Hansard — Thursday, October 25, 2007 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Second Reading of Bills		8813
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43) (continued)
	M. Karagianis
	D. Chudnovsky
	C. Puchmayr

Tabling Documents		8827
	Office of the Auditor General, report No. 3, 2007-2008, A Review of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project: Governance and Risk Management

M. Karagianis: It's a great pleasure to stand here in the House today and respond to Bill 43. First, I'd like to just clarify some information here that I've seen has gone into the public domain. I see that the minister has issued a press release claiming that this bill is being reintroduced as Bill 43 because time ran out before it could be considered before the Legislature under its previous title of Bill 36.

I'm actually surprised that a cabinet minister would make such an error, because in fact, many of the bills that were presented in the spring are being debated here in this legislative session, in the last few days. The Legislature was not prorogued, so I am unclear as to what the rationale was both for the rewriting of a bill as a new bill — 36 replaced by 43 — and for the fact that a cabinet minister would make such an erroneous claim to the public.

That puzzles me greatly. Perhaps it'll be one of the many things we explore in the coming days as we move through the second reading and into committee stage of this bill.

It's very interesting, Madam Speaker, because one of the things I learned from nine years in local government is that often legislation — complex matters that are presented in the public domain — is not always as it appears. Often, when you pick them up and look at them from other perspectives — look at other aspects, look at the history, look at the details of a bill — you'll find that they present themselves in a much different light than what you might originally have anticipated.

I would like to look at the remarks made by the Minister of Transportation in presenting this bill at second reading in the House yesterday and maybe pick up many of the points he discussed and examine them a bit more closely, maybe look at them from other angles, maybe put more information into each of those pieces of the bill and have a closer look at what it actually means to see if what was presented on the surface is what is in reality the essence of the bill and its actual implementation.

The minister, in moving this bill yesterday, initiated his comments discussing the review panel that was put in place to look at TransLink's governance. It was very interesting that the minister talked about the numerous submissions — 120 written submissions — and 30 meetings that took place with stakeholders. Because this is the genesis of this bill, I think it's interesting for us to take a little closer look at that.

In fact, the opposition has been asking for some time for some openness and accountability and a release of those submissions so that we can see what it was that stakeholders in the public said that has actually caused the government to make such a significant move in taking apart TransLink's original governance model and replacing it with what this bill is putting forward.

I would like to talk about how difficult it's been for us to get some clarity on what the genesis of this review disclosed, because it's been a long and arduous process trying to get some clarity on what those submissions were that propelled the review and were the basis of this bill being created. In fact, back in March of 2007 the previous critic, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, questioned the Minister of Transportation on the submissions to TransLink.

During the discourse of estimates debate, the member asked the minister if he could please provide the submissions that were made to TransLink as part of this review process. The Transportation Minister said: "I'm advised by staff that these reports are being put together in a compendium that will be released as previously committed."

Upon further questioning by the member about when the report would be released, when these submissions might be released, the minister said: "They will be released in the coming weeks." Well, of course, the member for Vancouver-Kensington is quite tenacious and continued to say: "Coming weeks? All weeks are coming, hon. Chair. Can we have some idea which week we might expect these?" And the minister replied: "The commitment I'll give the member is that they will get out just as soon as we can get them out."

Well, of course, you know, there were still further efforts by the former critic to get clarity on that, and none was forthcoming. So in April of 2007 the opposition submitted the first FOI to the Ministry of Transportation looking for these submissions, looking for the minister to actually release the promised documents. Nothing occurred at that point.

On April 16, several weeks later, a letter was sent to the minister's office, reminding him of the outstanding answers from the estimates debates and again requesting the documents. Nothing happened.

On July 6 — a few months had gone by — a second FOI was submitted by the opposition to the Minister of Transportation. Phone calls were made. Further attempts were made during that FOI process to obtain the documents. Still, nothing was forthcoming.

October 2007. So we started in March, and we're now in October. At this point, there was no choice for the opposition but to contact the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and try and get some kind of clarity on whether or not we would be able to get these documents.

On October 22, just several days ago, the bill was introduced, and interestingly enough, the Ministry of Transportation informed the opposition that the records that we have been inquiring after since March 26, 2007, would in fact be released on October 29. Well, we're in the process of debating the bill now, and by the time we get the submissions, the very genesis of the review that has brought us to a new and profound legislative change around the governance of TransLink are unavailable to us until after the debate. Unfortunately, that's just not acceptable.

