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)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 24 Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Motions without Notice

Appointment of Deputy Speaker

Membership of Children and Youth

Committee

Hon. M. de

Jong

Recommittal of Bills

Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement

Act (Bill 40)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement

Act (Bill 40)

Reporting of Bills

Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement

Act (Bill 40)

Second Reading of Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

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

L. Krog

J. Kwan

D. Routley

R. Sultan

M. Farnworth

On the amendment

M. Farnworth

[ Page 9091 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Motions without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY SPEAKER

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, with leave, I move the following

sessional order.

[1005]

[I move, seconded by the Member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain

Electoral District, that Katherine Whittred , Member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale Electoral District, be appointed a Deputy Speaker for this

Session of the Legislative Assembly.]

That is arising out of the sad news we all heard about the

member from the Okanagan and her ongoing fight with cancer. I so move.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

MEMBERSHIP OF

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: Flowing from that, with leave, I move:

[That Ms. Val Roddick be substituted for Ms. Katherine Whittred as a

Member on the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Recommittal of Bills

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 40, with which we dealt

yesterday, be recommitted with respect to the schedule.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole House

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 40; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

Schedule approved.

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

schedule passed and the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 10:07 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, reported

complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. de Jong: Next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, reported

complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

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

Bill 43.

Second Reading of Bills

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

L. Krog: I'm delighted to continue the debate on this bill

this morning.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

But I think it only appropriate, following what's gone on in this

chamber this morning, to suggest to all that our best wishes go to the member

for Kelowna-Mission, that we are all thinking of her at this time and that we

are assured and confident that the victory will be hers.

Having said that, back to this famous Greater Vancouver

Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 — the most remarkably

anti-democratic thing that I've seen passed before this House in a very long

time.

I reviewed

section 172 yesterday. It deals with this tiny select

group that will have the authority to appoint and pick the persons who will run

what is going to be one of the most important organizations in the province.

This is the screening panel.

The screening panel is a pretty interesting organization. Firstly,

it's not democratically chosen, unless you regard the power of small groups to

appoint one person as somehow a function of democracy. We've got the minister

who, as I said, appoints one. We've got the chartered

[ Page 9092 ]

accountants, the board of trade, the Vancouver Gateway Society, and that's

it.

[1010]

That's not a representative body. It's anything but representative

bodies. I'm not bemoaning the fact that these organizations in and of

themselves, protecting their own interests, may be fine organizations, but it is

not democratic.

Section 176 provides that the screening panel in subsection

(2) "must provide to the mayors' council on regional transportation a list of at

least 15 qualified individuals to be considered for appointment as directors of

the authority."

Now, isn't this interesting? You know, they used to have pocket

boroughs in Great Britain where you had this tiny little group of electors and

they would elect a Member of Parliament. They were called rotten boroughs when

they were really quite awful. Maybe 15 or 20 qualified individuals would get to

send some flunky squire off to parliament to represent his constituents. To whom

was he or she — and it was he in those days, of course — responsible? Well, to

the wonderful democratic institutions that elected him, those 14 or 15

individuals out of perhaps thousands who should have had that right.

So what are we saying to the mayors' council, who are actually

elected people, who actually face the voters? "Oh, by the way, here's our little

list of our 15 qualified individuals." Now, you only get to be a qualified

individual if this other tiny body — the screening panel, which is, again,

completely undemocratic — gets to pick this little list of special people.

The communist politburos of China and the old Soviet Union weren't

this bad. I mean, this is the smallest group of candidates one could imagine.

Even a hard-fought nomination in a political election probably faces a broader

group of candidates.

So from that, the mayors' council must appoint as directors nine

of the 15. You've got 15 carefully selected friends and insiders, this narrow

little shortlist, and from them you pick nine. It is absolutely astonishing.

I wonder if the minister actually read this bill. I mean no

disrespect to the minister's intelligence. Did the minister actually read this

bill? Did cabinet, when it reviewed this legislation, actually look through it

and consciously say to British Columbians through this bill that this is an

appropriate way to appoint a governing body for such an important organization

as what will now be known as the South Coast British Columbia Transportation

Authority?

Did they actually consider that the opposition was going to sit in

their seats quietly and let this be walked through the chamber like some fine

pony on a spring day, and we'd all clap and say: "Oh, gee, let's trot this one

out. This is a fine piece of legislation"?

It is absolutely astonishing to me that the government would have

the gall to set up this medieval process by which the board is picked.

Machiavelli couldn't have scripted this better. This is like some poor script

out of some dark age, and these qualified individuals are then going to have the

power, once selected, to run this authority.

Now, what does this authority get to do? Well, it gets to do a lot

of things. Firstly, under

part 9 in the planning requirements,

section 193: "The

authority must…." It has to. No ifs, ands or buts. It's just like the panel that

selects these directors. They must appoint someone, so we'll scramble around for

our friends and insiders. We'll appoint them; we have to.

Then this authority must prepare a long-term strategy setting out

for a period of not less than the 30 years following in which the long-term

strategy is prepared, "(

a) the authority's goals and directions for the regional

transportation system over the period to which the long term strategy applies" —

which is a minimum of 30 years — "(

b) a description of key initiatives and other

measures the authority anticipates will be needed in that period to achieve the

goals referred to in paragraph (a), and (

c) a statement of the principles

underlying the long term strategy."

Once that strategy is prepared, we're kind of stuck with it. Those

two million–plus individuals who live in the lower mainland are going to be

bound by a strategy conceived in a small room by a specially selected group who

represent a subset of another specially selected group, who were chosen by

another specially selected group.

[1015]

The more I think and talk about this bill, the more astonished I

am that I'm actually having to debate it. If this were the old Soviet parliament

perhaps or, as I said, the politburo, or if this was the meeting of the plenary

session of the Chinese communist party, one could understand this kind of

legislation. But this is British Columbia in the 21st century.

This body, once picked through this horrible process, has to

submit the long-term strategy to the mayors' council. Then the authority "must

consider" — only has to consider — "(

a) regional land use objectives, (

b) provincial and regional environmental objectives…and (

c) anticipated population

growth…."

Then it goes on in subsection (4) of

section 193 to say: "Before

completing the first long-term strategy…the authority must" — not listen to, not

follow — "consult (

a) with the persons referred to in a consultation plan

adopted by the board, and (

b) in a manner consistent with that plan."

Before completing it, it "must consult" — not listen to, not

follow the direction of, only consult with — "(

a) the Greater Vancouver Regional

District, (

b) the public in the transportation service region, (

c) the local

governments having jurisdiction over the municipalities in or adjacent to the

transportation service region, (

d) agencies of the government and agencies of

authority considers appropriate."

But after it has consulted, it gets to do what it wants. There is

not one person to whom they are responsible, democratically speaking — not one

single person. They get to consult. They get to have their sideshow. They can

have a travelling road show if they want. They can invite thousands of people

into an auditorium. They can listen, and then they get to go away, have their

meeting and completely ignore the wishes of what in most processes

[ Page 9093 ]

would potentially be their constituents — their voters, the people who

actually gave them the authority.

