you that what we are doing is building a line that will take 100,000 people a day out of their cars and into rapid transit. They opposed it. They're going to try and claim credit on opening day, and they will not get that benefit.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

GANG VIOLENCE

M. Farnworth: At the beginning of the week, the Solicitor General publicly attacked the police chief of West Vancouver, Kash Heed, over comments that the chief made about regional policing. The Solicitor General said that they were out of line, an unwarranted diversion and a red herring.

Given the very public flip-flop the minister made yesterday, will he now publicly admit that Chief Heed was not out of line, and will he publicly apologize to Chief Heed?

Hon. J. Les: As all members of the House know, we have a very serious investigation going on in the lower mainland, given the recent events. I was pleased to see yesterday how all of the various police forces across the lower mainland came together in a clear expression of the fact that they are working in an integrated fashion to deal with the challenges that they have. I think it showed clearly that the integration we have put in place, in which we have invested almost a quarter of a billion dollars a year in additional operating funding, is working.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, his answer was as out of touch to my question as his approach has been to dealing with the problems of gangland violence, hon. Speaker.

[1415]

My question, once again, is to the Solicitor General. He publicly flip-flopped on his comments at the beginning of the week. Does he believe that Chief Heed was out of line or not? And if he doesn't believe that he was out of line, will he take the opportunity now to show some ministerial class, because he publicly criticized him, and will he now publicly apologize to Chief Heed?

Hon. J. Les: Actually, I spoke with Chief Heed. I think, if I can characterize his thoughts, that he's rather bewildered, as I am, in terms of the spin that the opposition has put on….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat, Solicitor General.

Continue.

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I thought what was perhaps important to share with the members of the House were the comments of Chief Constable Jim Chu yesterday at the press conference that was held in Vancouver, where he said: "There are no easy answers to the problems of gangs and violence. Many are quick to offer their opinions and try to convince you that they have a quick and simple solution. There is only one real course of action."

He went on to say: "We must all work together — police, government and the community — to keep ourselves safe." That's what we are committed to on this side of the House.

LIQUOR SALES AT

RURAL AGENCY STORES

N. Macdonald: Big, private liquor stores get a 16-percent margin on their liquor sales while small, independent rural agency stores only get 10 percent. Representatives of 250 rural agency stores have met with the Solicitor General. They have sent letters. They have told him that these different margins are completely unfair. The rural caucus has been clear to the Solicitor General, as well, that these are unfair.

When is the Solicitor General going to give small rural businesses an even playing field?

Hon. J. Les: I've met fairly recently with representatives of the rural agency stores across British Columbia. I believe there are about 230 of them across the prov-

[ Page 9208 ]

ince. Of course, many of them came into being about four years ago, I believe, as an additional convenience for customers in rural areas of the province who would then be able to buy liquor and spirits at government liquor store prices.

These liquor outlets were never intended to become large liquor stores. They were an additional line of business that was to be available to these proprietors in rural areas of the province, and they were rather readily taken up at that point in time. We are examining the issues to see if any adjustments are warranted, and if so, we will get back to those representatives as soon as we can.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: This issue has been raised repeatedly with the minister, and the minister always comes back and tries to say that there is a difference between the big liquor stores and these rural agency stores. The difference in the business is that these big liquor stores are connected to B.C. Liberals. They have that connection; the small rural agency stores do not.

There's an element of fairness here. If 16 percent is good for the big liquor stores, it should be good enough for rural agency stores. When is the Solicitor General going to do the right thing and make it an even playing field? When do they get the 16 percent?

Hon. J. Les: As the member opposite should know, it was always very clear that the rural agency stores were actually agents of the provincial government liquor stores. Those were clearly the conditions under which those licences were extended. There's never been any confusion about that.

However, as I've said, I've met with the representatives of the rural agency stores, and if there are issues there that need to be addressed, they will be.

[1420]

R. Austin: Unfortunately, the small rural agency stores in British Columbia, of course, don't have a Pat Kinsella working for them. They couldn't afford to hire Ken Dobell, so they're stuck.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

R. Austin: In estimates earlier this year the Solicitor General said that rural agency stores "receive a 10-percent margin. I've never been in the retail business. I'm not sure whether a 10-percent margin is good, bad or indifferent."

Well, 250 rural agency stores are telling this minister that it is bad. It's hurting their business. When is this minister going to do the right thing and provide the same 16-percent margin?

Hon. J. Les: It seems there's a bit of confusion on the opposite side of the House. Rural agency stores were never meant to be primarily liquor stores as compared to the licensee retail stores that we have across the province. That's always been clear.

In rural agency stores the intention is that the sale of liquor is a sideline to an agent of the provincial government liquor stores. The licensee retail stores sell only liquor and a very limited range of associated products. There's a clear distinction between those two types of outlets.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: If 16 percent is good enough for big liquor stores, why isn't it good enough for small rural agencies?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: Again, I'd have to say to the member opposite that he clearly has done little research. He's much more interested in throwing up a bunch of flak and confusing the issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Solicitor General, just take your seat.

Continue.

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite is clearly comparing apples and oranges. I've laid out for the member opposite that there are clear distinctions between these classes of licences. They have always existed. I think we, in fact, deal fairly with all retailers of these products across British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

V. Roddick: I ask leave to present two petitions.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

V. Roddick: On behalf of the Royal Canadian Legion, both the Ladner and Tsawwassen branches, I present a petition from each which asks to keep Royal Canadian Legion authorized designated-smoking areas open.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: I call continued debate on the amendment to second reading of Bill 43, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

[ Page 9209 ]

Second Reading of Bills

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rejoin the debate for the remainder of my time in regard to this motion put forward by the official opposition — the hoist motion on this bill.

[1425]

I'd like to just take a second here to very quickly do a bit of a recap of some of the concerns that I raised previously, when I had an opportunity to speak to this amendment.

As I pointed out at the time, the challenges that we see around this bill are that it is a huge infringement on democracy. It does remove the authority and the rights of the elected officials who have been responsible for the governance of TransLink since its inception.

It hands the control of transportation largely into the hands of one interest in the transportation sector. That would be the business interest. We know it's the board of trade, it's the Gateway Council, it's the chartered accountants, and it's the Minister of Transportation — four of the five people responsible for putting together the new board of experts who will be responsible for, essentially, the administration and the governance of TransLink.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

While they clearly represent an important sector, they certainly do not represent all of the interests. They don't represent transit users. They don't represent local government. They don't represent those who are concerned about sustainability. They don't represent a whole series of experts who bring other views and perspectives to the issue of transportation and what constitutes sustainable transportation in the metro region.

The other challenge is that this will give unelected officials taxing authority. That's a very concerning thing. We can go back an awfully long way to the discussion about no taxation without representation, and essentially this does that.

The other issue here, of course, is that what this bill does is give an unelected body the ability to override municipal authority, and that's very concerning. We know that as we try to make better connections between transportation and land use, which is fundamental and essential if we're going to accomplish the kinds of sustainability that we're looking at, this creates a greater divide in that process by, in fact, separating the folks who make those decisions. Those land use decisions are largely made by our mayors and our councils, either at the local level or at the regional level through those mayors and councillors, who represent the local councils at Metro Vancouver.

Now that body will continue to have land use responsibility. It will continue to work on things like the livable region plan. It will continue to work on things like the sustainable region initiative. But at the same time, you will have this unelected body that is totally separate and distinct, which will be responsible for transportation-related issues. That division between those two bodies, I believe, makes the likelihood of success much less.

We've called for this hoist motion. We've said: "Set this bill aside for six months. Give the minister some time to think about this. Give the minister some time to talk to some of those people that we believe he hasn't spoken to — the people who ride buses on a regular basis. Talk some more to those local elected representatives who share concerns about this alienation of transportation planning and governance. Talk to some of those experts, who can bring an awful lot of wisdom to this." We also think the minister has to do that.