If the government is so completely confident of the review process that gave birth to this bill, why indeed has it been impossible to look at the documentation that led to this? Those will be questions we'll definitely be asking throughout the course of debate and as we move into committee stage. These issues are of great concern to the opposition.

I will say that although we have been unable to obtain these submissions and that it's unclear what the body of the recommendation was that came out of those submissions — what they said, what the details were — we do know from a number of local government submissions that were made that most of them favoured an entirely different model than what we see before us here.

In fact, locally elected officials throughout the lower mainland have professed their continued support for elected representation at the TransLink board. However, the government has chosen to ignore that. Again, because we can't see those submissions, we have no idea whatsoever what the superior influence was coming out of those submissions that have led to this legislative change.

However, the minister went on to explain that the "…current governance structure is no longer effective as it stands, that its financing is not sustainable in the long term and that planning processes need substantial improvement." Again, it's unclear to us how the minister has reached this conclusion, whether this is an interministerial understanding that he's come to or whether this is the result of government policy or government re-examination. Or has it come out of this review process that occurred?

However, the minister goes on to say that the TransLink service region at this point needs…. He says that one-year board terms, as currently provided for, are not conducive to effective planning, that they make it difficult for all board members to gain an understanding of TransLink's complex operations and that the general public has no clue who their representative is on TransLink.

Again, this seems to be a very compelling argument as to why the government is making such a significant change in this. They feel that it's difficult for the current board members to gain an understanding of TransLink's complex operations. Well, I would have to say that this is completely audacious.

Is the minister telling us that duly elected local government officials, who run their communities and run them effectively — many have been elected repeatedly because of their capacity to speak to their constituency and to run the municipality in a way that the constituents support and favour, and many of these municipalities are running multi-multi-million-dollar budgets — that somehow these elected local government officials cannot understand TransLink's complex operation? Well, I would consider that to be absolutely nonsensical. How in the world could you rationalize the fact that elected officials who can run multi-million-dollar municipalities successfully and be elected year after year somehow cannot grasp the complexities of TransLink's operations?

I would have to say that what we need to do, in fact, is let's take a closer look at what the Premier has said about local government, because although the minister professes that local government is not capable, somehow, of grasping the complexities of TransLink, not capable of running this organization effectively, that speaks contrarily to what the Premier himself has said over the past about local government.

Let me just read to you a few quotes from the Premier. This was in Hansard back in the 1990s when the Community Charter was first established, which gave autonomy and recognized the authority of local government and their ability to have autonomy and to make their own decisions and recognize their authority. The Premier said that the Community Charter "eliminates unnecessary provincial interference in local decision-making."

Well, isn't it interesting that the Premier thought back in the 1990s that municipal elected officials had the capacity to make their own decisions, look after the business of their own communities, without provincial interference. Things have changed a lot since then in the province of British Columbia, haven't they?

Further on the Premier says: "We will, in fact, by the time the Community Charter has been completed, allow municipalities to make their own choices, as opposed to the province trying to impose what is a politically convenient choice for the province on a local municipality."

Well, isn't that interesting. In fact, that is a much more recent quote from the Premier. It's very fascinating to me that we have the minister saying that locally elected municipal authority has not got the capacity to understand TransLink's complex operations.

Honestly, Madam Chair, I'd consider that to be ridiculously insulting to mayors and councillors, many of whom have served in office longer than members in this House yet somehow can't grasp the complexities of TransLink's operations.

At the same time that the Premier has been telling municipalities, "You have the right to authority over your own affairs. You, in fact, have that autonomy. I have confidence in your ability to do that by the creation of the Community Charter," the actions of government are going in completely the wrong direction.

Now we have a minister who says these municipal leaders can't even grasp the complexity of TransLink's complex operations. Absolute nonsense, Madam Chair. Absolute nonsense. Completely unacceptable.

I'm surprised that we haven't seen mayors and councillors rise up against this bill en masse and say: "This is an insult to our ability to not only run our own communities but to run a regional transportation authority." Completely nonsensical.

It's very interesting, as well, when we talk about local government's role here. Let's look back and see exactly what picture has been painted over time by the minister himself, the minister responsible for Transportation. Let's look at what he has to say about municipal mayors and councillors, duly elected, running multi-million-dollar municipalities. Let's see what the minister thinks of their capacities.

We have the minister back on the Voice of B.C. in 2006: "Do we have the kind of minds on there that really understand how to oversee and manage a large organization? Are municipal politicians the best people to be overseeing a large, complex multi-billion-dollar operation? Those are the kinds of questions that I think the governance will have to go out and have a discussion about."