All power is supposed to flow from the people. I kind of thought

that was what democracy was all about. But the power here is vested in a group

who have no democratic responsibilities to anyone — none, zip.

Imagine a 30-year plan that will have a profound impact on the

lives of millions of British Columbians, their children and indeed, potentially

with a minimum 30-year plan, their grandchildren. You know, I could talk

biblically: "Yea, even unto the seventh generation."

It is remarkable to me that this is what the government sees as

the appropriate solution for dealing with the crisis in transportation in the

lower mainland and the crisis around planning. We understand absolutely that

where the travel routes go — where transit goes, where SkyTrain goes and where

all of those programs and systems are in place — has an enormous impact on

growth and development and the pressures that we brought on municipal councils.

Those municipal councils, who will be responsible for managing all

of that, will not have any direct say in this except for their ability, through

the mayors' council, to approve the specially selected group of candidates.

I mean, it's like Ferdinand Marcos trotting out his seven cousins

and saying: "All right, here's the choice. You've got seven of them; you get to

pick three." Now, I am a generous democrat. You get to pick three. Except in

this case it's 15, and you get to pick nine — remarkable.

The mayors' council — what are its responsibilities? The

democratically elected people, the mayors' council —

section 210 — "must meet as

needed to perform its duties under this Act and, in any event, not less

frequently than 4 times annually" — four whole times annually. My goodness,

that's once every three months.

[1020]

In sub (2):

"The mayors' council on regional transportation and any committee of

that body may exclude" — exclude — "the public from all and any part of…its

meetings if the mayors' council on regional transportation or the committee,

as the case may be, is of the opinion that (

a) the desirability of avoiding

disclosure in the interests of any person or in the public interest outweighs

the desirability of holding the meeting in a manner that it is open to the

public, or (

b) it is not practicable to hold the meeting in a manner that it

is open to the public."

That's the role of the voters, the literally two million–plus people

in the lower mainland. That's the role of the voters in this. They get to pick

the mayors. The mayors, in turn, get to meet four times a year, and the mayors'

council gets the grand opportunity, power and authority to approve the

pre-selected group who are going to run the transportation authority.

I understand that there is a corporate mentality on that side of

the House, on the government benches. I understand that they are strong

believers in a management that is responsible to no one but the directors of a

company. I understand that kind of thinking. I've been a member of many

organizations in which I've been a director myself. I understand how that system

works.

You know what? It may, in fact, be the best system to run a

corporation. It may be the best system to run a business. But it is not the way

you handle the spending or collection of public dollars, because that's what

we're talking about with this. It is public dollars. It is not even just

taxpayers' money. It is the people who'll be paying to ride this system or

systems. There is no responsibility to anyone, save this small group.

Now, of all the schemes of governance that were possible, I would

have thought that the government, which has this tremendous surplus and access

to all kinds of minions, could have hired at least one of their friends and

insiders, perhaps, who could have come up with a better scheme than is proposed

under this bill.

I would have thought that with all the talent in this province —

with several major universities filled with academics who study these kinds of

issues all the time, who teach courses on them — they could have come up with a

scheme that might even have paid the tiniest bit of lip service to the concept

of responsible government, to democracy. Instead, what we have is this pathetic

attempt to take out of the hands of the people whose transportation system it is

their right to control it.

It is astonishing, and I want to assure the government benches

that this opposition is not going to sit idly by and let this government drive

this bus through our democratic institutions. It is unfair. It is unreasonable.

It is unspeakably shameful.

The government should apologize and withdraw this bill. If it

wants to bring in a transportation authority amendment act that actually speaks

to the needs of people, then we'll be happy to support it.

J. Kwan: I'm delighted to rise in this House to engage in

debate on Bill 43, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act,

Let's be clear. Bill 43 puts forward fundamental changes to the

governance structure of our transit authority in Metro Vancouver. My good

colleague, the member for Nanaimo, illustrated and spoke passionately about some

of the major flaws within this bill. The makeup of the board will now

effectively take the control, the very democratic control, of elected

politicians at the municipal level out of their hands to be put into a selected

group of people who are chosen by the government by way of appointments.

[1025]

The makeup of the board would put forward individuals that the

government selects, representatives from the Chartered Accountants, Vancouver

Board of Trade and the Gateway Council. None of them would be elected officials.

In fact, in this bill it specifically prescribes that nobody on the new board of

directors would be allowed to be elected officials. The issue of accountability,

the issue of political representation chosen by the people from those

communities, would be completely eliminated. The board is going to run the

transit authority strictly as though it were a business.

Madam Speaker, there's one component piece in which running

transit authorities is a business enterprise, but that's not the only

characteristic of a transit

[ Page 9094 ]

authority. A transit authority also has to consider the services it provides

to the taxpayers. It also needs to consider, for example, land use decisions,

the coordination of regional services and land use planning and development.

I actually find it astounding. You might think that as the

government is creating a new governance structure for the transit authority they

would actually pause to think: "Hey, wouldn't it be a good idea to put a transit

user or representatives from that group into the decision-making authorities for

transit decisions in our region?" Well, that is not the case, because the people

who get to choose the representatives there are business-oriented or the

government themselves, and that's it.

The transit universe — whether it be the users, the transit

advocates or the people who want to promote alternate modes of transportation

beyond car use — would likely not be selected for this board.

Not only that, if you look at this bill,

section 180 actually

eliminates the requirement for the 2007 directors to have relevant skills and

experience. When I saw this, I thought to myself: wait a minute, wasn't it this

government that made such a big deal, back in 2001 when they were first elected,

about the selection of individuals on boards and commissions on the basis of

merit? I actually recall in the July 24, 2001, throne speech where the

government said: "My government will act in this session to make good on its

commitment to initiate merit employment legislation to ensure that British

Columbians are being served by a professional, non-partisan public service

appointed strictly on merit."

Well, notwithstanding all the hot air that stemmed from that

throne speech and the actions of this government subsequently, we have seen the

likes of Andrew Wilkinson, former president of the Liberal Party appointed to be

on the board, to oversee the trade and convention centre development project. We

have seen Ken Dobell put forward as the chair. All the friends and insiders of

the Premier are overseeing this project, and what did that bring British

Columbians? A $400 million cost overrun — one of the largest cost overruns of a

capital project that this province has seen.

[1030]

Now this government is enshrining legislation under Bill 43 to

remove the requirement that the 2007 directors for this new TransLink authority

have relevant skills and expertise. How about that, Madam Speaker? You would

have thought that the government would be interested in ensuring that the new

board has people, at least in the minimum, with the correct expertise in their

decision-making related to the new transit authority, but that is not so. The

legislation actually says that they do not have to have the required skill set

and experience. I found that absolutely astounding.

Then, if you look further into the bill on the decision-making

authorities — because the powers are sweeping and long-lasting — the

decision-making powers granted to this new board of directors would include all

the planning, and they will also write the initial policy of the transportation

authority. What this means is that the long-term 30-year strategic plan will be

done by this new board, which is not required to have the relevant skill set or

experience in transportation or transit matters. They will also be given the

authority to put forward the first ten-year base plan, which ultimately will

become the status quo of transportation planning for the years to come.