One of the things I'd like to do, as well, is talk a little bit about the kinds of principles and values that we believe need to be inherent in a governance structure related to TransLink or to transportation in our region. I think there are seven essential key principles and values that we need to bring forward to create the kind of structure that needs to be in place.

The first of those is that the TransLink board needs to be democratically elected. It needs to be a body that is accountable, and it's accountable through democratic elections. That can be done in any number of ways.

[1430]

There are many of them, but one of the ways that certainly makes sense is the GVRD. It's a system very close to the one we have now. The folks at the GVRD — the mayors and the councillors — are elected. They then come from their councils to sit at the GVRD. They have a level of accountability. That accountability comes back to their voters every three years, and we believe that needs to be protected and defended — the importance of that accountability. We need to have a democratically elected body in charge of our transportation.

The challenge here, of course, is that the government has gone in exactly the opposite direction. It has dismantled the democratically elected board and put in place a board made up of experts — a board of experts that's made up and is being selected by a group of people who, in large part, bring a very narrow perspective to that choice of selection. That's a big concern.

The next thing that I think we need to look at, as we look through this, is we need to make sure that those who make these strategic decisions, the ones who decide about what regional transportation issues are and how the strategic decisions get made, need to be directly accountable to those who live with the outcomes of such decisions. Therefore, this body really does need to be regional in nature. It needs to be regional, and it needs to reflect a regional sense about it.

[ Page 9210 ]

Part of the problem we have here gets back, again, to two things. One is it again comes back to our best way to accomplish that is by using Metro Vancouver, a regional body, to help provide that leadership and to have TransLink, or the transportation authority, directly connected to Metro Vancouver and working in conjunction with or as part of Metro Vancouver in a more holistic sense.

It's interesting, hon. Speaker, that when you look at the folks who are making the selection, probably the least explicable of those is the Vancouver Board of Trade. It's hard to understand how the Vancouver Board of Trade got chosen of all those groups. The Vancouver Board of Trade, the last time I checked, represents business interests in the city of Vancouver proper. It doesn't represent interests in Surrey, Abbotsford, Coquitlam or any of the other municipalities. It represents Vancouver's interests.

Yet they, as the most parochial of those interests, sit at the board that will make selections about who the members of this expert board will be. That's probably the least explicable of the business choices who are going to be the decision-makers on this.

The third key principle or value that I really do believe we need to adhere to in the restructuring, if there's to be a restructuring of TransLink and of our governance structure, is that there cannot be taxation without representation. It is simply inconceivable to us on this side of the House how a panel could represent, how this government could embrace a governance structure that contradicts that fundamental principle.

How on earth could the government say that it's okay to give taxing authority to an unelected body and to allow that unelected body to make tax choices in terms of tax rates and to decide who will pay those taxes, in the instances of whether they be business or residential, in the case of property taxes? It is unbelievable that this government would allow that to occur, would endorse and embrace taxation without representation.

The fourth principle that I think needs to be an inherent part of the discussion about how we get at governance is that senior levels of government that have a financial and policy interest in our transportation authority should have representation in this discussion.

They should have representation, and we know, of course, under the existing TransLink authority, that there is room there for provincial representation, for MLAs to represent the government side. The government didn't take advantage of the opportunity to do that. We think that it is important, and probably not just at the provincial level. The federal government plays a significant role in transportation funding as well.

[1435]

It would be our view that along with the elected representatives at the local level, it makes sense to have an MLA or MLAs, a Member of Parliament or Members of Parliament also be part of that governance structure, to have that voice there.

We know that the funding for transportation cannot be accomplished without significant contributions from the provincial and the federal level. The provincial and federal voices should be at that table, and they should be elected members who are presumably representing the government side in those instances at the federal and provincial level. We think that would make great sense.

Hon. Speaker, the fifth piece of this, the fifth principle that I think we need to look at, is that the greatest possible transparency should be provided and that financial information should routinely be made available to the public. TransLink has, as with many agencies, been pretty secretive about much of its activity — more so, I believe, than is necessary.

We certainly know about secrecy and lack of transparency in this place. It's a regular sort of occurrence with most government programs. Policy and positions are done in as secretive a fashion as possible. But here, it is my view that we need to have the greatest degree of transparency possible.

What that means, I believe, is that to the greatest degree possible, that financial information has to be available. The minutes have to be available. Discussions have to be done in public to the greatest degree possible. Only then do I believe the people in the region can have the kind of confidence that in fact the decisions are being made in their best interest.

As we know, when you look at funding, it is the people in the region who will pay a significant cost of that funding — whether it's through property taxes, whether it's through fares when they ride the bus or the SkyTrain, or whether it's through other methods.

For instance, when there are delays, when there are issues around privatization — and we know that this government has now essentially said that any project over $20 million will pretty much be driven to be a privatized project…. That will occur with transportation projects as well.

It's critical that that information be public and open as well. People in the region should know where their dollars are going, and they should know what these deals are with private operators when the government forces a private operator on the region. It should all be a public discussion. That's an essential piece of this.

The sixth piece of this that I think is pretty critical is that senior levels of government should provide sustainable, stable and fair funding for transportation, most particularly for transit. If TransLink has had one huge stumbling block…. It certainly has other challenges, but the biggest stumbling block for TransLink since its inception and in the last number of years has been the lack of a funding source from senior levels of government that has allowed it to go out and accomplish its objectives to build the kind of sustainable transportation infrastructure that everybody in this chamber talks about.

We talk continually on both sides of this House about the need for sustainability. We talk about climate change. The Premier talks about climate change. We know that 40 percent of our emissions come from transportation. We know that the vast majority of vehicles emitting those greenhouse gases are in fact cars in the lower mainland.

We've heard the Premier talk about the need to increase the amount of people using transit, yet we

[ Page 9211 ]

have not seen any substantive commitment to transit funding from this government for years. That's a huge problem.

The government needs to step up. It needs to tell British Columbians that it means its commitment, and it needs to put the money on the table. When it does that, I believe the opportunity and the potential to access federal dollars become much greater when the province actually puts its own dollars on the table.

[1440]

I would certainly suggest that if there's a failure…. One of the key failures of this government around meeting transportation needs in British Columbia and why we have the mess that we have is because the government has refused to put the dollars on the table to fund transit in a way that it should be funded.

The last of the seven principles I would put on the table is that the various levels of government that have a stake in transportation…. They are all levels. We know that. All levels of government in the region need to treat each other with a level of respect that we have not seen in the transportation debate. We have not seen that.

We have heard the Minister of Transportation talk about TransLink. We have heard the derogatory comments of that minister in relation to members of local government with whom he does not agree.

This isn't to say that there will not be disagreements. Disagreements are just fine. Sometimes those disagreements will be vigorous, and that's just fine too, but it has to be done with a level of respect that we have not seen from this minister or, quite frankly, from this Premier.

I think that if we adopt those seven principles as a way to begin this discussion and if we get the minister to go back and take six months and think about this a little bit, maybe, just maybe, the minister could come back with an amended and revised piece of legislation that all of us could support — one that is based on principles of democracy and fairness, one that represents no taxation without representation, one that commits the kinds of dollars and resources to make this all work and one that clearly shows there needs to be a level of respect from this government to our local officials, to our local governments and to the people who use transit and transportation.

It would be a refreshing experience to have this minister show some respect for the people who think transportation is important in the lower mainland. With that, I will take my seat.

C. Trevena: Earlier this week I was speaking against this bill that's in front of us, because I find it anti-democratic. Today I will happily support the hoist motion, because I believe it will give the minister a chance to rethink the bill and rethink the tabling of it.

It would allow the minister to look at the dangers that this bill introduces into our democratic system. Earlier today I was talking about Bill 39 and the changes to the Electoral Boundaries Commission and again raising the dangers to our democratic system, which is very fragile.