This is absolutely the height of absurdity to me, the fact that the minister would sit there and say: "Do these municipal politicians have the capacity to oversee large, complex, multi-billion-dollar operations?" Well, what is a municipality if it is not that? What is the municipality of Burnaby if it is not a multi-billion-dollar and complex organization, far more complex than TransLink or a transportation authority?

Yet the minister has the audacity to basically just dismiss municipal authority and say: "You know what? None of you have the capacity to absorb the complexities of TransLink. You can run a municipality, but you cannot run TransLink, because my God, it is just too complex for you. It cannot be compared in any way to a multi-billion-dollar municipality and all the decisions you make there."

Let's look again at what the minister had to say further on, where he talks to the Globe and Mail: "What often prevails at TransLink meetings is a circus atmosphere and a whole bunch of silliness." Well, isn't that insulting to a group of duly elected representatives from local government — long-serving mayors, long-serving councillors who run a multi-billion-dollar organization in their own municipal communities? The minister has the arrogance and the audacity to consider them a circus with a bunch of silliness.

Let's go on further in the Globe and Mail. "I've always thought the governance structure was doomed to failure. There's got to be a better way." Apparently, the minister has a vision. He has begun to paint a picture here that is so diminutive to municipal authority that it is shocking. It is shocking that a minister of the Crown could get away with insulting municipalities, mayors and councillors in that way and that nobody would take him up on it. Well, I'm here to say: we're going to take you up on that, Minister.

Let's go on to look at what else the minister has to say. "I've always been very public, particularly after the whole RAV line–Canada line debate that went on. There was too much of an emphasis on what I call parochialism, or people focusing on issues that were maybe very specific to their own particular municipal backyard, and much less of an ability to look at the broader regional and larger public interest."

Again, I would say this is categoric nonsense as well. What else would a municipality sitting in a regional governance body do but represent its own municipality? So for the minister to somehow make this an issue whereby the governance model needs to be ripped up, thrown out and superseded by something new is complete nonsense. It defies the reason that you have regional municipal participation in these kinds of bodies. It's so that you can bring all of the various needs and representation from communities to that table to share.

It happens all across this province and has for a long time. That is the whole purpose behind regional district creation and creating regional authorities over transportation. So the minister seems to be defying the very democratic basis for these kinds of organizations to be in place.

Again, we see the minister in the Georgia Straight. "Right after the sort of circus atmosphere around the whole Canada line three-vote debate, I made it very clear that I didn't believe the public had confidence in TransLink governance as it was currently structured and that I would be doing a review."

Well, isn't it interesting that the minister himself continues to paint a picture of a circus, of some kind of dysfunctionality. In fact, the Canada line debate — and I won't get into that here, but certainly it may come up during the committee stage — is something that this government drove through TransLink. They overrode TransLink's long-term plan, their strategic plan and said: "No, we're taking that off the table. Never mind what you want. We're going to jam the Canada line through." And: "Oh, excuse me, now you are having a debate about it, and I'm not happy about that."

All of this is completely unacceptable. For the minister to say: "TransLink doesn't work. I'm going to replace the governance…." What I see here is a very, very clumsy attempt by the minister and government to steamroll over local government's authority, steamroll over their own right to manage their regional transportation authority and instead put in something that I consider to be a much more profoundly changed and perhaps very Machiavellian model that's come in place here.

But I want to go back to the other comments here that the minister made in that particular part of his speech that the public generally has no clue who the representative is on TransLink. Well, I consider that to be just an absurd reason. Is that the reason? Is that the impetus? Did that come out of the review — 120 submissions? Municipal authorities coming and presenting to the minister, and this is what he came up with?

"We have to change this governance model because you know what? The public doesn't know who their representative is." Well, that is just absurd. Again, that

seems to me to be an excuse that has no bearing whatsoever on the kind of model this government has produced, because there's no rationale to me whatsoever in that comment that says: "Well, by gum, the new board will be so highly profiled, the public will know them like they are celebrities — right? They will know that."

The public, of course, apparently doesn't know who their own mayor and councillors are who sit on TransLink, but somehow they are going to now recognize a new model as being much more highly recognized. So….

When I read further into the minister's comments here in his opening statement on this second reading….

Let's look a little bit more closely, then, at the next statement that the minister makes further down. "The expenditure side of TransLink plans are often fully developed while the sources of revenue that would be necessary to fund these plans are usually not identified beyond the immediate short-term requirements. In fact, under the current plan, TransLink will be running a $200 million deficit by 2012…."