This work is significant, it is important, and it would have

lasting impacts. This new board will be given the mandate to define the levels

of service, to determine what capital projects would be undertaken and what

revenue sources would be allowed, such as fares, taxes and tolls. And then, of

course, they would be given the authority to decide how to spend that money.

Madam Speaker, you might be sitting there thinking: what's the

problem with that? Well, I'll tell you what the problem is. It's the issue

around the lack of accountability and political oversight. The new board has no

public policy mandate required by legislation. For example, to consider external

factors such as the environmental costs of transportation choices, the new board

would not be required to consider that as a factor in their decision-making and

strategic planning for a transportation network in Metro Vancouver.

The new board would not be required to consider the impacts on

transportation demand beyond revenue production. In fact, in the legislation it

specifically prescribes that they be efficient in their approach to

transportation planning. There's nothing wrong per se with efficiency, but

there's something wrong if you don't take into consideration, in your transit

planning for the future, the impacts on taxpayers who are in need of

transportation options beyond revenue production.

Another component piece that this new board would not be required

to consider is the transportation investments and how those could actually

influence land use decisions. We know that land use decisions should be

intrinsically linked to our transportation network. After all, this was way

before the time that I was first elected, when duly elected politicians had

already thought about the need for this.

[1035]

The former mayor of Vancouver, with the GVRD, had put forward a

document called Transport 2021. It was more than ten, 15 years ago that they

thought about the need to devise a transportation network in coordination, in

conjunction, with local governments. Tied into that is building a network that

would support land use decision-making. After all, the whole impetus around that

was to put forward the concept of having to travel less and that if you did have

to travel, you had a strong transportation network in place that would get the

people to work and back or to the destination they needed to get to. Makes sense

to me.

In fact, years since, that was the basis on which the

transportation network was developed and had been under development until now,

when senior levels of government's decisions are overriding local government

decision-making. Not only that. We now have Bill 43 in this Legislature, whereby

the government is going to create a new board that is not elected, a new board

that has sweeping powers for decision-making in transportation

[ Page 9095 ]

and sweeping powers that would allow it to make decisions beyond the need to

consider land use development.

There's no requirement that there be regional representation from

the board that's been put forward. The last I checked…. When you look at Metro

Vancouver, we are a region of communities where we require regional

transportation, where we require coordination of regional land use decisions.

The government may say: "Well, I don't know what they're

complaining about around all of this, because after all, the act does require

that there be need for consultation." Well,

section 193(7) of Bill 43 says: "A

failure in relation to a long term strategy to comply with the consultation

requirements under subsection (4) or (5) does not invalidate the long term

strategy as long as the authority has made a reasonable attempt to consult…."

Before the authority even begins its work, there's already

provision within this bill that would allow them to not consult, ultimately. I

suppose the board could put up a pretend exercise of consultation, much like

what this government does on a variety of different issues, where they pretend

that they've consulted and they've heard the people and so on, and then they

decide to ignore all of that advice and ram through what they wanted to do in

the first place.

Already in this bill it gives that authority to the new board — to

ignore public consultation. Not only are they not duly elected, not only are

they selected by the government, and not only would they not be required to have

consequences with respect to public consultation. They were already given the

authority to bypass public consultation.

You have to ask the question: how meaningful is the consultation

requirement anyway? How meaningful is it going to be?

[1040]

How seriously would this new board take the requirement of

consultation when they already know that a failure to consult would not

invalidate any of their work with respect to long-term strategy?

In this bill there's another issue that I have to raise that

causes me great concern. That is the issue around the transit police. The

transit police in this bill are actually exempt from customer complaints. How

could that be, and why is the authority exempt from receiving complaints

regarding the transit police?

If they're exempt from receiving customer complaints related to

the police authority on our transit system, then what is the complaint process

for the transit police? Is it going to be an independent process? Where would

customers go? Where would taxpayers go when they run into problems or issues or

concerns related to the transit police in our system?

I should also note that there are lingering questions and concerns

regarding the governance of the Greater Vancouver transit police service board

of directors. As it exists right now, four of the six members are policing

representatives on that board. Under the Police Act, police officers are

prohibited from serving on B.C. municipal police boards. Well, not so for the

transit police board.

In other words, if you look at the local governments, no municipal

police force representatives are allowed to be on the municipal police boards.

Yet the Greater Vancouver transit police board has a majority of police

representatives on it.

Guess what. This board is actually appointed by the Solicitor

General in this province. Why is the province sanctioning a transit police board

that has a majority of policing representatives on it when no other municipal

police boards are allowed to have that?

At issue is the notion of civilian oversight, arm's-length

decision-making authority and ensuring that independence is maintained in

relation to the police board. Now we have in this bill a complaint process that

is actually eliminated from the new board's responsibility. I do find that

astounding.

More recently, as members in this House will know, on part of our

transit system — I believe it's the Broadway B-line — transit police would now

be allowed to carry guns. I have to say that that frightens me. The prospect of

that frightens me.

I'm not saying that there aren't issues in which we need to engage

in dealing with the transit system — potential violence issues and so on. But

boy, oh boy. When you have the majority of the board made up of policing

representatives, when you lack civilian oversight, when you lack independent

authority and decision-making….

[1045]

Now you lack a complaint process for that police board. It's cause

for concern, certainly, for me. Frankly, a lot of times when you have a

situation, perhaps a way to de-escalate would be through some other means than

to pull out a firearm.

Aside from that piece, I also have another concern related to the

bill, and that's Bill 17. Bill 17, in this bill, allows for a major tax shift,

potentially, from one class of property taxes to another. I've seen this happen

time and time again. With that kind of tax-shifting authority, what happens is

that the residential property taxes and the residential home owners are left

holding the bag.

They will have a greater burden in property taxes, I predict. And

of course, residential property owners will not have the authority to write off

their tax burden, unlike some of the other classes of properties. Yet this bill

would allow for a major tax shift to occur.

On the issue around tax shift. In fact, the reason why we're here

debating Bill 43, I suspect, has very little to do with the actual issues around

transportation planning and the need to do good work in building a sustainable

transportation system, a transit system in Metro Vancouver. Rather, it is an

approach, a way, that the Minister of Transportation, the Premier and the

government have thought up to take the authority for transit decision-making

away from local governments.

Why? Because I suspect that this government, this Minister of

Transportation and this Premier did not like the decisions that TransLink was

making with respect to our regional transit network. After all, wasn't the

Minister of Transportation quoted in the newspapers as calling the local

governments, the TransLink board

[ Page 9096 ]

"a bunch of parochial politicians"? This Minister of Transportation was

accusing the local politicians of favouring local interests over broader

regional ones.

Why did the minister accuse the TransLink board of parochialism?

Isn't the real reason a result of the inadequate funding from the senior levels

of government and also a shift in transit priorities — of moving on to what the

senior levels of government wanted as opposed to what the local governments

decided they needed for the best transit network in their region? Isn't that the

real reason why TransLink, frankly, was unable to move forward on a number of

their transit decisions and initiatives?