Boards run by elected people, such as TransLink, are more accountable than those run by appointed people, because elected people are answerable to hundreds or thousands of others. That's how democracy works. Appointed people, no matter how well-intentioned, are largely accountable only to those who have appointed them. They look to their superiors and look after and work with those working for them.

TransLink is a board one step removed. It's a board of people who were elected to local municipalities and then, as such, sit at TransLink. They're obviously supported by a staff who have expertise in planning and in transportation.

As elected representatives, the TransLink board's job is to reflect the needs of their community — the needs in transportation, in planning and in development of their communities, the communities they were elected to represent. No matter how good appointees are, no matter how committed appointees are to their jobs, they cannot truly represent a community, because they have been appointed. They haven't been elected.

I support this hoist motion because I think that reflection on this may not be such a bad thing for the minister. He may want to talk with his Premier who, when he was Leader of the Opposition in 1998, actually supported TransLink, supported the fact that elected members there were on the TransLink board. In fact, at that time the now Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, wanted more legislation to prevent provincial interference. Instead, we now have this bill, Bill 43, which takes it completely out of the hands of elected people and into the hands of an appointed board.

[1445]

A look at the history of this may help explain the way that things have been happening. I represent North Island. I'm not in the lower mainland, but I'm very aware of the democratic process, and I'm also very well aware of what's happening in the province.

In May 2004 TransLink opposed the then RAV line, and I guess this is when things started to unravel for that elected group. They opposed it because of its high cost, because it was a public-private partnership, a P3, and because the regional transit priority, as defined by those people who were elected from within the region — the priority of those who were elected to represent the region — was to the northeast, not through the RAV corridor.

By June, a month later, we have the minister saying that he would support a governance model with unelected officials. I find this very dangerous — unelected officials for a governance model. Darn, these pesky elected people upsetting all their plans. Let's get rid of them. They are parochial, according to the minister, who represents Surrey-Cloverdale, so we get this independent governance review panel.

TransLink opponents were on it, a former deputy minister, a businessman. Within a year, they produce a report, which — surprise, surprise — proposes getting rid of the elected board and replacing it with professionals. So with one year's discussion by unelected people, with the stroke of a pen, we get an end to the democratic structure that is dealing with transportation in the lower mainland.

[ Page 9212 ]

After the previous bill was introduced, Bill 36, the minister set in swing the appointment of the board. Even though this was still a bill in front of this House — hadn't been debated and hadn't been passed by this House — the minister started the process to replace TransLink.

Again, I find this a very frightening, very authoritarian move by a minister and by a government who care not a whit about the democratic process, who care not a whit about the fact that people have a right to elect people to represent them — whether it's for transportation, whether it's for school boards, whether it's for health authorities. This government is looking at the centralization of our government structures, and this is why I will support this hoist motion, Madam Speaker, and oppose this bill.

Democracy. The fundamental of a democracy is that it ensures accountability. If you don't like what someone is doing, whether it's the voters of the constituency of Surrey-Cloverdale on the performance of their MLA or the voters within Surrey looking at their municipal representative, there is accountability.

A voter has the right to question their elected representative, to see them, to challenge them, to ask why they are doing what they are doing and to voice their concerns about what they're doing. And a voter has the ability through the electoral system, through the democratic system, to vote them out of office if they do not like what they are doing.

This is what democracy is about. It is the voice of the people. It is the voice of the people on every level. Whether it is transportation, health care, school boards, municipal government, provincial government or federal government, we have accountability. We are accountable to the people who elected us. Those are the people who are our bosses. Those are the people who we represent and who have the say over our future.

That is true whether we're talking about sewers, buses, housing or child care. A vote is the most powerful tool we have in a democracy. It is a democratic tool, and that is what is being taken away in this bill. That is what is being taken away throughout our province.

[1450]

If this gets through, Madam Speaker, if this bill becomes

an act, if we get a whole new governance structure for TransLink, this is going to be a model across the province. That is terrifying.

I represent the North Island. Within the North Island, we're seeing a change in the governance in the regional district. We're seeing a split in the Comox-Strathcona regional district. We have one part of the regional district around the Comox Valley and one around Campbell River, the north and the islands.

Within that, there is a new governance structure where there is going to be a corporation that handles the parts of the local government that are at the moment integrated. This corporation is as yet somewhat undefined, but it looks like it is also going to be including appointees as well as perhaps elected people. This is extremely dangerous.

These models, where we're taking away the elected person, where we're taking away the democratic right of somebody to say: "I do not like what you're doing; I'm going to vote you out," or "My voice actually matters because I am a citizen, and I have a right to say that a board is my representative…." These pilot projects are quite terrifying.

Who has the ability to ask an appointed board? Who has the ability to challenge an appointed board? Who does the appointed board answer to? It certainly doesn't answer to the voters. It certainly doesn't answer to the voters in any of the areas where TransLink is operating, and as these boards are imposed across the province, it's not going to be happening elsewhere.

Earlier in the week when I spoke against the bill, I raised this corporatization and centralization. We are seeing it being brought in by this government time after time. This example, TransLink, is the most insidious example, but it is being replicated across the province.

We had health boards; now we have health authorities. Instead of having local boards who knew what did and didn't work for their communities, we got five health authorities. They're centralized and separated from the people — centralization and separation taking away from democratic control.

We are seeing endless problems because of these boards. Because these boards are appointed, they do not reflect and at times do not understand the needs of the communities. They are not close to the communities. They do not hear the concerns, and they're unaccountable. They cannot be questioned or challenged or voted out of office.

Luckily, school boards still maintain some of their autonomy and their links with their own communities. The trustees are elected, and they are non-partisan. They're working for the good of education in the communities in which they live and work. But school trustees are looking over their shoulders. When they see something like this come down the way, they are worried. After all, they know an appointed board would not challenge on issues like funding cuts, which the school trustees are suddenly faced with.

We've already seen this government take powers from regional districts over independent power projects. While we debate this bill, further moves are happening to curtail democratic local involvement.

As I mentioned, Comox-Strathcona regional district is being split in two. There's been no consultation. The minister just sent a directive saying: "That's it. You're going to have two."

Without this consultation where somebody is having more directives about a corporation which will establish some form of governance that we still don't know, an unelected board is again moving the system of local governance out of democratic control and out of democratic hands.

I think one of the other reasons I support this hoist motion is that this centralization — whether it's TransLink or other boards being centralized — is all coming from a government that promised, at some stage, transparency and accountability. That, Madam Speaker, is risible. Transparency and accountability. Where is the transparency?

[1455]

[ Page 9213 ]

We are being given this form, this structure, after a year. The minister started implementing a governance model while the bill still hadn't even been debated in the House.

This from a government that said: "Openness, accountability, open cabinet meetings. We will be accountable." The minister can come back and say: "Well, we still have representatives. We have local elected representatives on the new TransLink board. We have the mayors' council."

But that simply doesn't cut it. That is an organization that will meet four times a year and will have really very little to say and will have no influence over what is happening with this board.

Another issue that I'm very surprised this government has allowed to happen within the whole TransLink legislation, and another reason why I will support the hoist motion, is the issue of taxation. It has been raised before — taxation without representation. Taxation is fundamental in a democratic process.

Taxation is what pays for our services, and people can elect governments that cut taxes, or people can elect governments that raise taxes. Or people can elect governments that look at different tax structures. But they do not expect unelected, unaccountable boards to have the right to raise taxes. They do not expect an unelected board to raise moneys through taxation.

I am actually very surprised by this because no taxation without representation…. We've heard this being mentioned through the House over this. There are members on this side who oppose the bill and are supporting this hoist motion, who talk about no taxation without representation.

I'd like to remind members on the other side of the House that no taxation without representation sparked a revolution. No taxation without representation was the rallying cry by the Thirteen Colonies in what now is the United States. They were complaining about taxes being imposed by parliament without their consent, which violated the traditions of people going back to the Magna Carta.