It's very interesting to me that the minister somehow has no responsibility in that. That is happening in some other altered universe and has no relationship whatsoever to the actions of this government and this minister. Let's look at where the fundamental problem exists, and that is lack of funding.

When the minister talked here earlier about parochialism, that he has seen this battle of parochialism, it's because too many municipalities and authorities are fighting over too few dollars. The minister refuses to actually recognize his part in that.

It speaks to my earlier comments about when you look at something on the surface of it as presented by the government and just tip it sideways and look at the back end of it and say: oh wait, the historical context of this is that this has been underfunded and now is being steamrolled over.

There's again a bit of a theme starting to play out here. We have a minister running around saying what a circus and a dysfunctional organization it is, while underfunding it so that municipalities were all trying to fight over far too few dollars.

At the same time, their strategic plan is put to the side, and the government comes and says: "You're going to build the Canada line. And you know what? You're going to build it our way, and it's going to function."

Let's look at the success of that. We'll talk about that many times, I'm sure, in the coming days — the tremendous success of the Canada line as it has gone over budget and over time and has shut down businesses every single day in the Cambie corridor. This is from a business-centric government.

Again, the complete dichotomy here — it's laughable, if it wasn't so serious. If it were not so serious, it would be a joke. But it's not, because what we're seeing here, in fact, is a profound shift. It's not only in the way TransLink is being operated, but there are a number of pieces of this which I will talk about, as we move through this bill, which are extremely disturbing to me, extremely disturbing, and should be to all residents throughout the lower mainland — and, certainly, to local government — for its implications.

Let's go back to the minister's comments here, where the minister says: "The current TransLink model is no longer effective, and the government has a duty to update the TransLink governance."

Shall I go back here to the comments that the Premier made about the Community Charter allowing municipalities to make their own choices as opposed to the government trying to impose choices on them? In fact, this says the very opposite. This says: "We are going to impose on municipalities. We are going to impose a model as we see it, a vision as we see it only, and steamroll past any pretence of democratic representation here."

Let's talk a little bit further about the minister's comments here. "Bill 43 addresses and implements most of the review panel recommendations." I guess we'll just have to guess that that is true because we don't know. We have no idea — right? The submissions that I have read, the ones that were public, certainly point us in a completely different direction.

However, the minister goes on to say "a new governance structure with balanced, sustainable funding measures that will provide a solid foundation…." It's very interesting that the minister talks about the whole concept here of sustainable funding measures, because that is another piece of this.

Aside from the lack of democratic representation here, the sustainable funding measures, as the government has defined them, are very insidious. We will talk more about those as we move both through the committee stage and through this debate on the bill.

I'd like to, then, move on to further comments. The minister lays out the whole rationale for this legislation. It says here several paragraphs further on: "The transportation region extends far beyond the GVRD boundaries, and planning within a new regional structure must reflect that reality."

I think this is a very important point as well, because some of the points that the minister has discussed here and some of the legislative language that has been embedded in this legislation points at a much larger event to unfold in the future. In fact, in some ways I would say that this legislation is the tip of an iceberg that we have yet to really grapple with. We have yet to conceive of its potential and the implications as time goes on.

I'll be asking a lot of questions of the minister as we get into the committee stage. I can see that some of the

powers that this board is going to be given — to acquire land, to expand into areas without agreements…. These are all very questionable.

When we look at the implications here of the fact that this board is going to be able to extend its powers far beyond these boundaries, we need to really closely examine what that means. What are the actual details in that? What are the implications in that? If this is a board that can acquire land and expand into other areas without agreements, what does that say around not only the autonomy of local government in the lower mainland but elsewhere?

This is a board that is being given an enormous amount of power. You know what. Often in these bills, as we know, when you read them clause by clause and line by line, many things become evident that did not appear on the surface of the bill. Very insidious implications here. I think that this particular aspect of the board's responsibilities needs much closer scrutiny than we have seen up to this point.

I want to move on to further comments here because we will be asking about those things as time goes on. So let's talk about the references here to the mayors council, because this is the placebo that's being offered to municipalities.

The mayors council on regional transportation will be created and will appoint the authority's board and approve the authority's strategic plans involving new taxation measures, transit fare increases and new borrowing. In fact, let's look at the mayors council.

Let's look a little bit here at this mayors council. This is a council that is stripped of all authority. This is a council that has only vestigial democratic oversight, at the very best. It is, as I said earlier, a placebo. In fact, this mayors council is put in place to rubber-stamp the recommendations given to it by the board. It has no authority at the front end of these decisions.