They couldn't move forward on the Evergreen line. Why? Because the

provincial government reneged on their promise to fund the Evergreen line, in

spite of the fact that they had worked with local governments to make the

determination that it made sense to build the Evergreen line in relation to land

use planning. The provincial government pulled the rug from under TransLink and

refused to pony up for the transit capital investments that were needed in the

region.

[1050]

That wasn't it. The shift in priorities promoted the government to

decide that they might use what they pretend to be an incentive process for

getting the Canada line up and running, because the government had a different

set of priorities. So they teased the TransLink board with a whack of money and

said: "Hey, if you do this, we'll give you this money. Otherwise, you're not

getting this money for anything — not for the Canada line and not for any other

transit use."

Well, the local governments made the decision. They said: "Okay.

We're going to get that money, I guess. We may as well go with the Canada line."

But in the midst of all that, there was, of course, insufficient funding for the

Canada line. In the midst of all that, there were changes in the development and

building of the Canada line.

What we now see is a major hole cutting through the Cambie Street

corridor. If you've been by that sector of our community, you will see the

disruptions that people are experiencing and the businesses that have suffered

as a result of the change of plans. They were sold a bill of goods, and then all

of that was later switched. Companies — small businesses that had actually been

there for years and years, handed down from one generation to another — had to

shut down, and that disruption continues today.

Bill 43 is the Minister of Transportation and the Premier's act

and their decision to punish TransLink for not just quietly listening to them

and following the orders of the provincial government. That's what this bill is

all about. Make no mistake about it. The government has decided to take away the

authority of local governments to make transit-related decisions on land use

matters that should shape our transportation network — just yank that from under

them all and bring forward a bill, in spite of the fact that the Premier said he

wasn't going to run roughshod over local governments.

Now here we have, aside from Bill 75, what we call streamlining

and steamrolling over local governments. We have Bill 43, which basically says:

"To heck with all local governments on transit authorities and transit

decisions, because all of those decisions and powers are now going to rest with

the people that we handpick — friends and insiders of the Premier and the

Minister of Transportation." So much for a transportation network that should be

built and decided upon for the people by the people of the Metro Vancouver

region.

I stand opposed to Bill 43, as does our entire caucus. It's

undemocratic; it's uncalled for. Frankly, it's just a show of the arrogance by

this government, ramrodding a decision and the authority of local governments

once again.

D. Routley: I rise in opposition to this bill. As the

previous speaker has noted, this stands in stark affront to democracy. This

government has a pattern of limiting democratic voice, removing local autonomy

and determining for people their futures, despite their best wishes and even, I

would suggest, despite their best interests.

This government is apparently guided by only one very narrow, very

special interest, and that is a very narrow corporate interest. If any plan in

this province reflects any degree of local ambition or the goals of local

communities, that is seen as a threat by this government.

[1055]

I'm sure the government would have an easier time with school

districts if there weren't any children in the schools. They would run very

smoothly. I'm sure they would have an easier time with transit if people didn't

make demands, like measuring up to the promises made in throne speeches around

the environment and around the openness of government or the determination to

hire based on merit.

Those are the guiding principles of this government, it seems, so

we shouldn't be surprised by this effective removal of democratic control from

the hands of local politicians. In fact, we should expect it, and in a sense, I

suppose the opposition should welcome it. As the previous speaker also pointed

out, this is just another show of arrogance. This is another display of the

heavy-handedness of a government that bears no patience for any kind of

opposition from any quarter.

It is with unhappiness that I witness this further assault on

democracy, but I guess it's also with a certain anticipation that the reflection

of the government will be measured in the eyes of the people as being very much

driven by interests other than those of the people. It just seems like such an

affront when we see the government move through a bill to remove the oversight

of such an absolutely integral issue of public interest as public transit and

place that oversight into the hands of unelected experts — maybe leaving a

vestigial trace of democracy in a board that reviews but has no power, a board

that chooses from, as the member for Nanaimo said, the cousins of the dictator.

Given the boldness of this removal of public involvement and

public oversight, I think every school trustee in the province should be

shuddering. I think that every board of any kind in this province should realize

[ Page 9097 ]

that that gun will point their way eventually. They should all rise up in

opposition to this bill, just based on the principles of governance that are

affronted through the offering of this bill.

We see the requirement of a long-term 30-year strategic plan being

demanded of a group of people who are selected from an offering, not elected

from a community. This basically unelected group will formulate the 30-year

long-term strategy for transit in the lower mainland.

That hardly seems like leadership to me. This one-man government

is intent on driving solutions down the throats of people, whether they like

them or not. They do cover it with a little sugar and coat it in honey once in a

while, but essentially, the poison pill is swallowed, whether people like it or

not. This is just another example of that.

We're told that public consultations are required and that there's

a requirement to consider regional land use, but this board is not actually

required to abide by any of these consultations. They're not required to respect

any of those considerations.

In fact, the mayors' council, the last vestige of democratic

oversight over this body, can be overruled by a two-thirds majority of the

board. So it seems that every corner in every avenue of expression has been

blocked off by this government, and that is unfortunate in the extreme.

We have seen the public reaction to governments that refuse to

acknowledge public interest, particularly when it comes to issues like public

transit. The government is offering the opposition a carrot in a sense, because

this is an affront. It is arrogance, and it does display that that is the true

character of the government.

It also offers many opponents of the government's plans an

excellent rallying point, doesn't it? Some of the most organized and intense

public lobbies and demonstrations in this province's history recently have been

centred around public transit issues.

[1100]

I expect the government will hear loudly from the constituents

that it has abandoned through this bill. I expect that the government will

underestimate the public reaction, just as they did with their mishandling of

the booster seats.

The government, sadly, doesn't have the remotest contact with the

pulse of their public. In fact, it's clear they're driven by those very narrow

interests that I mentioned.

They haven't heard the outrage yet, because they haven't been

listening, but we have. We've heard this bill described as making the board less

accountable, making transit less accountable. This bill seeks to manage transit

as though it were any public utility and any offering of service. No, Madam

Speaker, it's much deeper than that, particularly if this government seeks to

uphold the myth that it is concerned with environmental protection and climate

change.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Some of the demands that will be made by a public that is having

its expectations rise in terms of addressing those issues will fly in the face

of what the government has done. I am anticipating that with some pleasure,

because I think it will serve, as I said, as a rallying point for people to

express not only their opposition to the inadequacies and vacancies of Liberal

promises around climate change but also a point of expression for their growing

outrage at the removal of local control — whether it be Bill 75 or Bill 30 or

whether it be Bill 77 and the Residential Tenancy Act and its removal of

arbitrators and its assault on the judicial process, which has been noted by the

Bar Association and the administrative tribunals association. Those are all

steps that have….

Mind you, Madam Speaker, the victims of those policies have been

fairly siloed until now, but I believe this assault on governance will provide

that rallying point. I challenge groups in this province to step up and address

this assault on our democratic voice.

We are standing here in this House opposing a government that is

intent on removing any vestiges of the levers of democracy that could push the

local perspective and the dreams and goals and ambitions of local communities to

the forefront of the priority list of government. They are removing every

option, one by one.