Taxation without representation is a very, very dangerous path to move down. Not only do we see our democratic voices being silenced through these sorts of moves, such as the TransLink bill, but the idea of taxing without representation is very worrying. The British government at the time, in the 18th century when they wanted to impose taxes without representation, said that it was okay. The colonists were virtually represented.

Well, maybe that's the same for the people in the lower mainland who are going to be having this new TransLink board. Maybe they are going to be virtually represented by some board that they have no accountability for. I find it very strange that the government is willing to also lose that control, lose the control of taxation. It's a very powerful tool to have, but as I say, this government seems to be willing to just hand it over to a board of appointees.

With this bill — and this is why I support the hoist motion — people are not getting the voice that they deserve. I think the government really should take this hoist motion very seriously. They should consider supporting it. Perhaps if they don't want to look at the democratic process….

As I say, we've been discussing earlier today Bill 39, which looks at the electoral boundaries and the changes there — again, the impacts of our democratic structure and our electoral process that Bill 39 implies.

[1500]

I would hope that the government would look if not at the democratic reasons for considering our hoist motion then at the taxation issues, because this is exceedingly worrying and exceedingly concerning. I mean, it's not a slogan without meaning. It was a slogan that did inspire revolution.

I'm not saying that this would inspire revolution in the lower mainland, but I am saying that it will create a lot of concern from taxpayers, the people who have a financial voice and are saying, "I care about my transit structure; I care about my local governance," and who want to have a greater say, not to have the virtual representation that this bill will allow.

I've got to admit that virtual representation is perhaps why the government is actually moving through this. It does sound very 21st century. It does sound very strange. Maybe this is something that this government wants to work on in other areas — you'll get virtual representation, virtual taxation and virtual other things — and to get their public relations teams to be working on this.

It does go a long way to explain what is happening in our province — the concept of virtual representation, the concept where you take away from elected voices and elected bodies the right to have that control. We are increasingly seeing virtual representation. We are seeing virtual representation in our regional districts, as I mentioned, in our health authorities and in our ferries. Throughout the areas that we as British Columbians had believed were ours, throughout the areas where we had thought we had a say, this is being taken away. It really is a matter of huge concern. It is something that we should all be wary of.

I respect the members opposite as people who are also like members on this side. I had hoped that they believed in democracy. They are elected representatives for their communities. They are the people, as on this side, who are there to represent a community — to represent thousands, up to about 50,000 people, and to give them voice.

Yet with one bill they can take that voice away from so many people over such an important issue and, with that move, can also set the stage for other areas where democracy is being pulled back, where other appointed boards are being put in place.

I think this is a dangerous bill. I think the hoist motion will give the government a chance to think about it. If you're making fundamental changes in any structure, it should not be rushed through. It should be well-thought-out. If you're making fundamental changes in a governance structure and taking it out of democratic hands, this too should be thought through. It should be questioned thoroughly.

I would hope that the government does think about what no taxation without representation means and

[ Page 9214 ]

about the implications that it's going to have. I believe fundamentally in the democratic process. That's why I'm here, and I hope that is why most other members are here, why 78 other colleagues are here. We believe in democracy. We believe that everyone has a voice and that we will individually do our best to represent that voice.

Sadly, I think this bill will take that voice away from too many people. It will set a precedent and will mark a very dangerous way forward for the coming years.

I support this hoist motion. I urge the government members to also support the hoist motion because it gives a chance for reflection.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak again on this very important motion on our democratic structures.

[1505]

J. McIntyre: I rise because I absolutely cannot support this hoist amendment. I've sat here for days and days while the opposition spoke against Bill 43 — all of them or a large number of them. Now they're asking for this time, this six-month reprieve from actually getting on with badly needed legislation. I can't sit here any longer and listen to one speaker after another speaker say the same thing over and over.

Then by the end of the session, guess what. The NDP is going to say that we didn't have enough time to debate bill X, bill Y or bill Z, because they're going on and on and on. Now it's my turn to go on.

I don't support this hoist, because I actually support Bill 43, and I'd like to get on with the reading of the bill. Bill 43, which is the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, provides, finally, a sustainable funding framework to ensure that TransLink is viable for the long term. It should be passed as soon as possible.

Let me tell you and let me tell the viewers at home what it actually provides for. It provides for a mayors' council, which includes all the mayors of all municipalities all at the same time, and we can maintain accountability for TransLink directly to the taxpayers. They will know that it's their mayor who sits on that board.

It provides for a professional board of directors with the skill and professional background necessary to oversee the operation of TransLink. It also provides for an independent commissioner, the operative word being "independent."

It increases the transparency and the due diligence regarding TransLink's plan and initiatives as well as to authorize any proposed fare increases. It also provides for a substantially improved planning process.

Let's actually take a minute here to go back a bit in history. This legislation, this Bill 43 that the NDP is trying to avoid passing, implements a majority of recommendations from a blue-ribbon, respected TransLink review panel. That was a three-person independent panel — people like Wayne Duzita; Marlene Grinnell, who has years and years of municipal experience and experience at TransLink; Dan Doyle, a Highways deputy minister.

They had 120 written submissions and 30 stakeholder meetings. They went out and spent some time looking at this whole situation, and one after another the NDP here in the House over the last while, like lemmings, have been speaking against this legislation because they know better than an independent panel — right?

The government went to the independent panel to depoliticize the issue. Once again, what do we have? NDP politicizing transportation in this province. They go for the exact opposite. [Applause.]

Yeah, right. I'm glad you're clapping, because the NDP has had an ugly history of political interference in transportation in this province.

The biggest, of course, and most blatant example would be their interference in B.C. Ferries and the B.C. Ferries board, which produced — whatever it was — half a billion dollars of three ferries that don't work. It led to our government establishing an independent, arm's-length authority to run professionally. Lo and behold, I think by all accounts, it's way improved, but the NDP would never admit that — no.

What else did they interfere in? Would it be the Millennium line — no — that was created under the NDP? There are a number of quotes here by serious people like Pat Jacobsen, the TransLink president, who said in the Sun way back in October 2001: "There never was a business case for this line. It was never the region's priority."

Then how did the NDP build the Millennium line? Philip Hochstein of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association says that the Millennium line was a politically driven project with a politically driven timetable. They've made what is really a four-year project into a two-year project to suit the political election timetable. Surprise, surprise.

So for me to sit here and listen to the NDP rail against the concept of running a major transportation authority in a professional, business-like manner is laughable, completely laughable. I can't believe it. Sadly, it does represent the NDP's approach, but it is laughable.

Let's listen to what Maurine Karagianis said just the other day, November 6, in Hansard . She said: "The minister has said all along that we need more expertise. All of these municipal leaders, despite their capacity…."

Deputy Speaker: Member, can you just remember there are no names in the chamber.

J. McIntyre: Oh, I'm so sorry. I apologize. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, I believe. I'm sorry. Yes, in my enthusiasm, I forgot.

[1510]

Anyway, the member mentioned that all of these municipal leaders, despite their capacity to run very efficient and effective, huge multi-billion dollar communities…. Somehow their expertise is just not the depth that's required for this new TransLink model, but the expertise that these business-centric appointees will bring is all that's needed.

I must remind the member that it's not the mayors and the councillors that are running billion-dollar

[ Page 9215 ]

municipalities. It's their chief administrative officers. There's a whole administration and bureaucracy that run these. You think that elected officials like you and I actually run the cities? No. She's got it all wrong.

Whereas business people actually do run their organizations and are accountable to their shareholders…. So enough.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings who just spoke before me was very concerned about an expert board. He was really worried about expertise. It's ridiculous. The NDP is saying we don't need a professional board with skills to oversee transportation. Instead, they would prefer….

Interjection.

J. McIntyre: Listen. Just a moment.

Instead, they would prefer people who use transit or people who ride a bicycle…. They want them on the board.

An Hon. Member: That's typical NDP.