We're looking at huge scope in powers that this board has around setting in place the long-term plan — the 30-year and the ten-year plan. The mayors council has only the most superficial of roles here. They're not creating the strategic plan. They're not responsible for many of the legislative responsibilities and powers that this board has given.

In fact, in many references throughout this document, they have to accept what the board tells them. They are going to be given a recommendation by the board: "Take it or leave it. Oh, you don't like it? Well, too bad. We're going to do it anyway."

That is at the heart of the language within the details of this bill. You have to ask yourself: if the legislation spells out the role that the council will play and the overarching powers that the board has to overrule any responsibility that the mayors council has, what is the purpose of this?

Again, it is to try and downplay the fact that municipal government has been elbowed out of the way. It's going to be steamrolled over, all their responsibilities stripped away by this board, which has the ability to purchase land, to tax — all kinds of very interesting responsibilities that should lie with the responsibility of mayors and councils.

But no. We're going to have a board that takes that completely away from mayors and councils. The details will be debated in committee stage, I'm sure, with the minister, while he tries to convince us it's not so and that, in fact, the superficial role that the mayors council will play….

M. Karagianis: Thank you. The superficial role that the mayors council will play — I'll be very fascinated to hear the minister try and justify that for us. I'm sure that'll be a very interesting part of our debate in committee, as we go through the legislation line by line.

It's interesting that the minister says, at one point in his speech: "This is not an indictment, I would say, of the current board or members…." Let me just go back, because I really do want to read again into the record the minister's comments about the current board members.

Let's see. Shall we pick out the part where the meetings are a "circus atmosphere" and "a whole bunch of silliness"? Shall we pick out the part where the minister says: "The governance structure was doomed to failure"? Shall we pick out the part here where he says, right after the circus sort of atmosphere around the Canada line debate…?

The minister is actually going to say to us, and think we are going to believe him, that this is not an indictment of the current board? The current board of democratically elected representatives that's being thrown into some facade of a council and overruled by a business board is somehow…. This is not an indictment. Sure, we accept that, Minister. Sure, why not?

We go on to the minister's comments shortly after that, where he says that there is little question that the public confidence in the existing model has been severely tested. I believe it's actually the government who has lost confidence in this model, and they are severely testing the confidence of both the public and local governments.

You have to say to yourself: why? Why now do we have the provincial government demonstrating in every action, in every bit of language, in everything they say about TransLink, their utter lack of confidence and putting forward a new and very profoundly changed representative board that will make decisions for TransLink?

I would have to say that perhaps the province is simply seeking to consolidate its control over the region's transportation system in order to eliminate barriers to its own policy priorities. We'll talk a little bit more about that, as well, as we go through this debate.

I believe that that is a significant part of this move away from a democratically elected board running the transportation authority of the lower mainland and what we are moving into, which is a board that will carry out a number of policies that this government is very well known for and has been very public about. We'll talk about that shortly as well.

The minister goes on to say: "There will be the creation of a new professional board of directors that will have the appropriate expertise to provide effective governance." Again, we have the minister not accepting that mayors and councillors who run multi-million-dollar municipalities and have for many years — very complex organizations….

No. They are going to be put out because a professional board somehow has more expertise. Not, mind you, transit or transportation expertise. Not expertise in public policy around transportation and climate change. Not the kind of expertise you would think we would need — with a number of municipalities on the brink of huge changes in how transportation will be conducted in the future because of climate change and with this government's own demands on greenhouse gas reductions and a number of other very significant policy overlays.

No. What we are getting is a board that is handpicked by government. What does this board represent? It represents business interests — right? So we have the board of trade, the Gateway Council, chartered accountants and, of course, a nominee from the Minister of Transportation himself.

Nowhere in there do I see anyone that brings social policy expertise, transportation expertise, climate change expertise — none of the very significant pieces of policy overlay and a lens that needs to be put on all transportation planning and strategies in the future. Do I see that there? No.

You've got to go back to my earlier comments, Madam Speaker, about the authority this board is going to be given to purchase land, to tax, to make long-term strategic decisions that the taxpayer will pay for but that the taxpayer has no representation or access to. Instead, we will have a board.

Frankly, the chartered accountants — their hands are all over this. The funding formulas here are so complex that they had to have come out of the chartered accountants. If it's not a make-work project for chartered accountants, I don't know what is.

I bet you I read it 12 times before I understood the very insidious nature of what is being given as far as powers to this board. I actually couldn't believe it, so I read it a couple more times, thinking that they cannot be serious.