As the pot heats up, the frog becomes less and less comfortable

but, unfortunately, has yet to jump out of the pot. I would challenge groups in

this province to rally around this issue, to rally around the assault on local

governance that this bill presents, to rally around the denial of the expression

of their hopes and aspirations for public transit, for climate change and in

fact for community planning.

As I said, if I were still a school trustee, I would see this as a

real attack on my own voice. If this bill stands, it becomes the template for

the removal of any kind of voice and autonomy of any elected board, and it

becomes the pattern for the pursuit of anti-democratic principles.

This is a private sector–style management of a public service.

This may serve an expedient purpose for government. This may make it easier for

the Transportation Minister to act and to interfere, because that's exactly his

history when it comes to TransLink — interference.

When it comes to the plans of transit throughout the Greater

Vancouver regional district, it has been a history of interference, yet I am

forced repeatedly to give suggestions to the Transportation Minister that he

might reconsider his definition of interference and reconsider his definition of

public interest and apply that to B.C. Ferries.

Perhaps an intervention into the exorbitant rate increases could

have been supported in the public interest. Instead, we're offered this

interference, which has absolutely no support from the perspective of public

interest.

[1105]

There's no identifiable mechanism in this bill or any governance

structure under this bill that would force the board to recognize the results of

public consultations. They have covered their tracks not so well, because it's

clear when you read the bill that, in fact, any avenue of expression is merely

open to be diminished to the point of lip service.

[ Page 9098 ]

Public transit is one of the most crucial public policy issues we

face in our modern world. As has been the pattern with this government, I expect

that my daughter, when she votes for the first time provincially…. I'm pretty

sure I know who she's going to vote for. Some evenings I'm not so sure, but I'm

pretty sure I know who she's going to vote for.

You know what? The important issue when it comes to her vote is

the diminishment of her vote over these past six or seven years. This government

has systematically removed the value of her vote — be it the removal of TFLs, be

it the auctioning off of public properties, be it the closure of schools and the

grand real estate swap that we've seen happen in that realm, be it the B.C. Rail

sale, be it the privatization of B.C. Ferries or be it this bill. It stands to

threaten her voice not only provincially but municipally — also in terms of

school districts. Her voice stands threatened by this bill.

The interests of my daughter and her vote are diminished by this

bill, as with so many other Liberal actions. That is the most unfortunate part

of this, and that would be where I would issue a challenge to all the people of

this province to express to this government, as clearly and loudly as they can,

that their voice won't be silenced by any measure of government and that their

independence will not be assaulted by this document offered by this government,

which has systematically set out to remove their voice.

You know, the old TransLink board was accused repeatedly of

parochialism by the minister. Well, I remember as a school trustee being told by

one of the school trustees who endorsed the Liberal plans to close small schools

and endorsed the cuts that we had to make to special needs children because that

was all the money that was there…. I remember being told that the communities'

reactions — small communities like Lake Cowichan and Youbou — were parochial in

nature.

It seems that whenever there is an expression of outrage or a

resistance from a small community, it is merely defined as parochialism,

dispensed with and dismissed. It's not.

Every one of those people is a ratepayer in this province and in

those municipalities. Every one of those people deserves equitable service.

Every one of them deserves the full voice that their vote offers at every level

of government, and every one of them deserves a government that would defend

that to its end rather than make that its purpose.

That's what we have — a government that has removed public

oversight over the forests of this province, has auctioned off its assets, has

liquidated its long-term interests and has boxed it into 30-year corners when it

comes to transit with this bill. That's what we have.

It's a challenge that goes out to the people of this province to

defend their vote, to defend their voice. We stand ready to lead that defence.

This bill stands as an excellent rallying point for all those

people disaffected by the imposition of these kinds of affronts to democracy. In

that sense, I welcome it. But it makes me sad that a government in British

Columbia would set about, with such purpose, diluting what we stand for,

diluting what our children inherit and auctioning off the birthrights of this

province.

[1110]

This province has always been beautiful B.C. Everyone saw those

mountains, those trees, that water and everything that happened in this province

as being supportive of us — of British Columbians, our province, our environment

— and that we had a voice and could determine our future. With the careful and

responsible application of policy, and with the careful and determined pursuit

of industry, we could do anything in this province for each other.

Yet this government has removed so many of those options and so

many of those resources available to communities to rally and to organize. This

is just another step. It's sad. It's sad that the government can forget so

quickly its promises in throne speeches.

We see the environmental Premier now offering up this, which takes

away any voice that any environmental group might want to bring to the issues of

regional transportation. It offers a consultation that amounts to no more than

lip service and no obligation to any board to honour that consultation.

How can that be seen as a positive step? This is a government of

regression. This is a government that regresses our expectations of governance,

reduces our expectations of service, reduces our expectation of public voice

when it comes to public resources — reduce, reduce, reduce. Dilute, dilute,

dilute. That's the mantra.

That's the theme, and I think it is a challenge on its own to all

of us to step up for what we believe in, what we consider to be ours and what we

consider to be the interests of our children. The interests of our children are

that we don't pollute this beautiful province to the point that we lose its

beauty. Our purpose ought to be to defend the voice of British Columbians in

preserving our beautiful province, and yet this government takes steps like this

one.

Parochialism. The voice of small communities. Well, just as in the

school district that I represented as a trustee, that parochialism came from a

demand by this government to meet obligations that it wasn't prepared to fund

and the resulting skirmishes in communities in trying to meet those unmeetable

goals.

The parochialism that the Minister of Transportation so

disrespectfully labels my community voice is a consequence of his underfunding

and his government's underfunding and a consequence of a shift in priorities

from the interests of British Columbians to the interests of big government and

big business. That's what this government has come to stand for.

I've talked about the interests of my daughter and the interests

of our children when it comes to the environment, but none of that can be

dissected from issues of land use. How can we divorce issues of mass public

transit from community planning and land use issues? Yet that's exactly what

this bill does. It permits that this board, established under this act, can deny

and ignore the public voice.

It would seem only in the best interests of the region and the

province to coordinate the issues of land use

[ Page 9099 ]

and transportation planning. I would say, "Wouldn't it, Madam Speaker?" in a

rhetorical fashion, but I wouldn't challenge the Chair in that way.

[1115]

But I'd ask the government: wouldn't it make sense that we not

sever these important decision-making processes, that we respect the need…?

Any moment, any window of opportunity for us in this chamber to

open up to a more democratic process and to reaffirm our commitment to community

voice would seem an opportunity that this chamber could never pass up and

maintain its integrity. Any opportunity for us to underline rather than

undermine local autonomy, the free and democratic voice of our citizens…. That

should be our purpose — to underline, to build on a foundation that was offered

to us by so many who were devoted to building a province with so much less than

we have now.

Yet we are committed to a path of dilution and liquidation. I

won't be tempted to stray off course. The mayors' council of this board replaces

the board of the GVRD, and it must approve options put forward by the board of

directors, but at the end of the day the board of directors has no obligation to

listen to those recommendations. They can, with a two-thirds majority, overcome

and supersede those recommendations.