J. McIntyre: Exactly. It's not to denigrate for one moment that those people have value and that they have a good perspective. They should have opportunities for input….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. McIntyre: I don't know about you, but I think I would prefer a professional like Larry Berg of YVR at the airport and David Hahn of B.C. Ferries than someone from the general public who rides a bus or a bike overseeing a billion-dollar organization.

Let me say it a different way. Let me give you a different example. It might explain my point. Certainly, patients in a hospital have valuable input into how health care is delivered in the province. They're users of the system. They're taxpayers.

But when it comes to surgery, I think I'd prefer to have a professionally trained doctor than another patient wielding a scalpel in their hand.

Interjection.

J. McIntyre: Yeah, I think a patient would have a lot more skill than a doctor. That's a good idea. So let's have the average citizen running billion-dollar organizations.

Anyway, I want to turn to another benefit. If you would bother to pass Bill 43 and get on with it, we could get on with these benefits being distributed to the lower mainland.

Under the current structure, Metro Vancouver and the TransLink board have been at odds. They've been at odds all over the place. We've had differing positions on Gateway. We've had reversals on the Canada line.

We've had quotes in the newspapers for the last years. Larry Campbell, former mayor of Vancouver and a TransLink board member, saying: "Quite frankly, I don't see it working. We've got to get rid of the parochialism." Doug McCallum, former mayor of Surrey, saying: "We have serious structural problems in governance." Lois Jackson, mayor of Delta, saying: "I believe we should have every single mayor on the TransLink board, and we don't need five representatives from somewhere like Surrey and Vancouver."

We also have editorials in the Vancouver Sun . On June 23: "TransLink has come to represent political gridlock in the lower mainland rather than a transit system that moves fluidly." Another editorial on the same day: "Instead of blindly heading down this road, it's time to admit that TransLink itself is broken — that it's incapable of doing the job it was created to do. On Monday, Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell and Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum faced up to this reality."

Most municipalities right now — and according to the NDP, you wouldn't know it — do not have a representative on the TransLink board. It's led to a whole series of one-year terms so that the appointments can be rotated among all the municipalities. One-year terms don't lead to any kind of long-term planning, any kind of long-term thinking. It lacks public accountability, because the members are continually going through a rotating door. It leads to the kind of public admission of the breakdowns I just cited.

If we were able to get on with the reading of Bill 43, we would see that this legislation provides for a whole new governance model that will enhance TransLink in five major ways. First of all, it will enhance public accountability and public confidence in the board. All the mayors will be overseeing and approving budgets. It will enhance their ability to be forward-looking, like they should be, ten years and 30 years down the road.

It will also enhance effective decision-making by creating much, much clearer lines of responsibility and authority. It's very clearly defined between elected officials and non-elected officials who've been appointed to governing bodies. It also separates what the executive and the staff of TransLink are responsible for.

It will increase the transparency of the fiscal management. You'll know who supported the budget and who voted for it. It also increases a timely and efficient delivery of much-needed transportation services and projects. We need to get on with this and stop the infighting and the gridlock.

[1515]

The NDP claims that democratically elected politicians won't have a say anymore, and they're dead wrong. Every day I've been hearing on and on that this is the death of democracy, that this is taxation without representation — you know, another doom-and-gloom, sky-is-falling scenario from this NDP opposition. No. They're dead wrong.

What we will see is decision-making with respect to long-term strategic planning as well as the exercise of new taxation and borrowing authorization powers that will now rest with the council of mayors. That's a council of every single mayor — not a few, but all mayors all at the same time.

An Hon. Member: Better democracy.

[ Page 9216 ]

J. McIntyre: Exactly. We will see responsibility for implementing the plan lie with the new board, the new professionals. All they're doing is implementing, and they will implement in a professional and businesslike way. And thank goodness, Madam Speaker.

This council of mayors is also going to provide a much-needed link back to the regional and municipal growth management through their decisions on the TransLink long-term plan. That's something that I think people did raise concern about when they heard about the new possible structure. There have been great lengths taken to make sure there is a link to the accountable mayors, back to linking things like the livable region strategic plan. The TransLink board will be required by amendments to consider those regional interests in both the ten-year and the 30-year strategic plans. So the safeguard is built in.

The mayors' council will also be responsible for appointing that independent commissioner and the board from a list of nominees, so it does increase public accountability as the public, as I mentioned earlier, knows exactly who represents their interest. It's their mayor, and it's the most senior elected official at the local basis. It's not a mishmash of councillors and mayors that are moving around every year. Very, very clear lines — that's what is necessary, and that's what will make it more workable.

We also have the roles and responsibilities of the mayors, the TransLink board and the independent commissioner very clearly defined. Let me give you an example. Here's what the independent commissioner will be responsible for, and he's only to be appointed one time for a six-year term. He has to review and approve any increases in transit fares. He is in charge of approval of TransLink's procedures for dealing with public complaints. So we have an independent commissioner.

He's also responsible for how TransLink conducts their annual customer satisfaction surveys. He will also be auditing TransLink's reports on customer satisfaction and complaints and their service performance as it relates to their plan — an independent commissioner who will be watching and evaluating all of this on behalf of the public.

Lastly, he will also be commenting on the consistency of TransLink's ten-year plan with, as I said earlier, that regional growth management strategy. So they will be monitored to make sure that they are in fact doing that.

Now, I also want to talk a little about the funding and what this proposed bill — if we can ever get back to it — will do to put TransLink finally on a much sounder footing. I recall, in my years in business…. I remember all the kerfuffle a number of years ago when TransLink and GVRD were voting on their ten-year plans. It involved major, major projects like rapid transit, the Canada line, Evergreen line — trying to decide all the priorities.

So they have a ten-year plan, but guess what. They only had funding for three years of it — oopsy. What do we do? Start digging for rapid transit, for underground, and then get halfway through the tunnel and go: "Oopsy, we don't have any more money for the other years"?

No. You have to do this — guess what — in a professional, businesslike way. You can't just think that one day you'll get there and maybe raise a few taxes or maybe levy a few vehicles or do a parking lot tax.

Interjection.

J. McIntyre: Yeah, why don't we do that?

Anyway, that was a ridiculous way they were trying to operate. You just cannot start on projects of that magnitude and not have certainty of funding. You can't stop partway through. Can you imagine building a house like that? I don't think so.

Anyway, I saw TransLink struggle for years with these controversial levies and parking stall taxes — huge uproar, huge uncertainty. But no, under Bill 43, if it was allowed to pass, we will see that TransLink needs to live within its means. It will be required to adopt a ten-year strategic plan to remain viable, and this will result finally in an improved and certain funding framework.

[1520]

Also, a very important part of the work of the panel is that they recommended that new revenues would be required to meet the increasing needs as we go forward. But it will be balanced. It'll be balanced between transit users, vehicle users and property owners.

Placing the onus on only one of those bodies was blatantly unfair. Right now, guess what. Under the system that the NDP opposition is trying to protect, the burden is primarily on property owners. All of the viewers who are out there watching, if you do own or rent property, you'll see that a certain amount of your taxes pay for this, and you are almost virtually the single payer.

TransLink's portion, people may not know, of the region's property tax bill…. Guess what. It's gone up over 150 percent in the past five years alone. It's shocking, and it's clearly not sustainable. TransLink was not on a financially sustainable footing.

Those rapid increases that we've seen, which we've all experienced as taxpayers in the lower mainland, are estimated to slow under this new balanced formula. The panel's assessment, when they're recommending this balance of revenues…. The property owners are now expected and anticipated to see only about a 3-percent or 4-percent increase over these next years — a completely different reversal of a pattern that was out of control.

The panel was striving for a system that has predictable and sustainable funding, that is fair and that is balanced between users of the system and taxpayers.