It is very evident to me that we are seeing a profound shift in how the transportation decisions for the next 30 years and beyond will be made in the lower mainland. In fact, given the scope of powers that are going to be extended beyond that, this is going to be broader than the lower mainland — a business-centric organization that is going to be bottom line–driven and, let's be frank, not triple bottom line–driven where the social and environmental concerns will be of equal value.

We are going to have a business-centric organization running one of the largest and most significant transportation strategies that will set the stage for the lower mainland for decades to come — and beyond the lower mainland. Nowhere in there do we have elected representation or all of the other policy considerations that we believe should be in there.

A very interesting comment made just shortly after that by the minister in his opening remarks, where he says: "I am pleased to let the House know that this panel's work is well underway." Well, isn't that interesting? Are we not at second reading of a bill here? Yet we have a minister who has already put in place the panel that is a recommendation out of this. We're not even into the first hour of debate on this, and the minister has already put the panel together.

We know that in many ways, this legislation merely legitimizes activities that the minister very arrogantly self-declared publicly months ago, which he was going to continue and fulfil before the legislation was even brought into this House. I consider that to be particularly offensive. This is a minister of the Crown who has no confidence even in the ability of the legislative process, because he's just going to go ahead and put in place a panel to handpick this business-centric board without any kind of legislative authority to do so.

Very interestingly, as we read on in here: "With respect to TransLink funding arrangements, Bill 43 provides for a new, sustainable funding framework…. It will enable the authority to increase the fuel tax rate…." And the minister was very clever in presenting this the way he did. It will allow the authority to increase the fuel tax rate in order to raise funding.

Let's have a really close look at this piece of the legislative bill because, in fact, there are a couple of very significant pieces of this. Number one, certainly the board is going to be given authority to raise funding, to increase taxes — and, yes, the fuel tax.

Again I go back to this very complex piece of funding legislation as written by, obviously, the chartered accountants, because only they could understand its complexities. It's not simply written, not straightforward so that the public can see it.

In fact, this board cannot put a fuel tax in place until they have done two other things first: (1) raise property taxes and (2) raise fares. And then they can put the fuel tax on.

Oh, wait. That was missing. That piece was missing from the minister's introduction. What a surprise. You have to read every line of this legislation in order to understand that. In reality, that's how it's going to play out.

We're going to talk a little bit more about the fact that this board is being given the authority to raise property taxes, raise fares and then raise fuel taxes — and no elected representation.

I'm going to talk a little bit more about that, because I'll tell you that my years in local government have taught me that that in itself is the most unacceptable aspect of this bill — taxation without representation. That is the very fundament of the democratic process on this continent, in this country, and this bill takes that away. But let's go on.

Later in the minister's opening remarks…. This bill provides the authority with "more flexibility in how the distribution of property tax burden is distributed between property classes." Let's look at this a little bit closer. Those people who've been in municipal government will recognize this very clearly.

First, we have a board that can tax property tax — that can actually define the level of property tax. These are not elected officials. These are not mayors or councillors. This is an appointed board of business representatives that now has the authority to tax. Not only that, they are going to be given the authority to redistribute classes of taxation.

Anybody in local government will know that the ongoing debate every single year when you send out property tax notices, when you determine your budget as a municipality, is how you are going to tax your private residents and how you're going to tax business. It's no secret at all that the longstanding pressure and debate at the municipal level is the business community saying: "We are being overburdened by taxation."

In fact, municipalities always have to balance out their mill rate. "What are we going to tax business versus the private land owner in order to meet our funding needs here in the community?"

Now we have a board of business representatives that have never been elected, which will be able to redistribute property class when it comes to taxation. What does this say? Well, businesses had a longstanding initiative to try and reduce the burden on their classifications. So here we have it.

The government has handed this board the right to reclassify business properties and change the tax load so that they can tax property taxes in the lower mainland and can change the tax burden off of business. And to where? Well, onto private property tax.

This is an unbelievable piece of legislative business. This is an audacious move on the part of government to put power in the hands of a non-elected organization to actually impose taxation without representation.

I think this should concern every single taxpayer in the lower mainland and beyond, including business. I think business should be just as concerned about this. When you have non-elected representatives tampering with the taxation classes, able to tax without any kind of accountability or representation, the voters can't even say: "We don't want it." The voters cannot even say: "We're going to vote you out if you change this tax burden and put it on us."