Since the board will be so obviously government-appointed and

focused on the narrow interests of business alone — whose interests need to be

heard but need not be the only interests heard at this table — those are the

voices that the government in the end will hear and respond to. Mechanisms that

would challenge that commitment to those voices are being removed from this

board.

The board of directors will be composed of experts. Who are the

experts of regional transit? Would the riders of transit and their organized

political-lobby bodies perhaps be the experts when it comes to what we expect,

when it comes to the public interest as presented and defined in public transit?

But I don't see any references to citizen groups. I don't see it anywhere, and I

don't see any opportunity for them.

In fact, this mayors' council, which is the last vestige of

democratic oversight over this issue, will only meet four times a year. I can

imagine what those meetings will be like. Those experts will present

single-option plans to be endorsed or refuted. Lots of money will be put into

the preparation of those plans. Consultants will be hired. There will be

PowerPoint demonstrations, and then that group of mayors will have their say.

Their say can be overcome by two-thirds of the majority of the

board that's recommending it, but they'll have their say. They'll have their

say, and I can imagine the backbone it will take for any elected official to

stand up to all the pressure of those presentations and all the pressure of this

board that's being established, to actually stand up in the public interest.

Again, both directly and indirectly, any mechanisms of opposition

are removed. This board is asked to establish a 30-year plan. Once that 30-year

overall plan is established, ten-year base plans must be established. So we're

asking an unelected board to look out 30 years, to make base plans for ten years

and then to offer up these recommendations to a mayors' council that meets once

every four years — then has only the power to approve variances from the plan,

not the power to determine the plan.

[1120]

They are the elected officials. They would be accountable to the

public every two years — now every four years, given the changes at the UBCM

recently. At least they would be elected people, and they would be accountable

to people like my daughter, and her vote would have been conserved. The power of

her vote would have been conserved rather than diluted, rather than auctioned

off and transacted upon.

There is no requirement for this board to honour public

consultation. There's a requirement for public consultation at each step when it

comes to fare increases, property tax increases and such, but no requirement

that that be approved. When it comes to property taxes, the GVRD needn't approve

an increase recommended by the board of directors if the board of directors

deems the increase to be "necessary and unavoidable" and passes a two-thirds

majority resolution to that effect. So my daughter again faces a dilution of her

voice and a dilution of representation.

When it comes to the groups that I've mentioned who've organized

so effectively around issues of public transportation — most notably poverty

groups, in fact, that organized to fight fare increases and to keep mass transit

affordable — there seems to be nothing to protect their interests either. If the

commissioner rejects a fare increase, the increase can still be implemented. The

board of directors needs only to deem that increase, again, "necessary and

unavoidable" and pass a two-thirds majority to that effect.

When it comes to the issue of tolls, this bill gives this

authority jurisdiction over all highways with single-lane, bus-only-occupancy

lanes and all bridges that pass over more than 50 metres of water, which is

essentially all the bridges.

So the big questions on tolling and on public services are not

debated in this House, in the GVRD boardrooms or even in TransLink boardrooms by

elected people. In fact, they are determined for us. So the big questions will

not be asked of the people.

With this measure towards tolling, the troll under the bridge

becomes the troll on the bridge — the Transportation Minister who's unwilling to

step up and protect the public interest of British Columbians, be it with B.C.

Ferries, tolls, transit or any other measure. He stands in defence of a

government that has essentially set on a course to remove the levers of

democracy.

The new phrase is not "accountability." A Premier who said in the

2001 throne speech: "My government will act in this session to make good on its

commitment to initiate merit employment legislation to ensure that British

Columbians are being served by a professional, non-partisan public service

appointed strictly on merit…." It will be thrown to the trash heap of other

Liberal promises offered by this Premier — promises to seniors,

[ Page 9100 ]

promises to children, promises to the homeless, promises to

environmentalists. All those have been broken, and a new phrase will become: "As

long as SkyTrains run on time, no one cares."

R. Sultan: I am pleased to offer my support for Bill 43,

the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007.

My constituents have a significant stake in the restructuring of

TransLink, both as users of the system and as funders of the system. The North

Shore generally feels underserved by this organization by virtue of the quite

sparse public transit network available to us and by TransLink's relative

absence in the planning and maintenance of our road system. I'd remind all of us

of TransLink's involvement in the road system as well as in public transit.

[1125]

At the same time, North Shore citizens feel very heavily taxed by

TransLink by virtue of its heavy reliance on real estate taxes which, when

coupled with the North Shore's relatively high property values, result in a felt

imbalance among costs and services and benefits received.

Some would attribute TransLink's modest local service to the

feeling that we have but a small voice in the management of its affairs.

However, on the basis of population, with a 9-percent share and a declining

share, we perhaps only deserve the one out of 12 GVRD appointees on TransLink's

board. Also, TransLink's absence from our shores is partly explained and

explainable by our reluctance to embrace urban densification, which is really a

precursor to running an efficient urban mass-transit system.

Now, I've listened with great interest to the impassioned

speeches, the simulated outrage and forecasts of doom from members opposite when

commenting on the new governance structure proposed by Bill 43.

However, from a North Shore perspective, TransLink service levels

are already so meagre that it's difficult to believe that services could be even

less under the new arrangement. The taxes paid are already so heavy that it's

difficult to believe they could be more onerous under new management. Frankly,

since our governance voice is so muted already, the outcries we have heard in

this chamber about failing democracy, uneven representation and frayed

accountability don't resonate with my constituents.

In sum, the contrived outrage of those who oppose Bill 43 is not

shared. My support of Bill 43 is also influenced by the voices of municipal

politicians and others who have observed the actual working of TransLink up

close and personally with respect to governance, planning and finance through

their own involvement and day-to-day contact at a higher level than I can claim.

On the matter of governance, consider this. Doug McCallum,

then-mayor of Surrey and TransLink chair, said: "We have a serious structural

problem in governance." Vancouver Sun , June 22, 2004. Larry Campbell,

then-mayor of Vancouver and TransLink board member, said: "Quite frankly, I

don't see it" — TransLink — "working. We have to get rid of the parochialism."

Vancouver Sun , June 22, 2004.

Jeff Lee, independent journalist. Headline: "Mayors Want

'Unworkable' TransLink Scrapped." Story: "The mayors of the two largest cities

in the lower mainland say the collapse of the RAV project shows TransLink is not

working properly and should be replaced with something that does." Vancouver

Sun , June 22, 2004.

Editorial title: "TransLink is Broken; It's Up to Victoria to Fix

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

rather than a transit system that moves fluidly…. What we need is a structure

that can override the inherent conflict that has paralyzed the current board,

which is comprised of local mayors and councillors and yet must act in the

interests of the entire region."

How about planning and accountability? What do they have to say

about that? Well, here are some additional quotes. Dianne Watts, mayor of Surrey

and TransLink board member: "There needs to be one plan that everybody's working

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

different plans." The Province , April 18, 2006.

Sara MacIntyre, B.C. director of the Canadian Taxpayers

Federation: "The regional transportation board has blurred lines of

accountability. Citizens and voters are left guessing who is responsible for

what and wondering why their tax bills keep rising." June 5, 2006.