By comparison, what the NDP is supporting is a system where an increase of 40 percent to 50 percent in the property tax revenues would be required in the next four or five years alone for TransLink to implement its current ten-year plan. That's what the NDP wants. They want to keep it just as it is. "Let's have TransLink be unsustainable and have no certainty of funding. Let's have all of the property tax payers in the

[ Page 9217 ]

lower mainland…. In addition to the 150-percent increase over the past five years, let's go for another 50 percent in the coming five years. Why not? Who cares? They're rich property owners — right? Let's tax them."

How the NDP can stand up and mock this legislation and vote against a professional business plan that protects taxpayers to a much greater degree is way beyond me.

Now, as I wind down here, I want to talk about another positive aspect of Bill 43 for my riding in particular. One of the elements of this is that the service region can be expanded. It would include, at the western end, communities like Squamish and Pemberton, who very much need public transit.

In the Sea to Sky corridor, which is growing at a rapid rate, there's a huge demand for people to be able to get up and down that corridor. We need to take cars off the road. The opportunity to have regular transit service in my corridor would be just a fantastic occurrence.

It will be voluntary. Nobody is forcing them, but if the local communities and the council of mayors agree, TransLink will be able to expand service beyond its boundaries. I think that is a fantastic aspect of all of this.

This structural change to TransLink will provide for a long-term vision for transportation in the entire lower mainland that includes plans for better, more balanced, more effective transit as part of a larger transportation network. It finally provides tools for TransLink to build for the long term. The long term is the important part of this. That's what's professional. That's what's businesslike.

TransLink will finally have a revenue stream necessary to achieve their strategic long-term goals. It will enable construction of the Evergreen line expansion. It will allow them to expand the current SkyTrain system as they see fit, and it will establish a transit and rapid bus service across the Port Mann Bridge, which we are so desperate for.

In short, I cannot in good conscience support this hoist amendment. I also cannot support and sit here, as I said at the beginning of my comments, and listen to one opposition member after another deliberately delay the passage of this bill. I want my voice on the record that we need to get on with this legislation.

[1525]

D. Thorne: It truly is a pleasure to rise today in support of this hoist motion, a motion that one can only hope will slow down this Minister of Transportation's plan, his ideas, his move to control the whole transportation system — probably in British Columbia, but certainly in the lower mainland — and to take over from a democratic, elected board and run everything centrally through Victoria.

It's even more of a pleasure to follow the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi, who has shown in no uncertain terms her scorn for elected officials in British Columbia. I can only wonder if that includes us here as well. Because if, in fact, we can have experts running transportation in the GVRD–Fraser Valley and if this is what makes this plan a good plan, then I would think we can have them running the whole province, running everything here in Victoria. Why are the taxpayers paying any of us to sit here when everything could be run by a panel of experts?

It's a pleasure to rise and follow this speaker. Before I go on, I have some things that I want to say, many of which have been said — the draconian legislation, the loss of democracy, all of the things that my colleagues have been speaking about in the last couple of days.

I myself spoke at second reading a week or two ago and recounted my own personal experiences with transportation on the lower mainland, and I fully intend to repeat some of those things today. I'm sure that will please anybody in the House who was not here the first time I spoke and who missed the things that I had to say in my personal experiences. I will repeat those today.

I just want to say that since I spoke two weeks ago or ten days ago, my constituency assistant has sent out my speech to any number of lower mainland councils, mayors, the GVRD and many, many people involved in transportation currently on the lower mainland. I have had nothing but positive comments back to my office in Coquitlam-Maillardville, — people thanking me, and thanking me for bringing up exactly what all of the elected officials, almost to a one, in the GVRD feel about this bill.

Just a little bit of history on TransLink and the GVTA — the time line. It's very interesting how all of this came about here in the House. It's very interesting. As I say, I was around for much of this, but it's great to have it written down here with dates and to be able to recount it to this House this afternoon.

In 1998 the GVTA bill was introduced by the then NDP government. At that time — on July 29, 1998 — the current Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, supported the creation of TransLink and, in fact, called for even more legislation to protect the autonomy and independence of TransLink from provincial interference. Very interesting information. One wonders how we ended up here today when this is how we started out nine years ago. One only wonders. Well, having been there, I know how we got to where we are today.

Okay, so in 1999 TransLink was officially launched. Everything went along fine for the next five years.

Interjections.

D. Thorne: I see the Minister of Transportation came in when he heard about my time line. He missed my personal experiences before, so he has come in to hear me repeat some of the things I said before.

Anyway, in the meantime, things went along. I was sitting on the GVRD board of directors, and yes, of course, there were problems with transportation in the lower mainland. Underfunding will do that. It will cause problems.

[1530]

I can guarantee the Minister of Transportation that if he underfunds his new board of experts, they are going to have problems as well. Believe me; they can't do it without proper funding, as I know — right?

[ Page 9218 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Why did you underfund them?

D. Thorne: No, no.

Hon. K. Falcon: You just said that you underfunded them. Why?

D. Thorne: I'm talking about in 2001-2004.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

D. Thorne: Things went along very well until January 26, 2004, when the member for Surrey-Cloverdale was appointed the Minister of Transportation. In the following days he promised to direct major transportation investments towards Surrey. That was when we started talking about twinning the Port Mann Bridge.

Then in May of 2004 the trouble began for TransLink — the beginning of the end of TransLink — because they dared to vote against the RAV line. For the first time they voted against it. Then in June they voted for the second time against the RAV line, and on June 30, 2004, they voted for a third time against the RAV line.

Now, at that time I was sitting on the board of the GVRD, and it came to the board. There were many votes held there as well. It didn't pass. Finally, on a weighted vote with many, many promises and much cajoling and spinning of information, the weighted vote allowed the RAV line to pass.

One weighted vote. I can't reiterate enough what that means in the context of the GVRD. The weighted votes, as most of us know, are based on population. One weighted vote would be a community, a village like Lions Bay, Anmore, Belcarra. We're talking 300, 500, 600, 700 people. That is how much the RAV line passed by at the GVRD. So we are not talking unanimous support for this.

This thing barely squeaked through. Believe me, the Minister of Transportation got quite a shock, got quite a scare, because he realized that this was, in fact, an independent process in the GVRD, a process that could not be controlled by Victoria.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

In fact, as one looks back at Hansard from 1998, it was a process that the now Premier wanted strengthened. It wasn't strong enough for the current Premier. He wanted more autonomy and more independence so that TransLink would never be interfered with by the province. Obviously, the Premier has changed his mind and is now in concurrence with the Transportation Minister, because we're moving down this path.

I think that we are here today because of what happened that day in the GVRD boardroom. I think that we're here because of that one weighted vote. I think that when the Minister of Transportation realized he did not, in fact, control TransLink or the GVTA, he recognized that changes had to be made. They had to be harnessed, so to speak, and brought into the fold.

All of the legislation would have to be controlled by Victoria so that, in fact, what happens in the GVRD could be controlled by this Legislature. So much for elected representatives on TransLink and at the GVRD board, which is now called the Metro Vancouver board. So much for all of the taxpayers having any say in what happens to the transportation they use. It's been an interesting process getting here, if one looks back at all of that. This new model will see the day-to-day administration and the long-term planning done by a nine-member board of directors, an unelected group of experts.

We just heard from the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi. We can tell she was obviously chosen to speak for this government, because they have not been responding much to the hoist motion. We can only assume that the opinions expressed by the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi are the opinions of the majority, if not all, of the government sitting on the opposite side of the House.

[1535]

Obviously, all of them feel that an unelected group of experts are the proper body to come in and tell the taxpayers, the people who pay all of our wages, what they should be doing with transportation in the lower mainland — an area of growth. Soon half of the population of the province will be residing in that area, and heaven forbid that they should have any say over what is happening with their tax dollars and their transportation system.

We're hearing lots of talk about the council of mayors, that in fact, by having this council of mayors we will have democratic oversight and representation. Well, I call that hogwash — if I'm allowed to use that word in this House. I think it is hogwash.