This government thinks this is just fine. There are no qualms about this. This is buried in the heart of this legislation, and if municipalities were more aware of it, I expect there would be a bigger outcry. It sets a precedent that I think is going to be a huge determinant in the future on a number of aspects in the lower mainland and beyond. Throughout this document we see…. I think the minister later talks about how this board's going to extend its authority out to Pemberton and Hope.

This is a board of business representatives who are now capable of shifting tax classifications and fulfilling what business could not do through the front door with municipalities, by doing it through the back door and simply altering the playing field and tipping it at will.

I would think business, and small business in particular, should be just as concerned about this because, at the end of the day, there is only so much taxation you can pull out of a person's pocketbook. This will fall back on business at some point, because the system will begin to collapse under this. We're going to be asking lots of questions as we move through the committee stage on this.

Let me talk a little bit more about the minister's comments on the 30-year plan. This will be part of the vision, the ten-year strategic plan. "There will be a review of the authority's proposed strategic plans by the commissioner, who will advise the mayors council on the reasonableness of the projects, parameters and assumptions that will form the basis of these plans. There will be consideration and approval by the mayors council of any plans or options that entail new revenue measures or borrowing." Very interesting.

You have to actually read the legislation to understand that the 30-year plan and the ten-year plan will be set by the board arbitrarily. "Take it or leave it, mayors council." They just simply are going to be given a rubber stamp — right?

"It's not your business what the 30-year or ten-year plan is, mayors council. But you know what. If we make any changes along the way, if we amend it in some way, then you'll be given an okay." The mayors council cannot create the 30-year plan, but they will be asked, then, to comment on or endorse amendments along the way.

It doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to know that if you have no authority over creating the 30-year plan, what good is it to have the ability to ratify or deny the actual amendments as they come along? Again, it speaks very highly to the superficial role that this mayors council is playing in all of this.

The minister then went on to say that TransLink's development of a 30-year, long-term strategy…. In parallel with that, the province will also be developing a long-term vision for the transportation system between Pemberton and Hope. Here is the minister referring to the scope of this board's responsibility — now not even confined to the GVRD. Now we have a board that is beginning to spread its authority out beyond the GVRD.

Interestingly enough, throughout the legislation here there were a couple of references to the board's ability to expand into areas without agreements. Apparently they're going to be able to start leveraging their authority over other communities without any kind of written agreement. Now, when has that been allowed?

Here we have a board that is being given permission to override municipalities, and not in the GVRD

alone. We are looking further afield than that. Interestingly enough, there will be some other questions coming out of this around land acquisition that I am going to also want to ask lots of questions on. It's very interesting.

We read a little bit further here in the minister's comments, and here we get to another very interesting aspect of authority that this new board — this business board, this non-elected, non-democratically-run board — is now also being given the authority to do land banking in anticipation of potential future requirements, and authority with powers comparable to those enjoyed by municipalities in the province with respect to major transportation projects. Let's just look at this a little bit more closely.

This non-elected board of business leaders who now have the capacity to set in place a 30-year plan; tax property owners; reduce taxation on business, if they see fit; raise fares; and if that doesn't raise enough money, then they can go to gas tax. They are being given authority to move into other areas beyond the GVRD, and they can actually do some land banking.

What does land banking actually mean? Well, it could mean a number of things. Could it mean speculation? Yes, it could. And these questions will definitely be asked of the minister during the course of our debate.

What is land banking? That is, acquiring land around hubs? You bet — around hubs. There's definitely a comment here about encouraging density and development around transit hubs. That is absolutely a very clear and supportable theory that urban developers have been putting forward for years. We'll talk a little bit more about that. It goes completely in the face of some actions this government has taken.

Let's talk about this land banking. This is a business organization that could start banking and purchasing land around hubs and then release that when? We know the government has a penchant now for all public lands, all Crown lands, all divestiture of lands, having to be at market value. Well, can one imagine now that a business-run, non-elected board of directors is now able to land-bank?

They are able to cherry-pick where they purchase land and then release it to municipalities or developers. And let's see: who are the biggest funders of the Liberal Party? Well, developers. Do we think that they might be one of the first to get a pre-emptive look at where land banking is going to be released, and then they can go in and capitalize on that?

You're right. Absolutely, that is exactly the kind of potential speculation that could go on here. That is not an appropriate role for a public-policy-setting organization that is creating transportation strategies for the whole lower mainland and beyond.

Very interestingly, one of the things I hark back to is that the minister has even threatened one community now with expropriation if they don't comply with some of his wishes around the Gateway plan.

M. Karagianis: The community of Burnaby has been very outspoken about the minister's threat to expropriate. Where does that come into the land banking? Can you expropriate to land-bank? Who knows — right?