[1130]

Finally, here are some interesting quotes on the financial side

from a civic leader of considerable scope, power and some might even say

ambition. Derek Corrigan, mayor of Burnaby and TransLink board member, speaking

on the $4 billion ten-year outlook transportation plan: "We're not gonna

cooperate with totally and financially undoable projects." Burnaby Now ,

December 13, 2003.

Derek Corrigan again: "We are extremely frustrated. We are looking

at huge increases in the TransLink levy on the property taxpayers with no end in

sight and without accountability to the electorate. They'll continue spending

like a drunken sailor." Delta Optimist , August 10, 2005.

Finally, Mayor Corrigan was quoted on March 9, 2006, in the

Vancouver Sun . According to the

article quotation, Mayor Corrigan was

reported as saying that he has no confidence in the panel. He said he has always

regarded TransLink as a way for the former NDP government to offload some of its

responsibilities on the region.

Whether we consider governance, planning or finance, civic

leaders, up close and personal, have expressed a troubling set of concerns.

Therefore, those in this chamber who accuse the Transportation Minister of

insulting municipal politicians by saying that TransLink needs fixing should

reflect on the fact that the minister is merely repeating the words of the

TransLink governors themselves.

The question now is what to do about it. In the fall of 2005 I

initiated two private member projects: firstly, research into governance

structures of other mass

[ Page 9101 ]

transit organizations around the world; and secondly, the recruitment of what

I might call a personal panel of experts from my riding — people who could

provide experience and advice.

On the informal and unofficial panel was a former Attorney General

of B.C.; a former chairman of B.C. Rail; and two members of the board of

directors of YVR, our very successful airport authority. Two were professional

engineers. Two of them had been MLAs in the past. All of them offered decades of

top management experience.

To better understand the experience of other transit systems, we

examined ten transit governance structures around the world: Calgary Transit;

Toronto Transit Commission; TFL, Transport for London, as it's called in the

U.K.; Sound Transit in Seattle; MBTA, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation

Authority in Boston; the Massachusetts Port Authority; Hong Kong Mass Transit;

Singapore transit authority; B.C. Ferries and YVR.

These ten systems run the governance gamut from the extremely

decentralized and locally democratic with lots of control by municipal and

county politicians — e.g., Seattle — to the highly centralized and

professionally governed and controlled — e.g., Hong Kong and Singapore.

Our findings were three principal ones. Firstly, the transit

systems with lots of control by municipal and county politicians day-to-day

tended to rank lower in terms of cost-effectiveness, service levels and

perceived quality of service. The contrary was the case in those organizations

marked by a high degree of professional management and control.

Secondly, effective transit systems were systematically reducing

reliance on the private automobile as the principal mode of urban travel. In

London, England, for example, tolling those who wanted to even drive into the

central city had been successfully implemented — perhaps a harbinger of the

future for us on the lower mainland.

Thirdly, all of the successful systems received heavy government

subsidies. The idea that mass transit can be self-supporting from the farebox is

an unrealistic dream. The means of raising the requisite tax revenue varied

enormously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Of course, the fact that taxes are

inevitable in this business does mean that having effective political say on

what is going on is important.

This private panel, the one I had recruited, presented its

conclusions and advice directly to the TransLink Governance Review Panel

appointed by the government. I am sure that few in this chamber would question

the long experience and impartiality of this panel.

For example, Marlene Grinnell, chair, has 25 years in public

office. She is the former mayor of Langley and served on the B.C. Transit

Commission, TransLink, the Municipal Finance Authority and the GVRD. She is also

on the intergovernmental and corporate affairs committee and knows her

municipalities.

Wayne Duzita — 35 years of experience in the transportation and

logistics field, Calgary International Airport, Richmond Chamber of Commerce —

knows his business.

[1135]

Dan Doyle, P. Eng, a former Deputy Minister of Transportation with

37 years of experience in the field. He served the Social Credit, NDP and B.C.

Liberal governments impartially and equally, with distinction. Last weekend at

an event I attended, he received the highest recognition award offered by the

Association of Professional Engineers of B.C. at their annual general meeting.

Knows his engineering; knows his governments and government process.

These three told it like it is. Their

governance recommendations

are what we see in Bill 43.

One final point. Members opposite suggest that Bill 43 is

tantamount to a provincial takeover of the governance of the transit system. I

would say it is anything but that. The government, in bringing forward Bill 43,

has done handsprings to avoid either the appearance or the reality of control.

Those who do not believe this have not examined the proposed new

governance structure or, for that matter, the accounting philosophy of this

government. Under GAAP rules — generally accepted accounting principles, as

judged by the independent accountants across the land — the professional

accountants from outside government determine whether an entity such as

TransLink is controlled by government and, if so, whether or not it should be

consolidated into the government's financial accounts under GAAP.

The Finance Minister of this government would, I believe, not

enjoy the prospect of incorporating the capital-intensive, capital-absorbing,

deficit-running and perennially harassed municipal transportation system into

her set of accounts. The debt-rating agencies would not be amused.

Furthermore, politically, how would you explain that to the voters

of Prince George or Kelowna? Why, they could fairly ask, are we being saddled

with this municipal operation, even if it does account for such a huge chunk of

the province's population? It doesn't make either economic or political sense.

What we have in Bill 43 is an artfully designed governance structure explicitly

put together so as not to be controlled by the provincial government.

To conclude. With passage of Bill 43 we see the creation of a

regional transportation authority whose mandate will extend, eventually, from

Hope to Pemberton. The new governance structure will include a council of mayors

— all of the mayors — a TransLink board and an independent TransLink

commissioner.

I was, as I listened to the member opposite, reflecting on the old

maxim: "It's always nice to have a belt-and-suspenders oversight." Here we have

belt, suspenders and a safety pin, I would suggest.

The new TransLink board will be composed of non-elected officials

with the expertise which has already been commented on at length. Candidates

must submit to a screening panel appointed by the minister, by the council of

mayors — that is, all of the mayors — the chartered accountants, the board of

trade and the gateway society.

It will be the council of mayors — all of the mayors — that

actually takes the final step of selecting and

[ Page 9102 ]

appointing the new TransLink board from the list of candidates presented to

them by the screening panel — which, by the way, disqualifies current and past

politicians and their close friends and relatives, I believe.

In the years ahead, transportation governance on the lower

mainland will be more challenging than ever before. As British Columbia comes to

grips with the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, that 40-percent

share of total provincial greenhouse gases generated by transportation is key.

In order to reach this goal, we shall surely see a more deliberate

and accelerated transition to higher reliance on TransLink and mass transit and

reduced reliance on our favoured and favourite private automobile. It will need

the best governance that our civic leaders can devise. Let's not underestimate

the challenge.

[1140]

So, sayonara and good luck, Metro Vancouver. You are soon to be on

your own to work out the specifics of your own transportation system, and that

is how it should be. I urge us all to pass Bill 43 without delay.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to respond to the member

opposite on Bill 43, on TransLink, because we do have different views on this

very important public policy issue. I note some of his comments that he made

around belts, suspenders and safety pins, and I think that that could well sum

up one of the problems. The belt that the province is talking about is the belt

that'll be used to strangle municipalities into line. The suspenders are for the

suspension of any democratic input into this particular piece of legislation,

and the safety pin is basically just a band-aid solution which has characterized

this government's approach to transportation and transit in the lower mainland

all along.