This undemocratic, unaccountable board of directors is appointed by business interests. A screening panel will select candidates for the board, and then the council of mayors will vote on them. The screening panel is composed of a representative from each of these groups — and we've heard these before, but I'll say them again because I don't think it can be said too often: the Vancouver Board of Trade, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council, the Ministry of Transportation and one from the council of mayors.

I feel really sorry for that one representative from the council of mayors, that one elected person, that one person who is responsible for every single taxpayer in Metro Vancouver — and eventually, I would assume and I would hope, out into the Fraser Valley. That one mayor….

M. Karagianis: He's not elected. He's not a mayor. It's somebody they appointed.

D. Thorne: My colleague is telling me that I have misunderstood my notes, that there isn't…. In a way that's a relief, because I was feeling so sorry for that one person. To try and represent 50 percent of the population of British Columbia would be an unimaginable task — really, an impossible task. But they're

[ Page 9219 ]

going to appoint somebody. Then we will have five unelected people choosing.

Selection of the all-important first board of directors is even more undemocratic, as it has followed an ad hoc process set up by the Minister of Transportation — a Minister of Transportation who drives an SUV and willy-nilly wants to build more freeways and bridges, increase the traffic and not even deal with transit, not even look at transit for a minimum of six years. Even then it won't be the major part of the expansion of the freeway.

Speaking, as I really should be, only for my own riding, that freeway, that bridge, empties into my riding. The southern slope of Coquitlam, where Maillardville rests and some of the other areas, as well — the Cape Horn area, the Austin Heights area — is already inundated with noise, bad air. You name it, Madam Speaker; it's untenable. All of this is going to make it worse.

I can tell you that this is not a group of people who think this plan is a good idea. They would much rather see rapid transit going across the bridge that we have now — for instance, SkyTrain. What a notion. Let's put SkyTrain right out to Chilliwack. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing? Are we even looking at that? Do we even know how that might work?

As the Minister of Transportation reminded us just this afternoon, 100,000 people are going to go on the SkyTrain, the RAV line — the one that, really, almost nobody wanted in Vancouver. Well, 100,000 people….

Hon. K. Falcon: You opposed it.

D. Thorne: You should check that out. I was promised a lot of things. Maybe I didn't oppose it.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Member.

D. Thorne: Sorry, Madam Speaker. I apologize.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please.

Members, every member of this House has an opportunity to speak and be heard. I caution you. I particularly caution some of the conversation on the government benches.

Continue, Member.

[1540]

D. Thorne: I've sort of lost my train of thought, but I think we were talking about alternatives to cars, which I think is a huge or should be a huge part of the Ministry of Transportation. However, we also were talking about the first board.

The first board is going to write the initial ten- and 30-year strategic plan. Now, I'm sure there is nobody in this House who would disagree that that is going to be the linchpin. That is the most important thing that is going to happen, certainly in this century, around transportation in the GVRD–Fraser Valley. The council of mayors will not have anything to say about that initial plan. They'll look at it afterwards, they'll probably give an opinion, but they won't have anything to do with writing it. This is going to be done by the board of experts.

I think that this is almost unbelievable. But having been there in 2004, I'm not surprised that we've come here. I'm not surprised at all — right?

The member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi talked about the experts being better at running the show, so to speak — that we really don't need elected people to be doing transportation in the lower mainland, that we should be emulating the head of the ferry corporation and YVR. Certainly, we know how well the ferry corporation is doing these days, and we know how popular the head of the ferry corporation is and how many promises have been broken already by the head of the ferry corporation. We know that if this is the road we're going down, heaven help all of us.

Even what I'm reading here, which is bad enough, won't happen, because promises will be broken and changes will be made as we go along.

Nevertheless, we're going to have a ten- and a 30-year plan. It's going to be done by these experts hired by yet more experts. A lot of people in the GVRD, myself included, are having a lot of problems with that. Appointed directors don't have the kind of popular mandate that councils and mayors have.

A lot of the people in the lower mainland are not even aware of how draconian and how backward-thinking this bill is. They don't even know that this is going to be happening. When they do, when they realize what we're talking about here in the Legislature — what we're going to be doing to democracy in British Columbia — why, I suspect it will even make the electoral boundaries bill look democratic, compared to what we're doing here with TransLink.

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of notes here, and I did read these before on what the GVRD had to say about all of this. The thing about the GVRD — and it might do the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi a lot of good to remember that there are experts there as well — is that we already have many, many experts involved with running TransLink. The problem with TransLink, and it's been getting worse and worse the last four or five years, is the fact that they're just absolutely underfunded. They're strapped for cash. They can't move on anything.

In my own riding we've been waiting for rapid transit for the last two or three years. In 2004 when we were promised that the Evergreen rapid transit line would be built concurrently with the RAV line, it was the only reason that any votes at all came from the northeast sector for the RAV line. I can absolutely guarantee this government that. I mean, I was there, and we went all day.

The vote should have been taken at 10:30 in the morning, and it was 3:30 or four o'clock in the afternoon before we finally had that final weighted vote, the one that will go down in history where 500 people spent billions of dollars for a line that should have been built after the Evergreen line to Coquitlam, as every-

[ Page 9220 ]

body in this House knows as well. That was also pretty undemocratic, even pushing that RAV line ahead.

[1545]

The Evergreen line that was supposed to be built concurrently with the RAV line — nothing has happened yet. There's been no cash from Victoria. There's been no okay on anything. Everybody in Coquitlam and Port Moody are still waiting, wondering what's happening to their line, which should be opening probably next year, or the year after, for sure. We don't even know what we're getting. It's being watered down by the day. It's quite disgusting. That is very undemocratic.

The GVRD and the elected representatives are not happy about that, I can tell you, Madam Speaker — and not just the representatives from Coquitlam and Port Moody either. None of the elected representatives across the lower mainland is happy about what's happened with the Evergreen rapid transit line to Coquitlam.

The GVRD staff responded to this plan.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's your TransLink you're defending, who haven't built it. It's your TransLink.

D. Thorne: Underfunding again, Madam Speaker. I can only say that word so many times, but I guess I can say it a few more times, actually. I can probably say it as many times as I want to until my half hour is up — right? It is underfunding, underfunding, underfunding. You cannot build the Evergreen transit line without provincial dollars, and the government has not come through.

For some reason voters and people living in the northeast sector are not as important, I guess, as people who live in Vancouver or in other areas, because they can't even get the funding from the government to have a first-class rapid transit system. They are being watered down, looking at different technologies, looking at different routes. We hardly know from day to day what's happening in the northeast sector regarding rapid transit. All the money and time and interest is in the RAV line, the one that passed by 300 to 500 votes across the GVRD.

I guess everybody on the other side has read the report from the GVRD. Certainly, everybody on this side has read it. They know the facts. They know all the reasons why they didn't want to have an unelected board of experts running it.

I know that the Ministry of Transportation has said that TransLink and the GTVA are parochial. I guess they favoured local interests over broader regional ones. I would say that coming from the Minister of Transportation, who pushed the RAV line through, what could have been more favouring of local interests? That certainly was not a broad regional interest in comparison to the northeast sector rapid transit line.

I think the Minister of Transportation should reconsider when he blames Metro Vancouver and the old TransLink board or the current TransLink board for being parochial, because I would say that he'd be somebody who'd know about being parochial.

Looking at regional land use is a whole other area. It is very scary to think that the people in this House are going to be making the decisions, based on recommendations from "experts," business people, who I'm assuming would all be, in some ways, interested in development.

This is in an area where we have a livable region strategic plan. It is undergoing review right now, but I would assume that it's not undergoing review to be dismantled or done away with for willy-nilly development and getting rid of all the greenspace, etc., in the GVRD and the Fraser Valley.

Yes, we are reviewing; there's no doubt about it. What about the livable region strategic plan, the whole idea of sustainability and sustainable community? How is that going to be affected by this board of experts, with only a small amount of oversight and say by local mayors and elected people?

I can only say that I just think that this bill is tragic for the lower mainland. To have to sit here and see this — as it no doubt will be in the end — being pushed through by this government…. They have more votes than we do, of course.

[1550]

It'll be pushed through in the face of opposition from taxpayers and elected representatives on the lower mainland, even the head of the current TransLink board.

Hon. K. Falcon: What? He supports it.

D. Thorne: Should I sit for a moment, Madam Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order.

Continue, Member.

D. Thorne: I was just going to, in closing…. I'm sure the Minister of Transportation will be very happy, because the sooner I finish, the sooner we'll all finish — right? Then he can just continue to push his draconian legislation through, and we can move on to another bit of draconian legislation.

Some time ago we presented a position paper to the review panel at TransLink. It was presented by our previous critic for Transportation, the member for Vancouver-Kensington. I just wanted, in closing, to read through what we have recommended — the democratic positions that we have taken. I'm just going to read them as they're written here. Any mistakes are not mine. Since the previous critic is sitting there, I just wanted to draw that to his attention.

These are the things that my side of the House believes should be happening.

"We recommend that no consideration be given to a TransLink governance structure which includes board members who have not been elected by residents of the GVRD.

"We recommend that TransLink policy decisions be made by elected representatives at the GVRD."

The GVRD has responsibility for land use policy in the region. Land use policy and transportation policy are linked forever and are very, very important.

"The current separation of these two functions is an artificial one and can be remedied by situating the policy decision-makers within the GVRD framework.

[ Page 9221 ]

"We recommend that the TransLink Board be made up of 17 regional representatives, one provincial MLA from the region appointed by the provincial government and one federal MP…appointed by the federal government."

I'll just interject my own thought here. We did have, on the old TransLink board, positions for three MLAs, three reps from Victoria, which this government did not fill. The past government filled them, but this government did not. So let's not say that we didn't have the ability to control a little bit of the GVRD and TransLink all along. We did. We chose not to do that here in Victoria for some reason.

Just to carry on with the recommendations.

"While we do not at this time make a recommendation regarding the specific structure of a newly constituted TransLink board operating within the GVRD" — this was written about a year ago — "we have some preliminary ideas in this regard and would be more than pleased to discuss them."

Now, I will say that that is what we have been doing for the last two weeks. We have been discussing these ideas that we have. Would I be correct in assuming that?

"We recommend" — and this is important — "that TransLink continue to function as an operating company with a structure that requires it to follow the policy and strategic decisions of the new TransLink governing body within the GVRD."

I think that's probably the most important sentence for me in all of the recommendations. It pretty much says it all. "The new TransLink governing body within the GVRD," now known as Metro Vancouver.

"We recommend that non-elected representatives, such as those with relevant business, union, environmental and other expertise" — which I assume would include somebody who uses transit — "be consulted in an ongoing way at both the operating company and policy-making levels. This might include independent, non-voting directors on subsidiary committees and boards but would exclude any representation on policy-making structures."

That's another very important sentence, because it directly flies in the face of what this Minister of Transportation is recommending.

[1555]

"We recommend that municipal representatives to the newly structured…board be chosen for three-year terms corresponding to the municipal election calendar and that provincial and federal representatives be appointed in a manner that would maximize continuity.

"We recommend that the GVTA Act provision which requires TransLink transportation planning to be compatible with the livable region strategic plan be continued, irrespective of the panel's ultimate recommendation regarding TransLink governance.

"We recommend that the Minister of Transportation establish…."

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak in favour of the hoist motion. For those of you that would be paying attention to this, the hoist motion is a tool the opposition has to make sure that the pieces of legislation that the opposition feels are particularly egregious are slowed down. The hoist motion gives the Legislature the opportunity to take six months to have a close look at legislation.

This is something that the opposition would use because they feel, in particular, that a piece of legislation is flawed. So what we have been doing here over the course of this afternoon, and what we have done previously, is to stand up and indicate clearly not only in second reading speeches but also with our hoist motion speeches that the opposition feels strongly that Bill 43, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, is flawed and that the public needs to look at this again and to understand fully the implications of this piece of legislation. That's why the opposition has put this forward.

Now, in terms of the speakers, I'm sure that the public, if they have been watching, would see that it is, to date, a rather one-sided debate. I think there have been three government speakers, despite the fact that a good number of government MLAs are impacted by this legislation. You would think that if they were proud of it, they would be up explaining and making the case, first, for its need and, also, for the benefits that would accrue to the province and to their communities.

To date, if you were watching, I think you would see that the predominance of speakers is on the opposition side. That might raise the hope of the hoist motion succeeding. We certainly hope that it will. My experience in the last two and a half years is that it's probably not going to. Nevertheless, there are points that need to be made and points that need to be repeated. The hope is that the public will pay attention, look at this bill and really consider what it means for them.

I took the opportunity to speak against Bill 43 on second reading. I was in favour of the idea of using the hoist motion, again, to slow this legislation down. As I said in my initial speech against Bill 43, I think it is a way of approaching transportation policy that is fundamentally flawed. It is fundamentally flawed in the governance processes that it sets up.

Now, the area that I represent is Columbia River–Revelstoke, far removed from the lower mainland. But the pattern that we have seen with the government is for them to move to the centralization of authority. What I would say is that my consistent experience with governance structures not dissimilar to what is put forward in Bill 43 is that decision-making is inferior to what it should be and that the things we take for granted in local government and in most democratic structures around having a say on decision-making and accountability are removed with this sort of a board structure.

[1600]

My comments are going to focus on the governance and on the flaws that I see in Bill 43 with the governance structure. The bill has been presented, and I would say that there has not been a tremendous amount of argument on this particular factor, but the central argument seems to be, from the minister and others, that the TransLink board structure that exists now is one that doesn't work and needs to be replaced.

[ Page 9222 ]

I've heard the term "parochialism" used and so on, as if parochialism does not exist with any group that gets together. Nevertheless, the government made the case that the board structure for TransLink that presently exists needs to be replaced.

Since my experience with the lower mainland is limited, that's not a debate that I would enter into. There is nothing that has been said here in the House that has persuaded me that that is the case, but neither do I have the experience to say that the board structure that exists now is not in some way flawed.

Certainly, if you're successfully making the case that a board structure is flawed, then what you would want to do is to put in place a board structure that was in some way superior. What I see from this legislation…. It's 72 pages long, but there are a few key points that I'll focus on. Those points are so fundamentally flawed that you could not in good conscience, I don't think, support this legislation.

With this hoist motion, we are hoping that people will stop and will look at the legislation and really try to understand the impact that this proposed governance structure in Bill 43 is going to have.

My feeling is that it is not in any way an improvement and, in fact, that it treads on some of the fundamental principles we feel are important in good decision-making. As legislators, we all come here with, I would hope, a few ideas around elected officials and around public accountability.

Responsible government, which this Legislature was built to celebrate…. It's a magnificent building. I think we all know that as a group we are chosen as ordinary people to come forth and make decisions on behalf of other ordinary people in the province. The way the system ought to work is that those elected officials are responsible for all the people, all the public servants that the taxpayers pay for through collections of various types of taxes.

It is a principle that…. I think one of our first gatherings here as an NDP caucus was to have the Clerks describe the long history of responsible government, not only in British Columbia but the 500-year history of this Westminster system.

The fundamental core idea is around taxation, around the spending of that money, around the work of the public service being ultimately held responsible through elected officials. This legislation is something that, I think, forgets that principle. It's something that the people of British Columbia should reject for that reason alone.

You read through the 72 pages, and there are two things that strike you and that should be troubling for all British Columbians. The first is that for all of the different layers that appear to be there, the reality is that at the end, you have a B.C. Liberal–appointed board running transportation in all of the lower mainland.

The argument I would make is that given a whole range of experienc