This is a very crucial issue to my constituents and, the member

points out, to his constituents. When I read this particular piece of

legislation and look at what the government is trying to do, it typifies exactly

where the concerns of my constituents are.

A democratically elected, democratically chosen, democratically

based system is the most accountable to constituents and to the voters who elect

us and put us here. They know it's an issue that can be dealt with not just at

the local level, but it requires considerable provincial input. It has always

been that way in this province — sometimes efficiently, not efficiently. No one

disputes that there are issues around TransLink, but the question is: are the

solutions proposed in this bill the right way to do it? And they're not.

The voters expect politicians to look at how the growth is going

to take place in the lower mainland on a whole variety of fronts, not just on

dollars and cents — though they are important — but from a sustainability, land

use and environmental basis, on a short-term and a long-term basis. They expect

us to look at transit and transportation planning on the basis of sustainability

— that they want more transit, that they want it now and that they want better

transportation.

They expect it on an environmental basis, knowing that we live in

a constricted urban area where there are significant pressures on the land base.

They want it on the basis of being able to contain urban sprawl, to promote

sustainable communities and a healthy environment. That means protecting lands.

That requires imagination. That requires people coming from local communities to

do that, and it requires commitment to a plan.

The member commented about the mayor of Surrey saying that we need

a plan, and we need to stick to it. Well, we had that. We had a plan in place.

The trouble is we didn't stick to it. Why didn't we stick to it? Because the

province decided it wanted to do otherwise.

We had a plan that had been agreed to by TransLink. Part of the

issue is around funding. The province says it would step up to the plate with

some funding, but nothing has happened. That's been the case with the Evergreen

line, as some people characterize it, or rapid transit, as other people

characterize it, to the Tri-Cities. There is a political component about that,

and that should be decided by the people who are elected by the voters of those

communities to determine the priorities.

The problem in this piece of legislation is that it doesn't do

that. There will be a board that's not elected, composed of a nine-member board

of directors. They will be chosen by a screening panel nominating individuals

that a mayors' council will choose from. Well, if you give everyone option A,

option A, option A, there's not much choice.

[1145]

If all you're doing is putting mashed potatoes on the plate to

choose from, there's not much variety, not much diversity. It's pretty bland.

Not much to choose from — nothing new there.

The screening panel that will choose the individuals are: one from

the Minister of Transportation, one from the mayors' council, one from the

Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, one from the Vancouver Board of

Trade, and one from the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council.

The Vancouver Board of Trade does lots of good work, but what in

God's name do they know about the transportation needs of the Tri-Cities? When

have they ever been out to the Tri-Cities to determine what the transportation

needs are in Port Coquitlam, in Port Moody, in Coquitlam or up the valley?

Never.

Now all of a sudden we're going to give them a significant say as

to who or how or what projects are going to be built out in my community. Well,

that's just unacceptable. We know what the priority is for rapid transit out in

the Tri-Cities. We just need it implemented.

I look at this list, and you know, they're good organizations. In

their respective fields they do good work. No one questions their ability to be

accountants or to represent the Board of Trade's view of things. But the Board

of Trade's view of the world is not the same as my constituents' view. It's not

the same as, I would argue, a majority of the people in the lower mainland,

particularly those who use public transit and those we want to get to use public

transit.

[ Page 9103 ]

There's nothing in here, in terms of the screening process, that

even speaks to issues such as sustainability, livable communities, environmental

issues, land use, planning — all the things that people expect to be taken into

account. There's none of that on this panel, and that is a fundamental weakness.

The province has a strong role to play. No matter what system you

put in place, because the transit needs for the lower mainland are so great and

capital-intensive, the province has to be at the table. We'll expect it to be at

the table.

The member makes comments about downloading. What this is, is a

way to try and somehow say: "Guess what. We want to have control, but we also

want to make sure that we try and insulate ourselves as much as possible from

the criticism and the demands that we know are going to exist." It's in much the

same way that — and I'm not making this as a direct criticism — the Minister of

Health likes to say: "Well, that's not my responsibility. That's the health

authority's responsibility."

Well, in fact, it may be the health authority's responsibility for

many things, but the public knows the buck stops on the Health Minister's desk,

and it's like that with transit and Transportation. There needs to be that

recognition that the province has a significant role to play, and we are kidding

ourselves if we believe that it won't.

So the province…. Their handprints and fingerprints are all over

this particular piece of legislation in how they will get to maintain control,

but at the same time, try and push it off. When things get tough: "Oh, it's not

our responsibility." That's not right either.

[1150]

If there are challenges or if there are changes that need to be

made with TransLink, as there are in any organization, then we need to recognize

that there are some fundamental principles that need to be part of that,

particularly when it comes to the expenditure of public funds. There will be

hundreds of millions of dollars in local taxes and — the province can deny it —

also from the provincial and, one would hope, the federal governments in terms

of the construction of the transit projects that we need in the lower mainland,

transit projects that include rapid transit to the Tri-Cities.

The mayor of Vancouver is now talking about how important the

Millennium line is. The Minister of Transportation likes to talk about the need

to extend SkyTrain out to Langley. I'd like to see SkyTrain get to Coquitlam and

Port Coquitlam. We need rapid transit to Coquitlam, and we need rapid transit to

Port Coquitlam. Every single one of those projects is justified. Every single

one of those projects will contribute to moving people, to dealing with

congestion and to making our communities more livable. But they're also going to

require provincial and federal funding to make them go.

The issue of accountability and who is accountable for hundreds of

millions of dollars of taxpayers' money is crucial. We're seeing a disturbing

trend from this government. There are hundreds of millions of dollars that go to

the ferry corporation. It is not accountable in this House. We see with this,

again, that that level of accountability is not there. It violates a fundamental

tenet of our democratic process, and that is: no taxation without

representation. That is one of the fundamental flaws in this particular bill.

What we are saying is that the Vancouver Board of Trade, the

Chartered Accountants of B.C., the Minister of Transportation, the mayors'

council and the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council will pick the board. Well,

that just doesn't work, hon. Speaker. That will come back, and when tough

decisions — in particular, on raising revenues to fund the projects — need to be

made, it's going to be coming back here and, as I said, hopefully to the federal

government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This piece of legislation is flawed. We are not supporting this

piece of legislation, as the government side will no doubt have noticed by now.

Therefore, because we feel so strongly about this particular piece of

legislation, I have no alternative other than to move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 43) intituled

Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 be amended

by striking out "now read a second time" and adding "read a second time six

months hence."]

On the amendment.

M. Farnworth: I am not the designated speaker on this

particular amendment, but I will speak….

Hon. G. Abbott: No.

M. Farnworth: I see the Minister of Health, and I know how

much he'd like to hear me speak for two hours, but unfortunately, Minister, I

have to deny you that pleasure and myself the onerous responsibility that that

would entail.

I will start off by saying that we need to hoist this, because

this is the wrong piece of legislation. It's the wrong bill at the wrong time.

M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175