I mean, this is legislation without an ethical backbone, so why would we not expect that almost anything could happen?

One of the other things here which is also equally disturbing is that this authority has powers comparable to a municipality. A non-elected group of business representatives who have the power to tax, who have the power to grab land, who have the power to do almost anything without accountability to the public now is being given powers comparable to municipalities.

To what extent? What constraints will be put on them? Well, we don't know. We will be asking those questions at committee stage, but for sure, this is a Pandora's box — that a business organization is being given unilateral authority comparable to municipalities with taxation capacity, with no constraints or boundaries about where they can move their authority into and no democratic representation. None whatsoever.

Government seems to not even be concerned about this. That is the height of arrogance to me. Municipal authority here is….

M. Karagianis: The government embraces it, says one of my colleagues here, and that's true. The government is actually enthusiastically promoting this model as better than democratically elected representation. So we can see exactly where this is taking us.

I will go back to my comments earlier. Is this in some way moving us into a position where the government can fulfil some policy directive of their own without any interference by municipalities? You bet it is.

The government doesn't want to sit and debate this with us eye to eye, I can see.

Let's talk a little bit now about some more comments that the minister made in his introduction. "The new funding framework will provide TransLink with access to sufficient revenues so that they can proceed with a fully funded Evergreen line project and re-establish, for the first time in decades…express bus service." I really would hope the minister would want to engage me in this discussion, because I know he's talked about some of this publicly. I'm looking forward to debating this with him in the House.

Let's go back to the Evergreen line. The ultimate twist of fate on this is that the Evergreen line would have been built and running, effectively moving commuters right now, if this government had not interfered in the planning of TransLink, if they had not stepped in and demanded that TransLink drop its Evergreen project in favour of the government's pet project, the Canada line.

I know the minister does not want to talk about the Canada line. What's happened with the Canada line? It's a P3 that is now so far off schedule and is causing such grief to business owners in its construction that it

has become a huge political issue for this government. Yet it was their choice. It was their choice that they move the Evergreen line off of TransLink's planning table and instead transplanted it with their own Canada line, with their own criteria.

For the minister to say here that now, suddenly, we've had a revelation — that we're going to proceed with the Evergreen and that we're going to find a way to fully fund it…. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. But we allude here to the fact that this will re-establish the agenda here for, we know, the government's great pet project, the Gateway project.

It was very interesting to listen to the minister's comments about how he is fascinated by the evolving nature of the opposition position on Gateway. Let's be very clear. We have a position on Gateway that says a number of things. Number one, our position says that we want to see congestion relief for commuters now. Not seven years from now — now. We want to see expansion put in place that will begin to relieve congestion for the next seven years, not in seven years.

In fact, the minister has announced that 20 buses — count them, 20 fast buses — will be put on the bridge in 2013, seven years from now. This is our solution. The opposition is saying: "You know what? We need not 20 buses; we need hundreds of buses. And we need them now, over the next seven years."

If the minister wants to get into a debate…. I'm happy to debate him. I'm very happy to debate the minister about this aspect of TransLink and the Gateway project and the steps that they are now putting in place around the powers of this board and its authority over projects leading into the future. We'll talk a little bit more about that.

We know this government has a penchant for P3s. The Premier himself has said that nothing over $20 million will be built in this province that has not had a public-private partnership overlay. We can actually expect that many of the plans that this board is now talking about — the Evergreen line, everything in the future — will have that particular component on it.

For that, oddly, the members on the other side of the House seem inordinately proud. They are cheering what clearly is a whole series of events that are moving our transportation strategies, our transportation infrastructure, in a new and profound way in the future. The government seems either to be unaware of it…. We can't assume that they are that naïve, but their pride in some aspects of this are highly questionable, I must say.

Let's also talk about something else that the minister alluded to in his opening remarks. Of course, one of the other overarching themes we know from government here is the new epiphany on climate change. The minister says here that the province and the region will pursue air quality and greenhouse gas emission objectives as part of their mandate. I'm going to have great interest in hearing what the minister's comments are in committee about what exactly this government has put in place in the way of budget for this climate change goal, because what we've seen so far is nothing.

A huge climate change initiative. TransLink is now going to be expected to somehow incorporate this greenhouse gas reduction into a plan that has no plan for buses, has no plan for public transit for at least seven years. Comments in this House made by other members have said no buses until the bridge is built. How foolish is that? Yet we're going to try and meet these climate change objectives, and there is no budget.

The TransLink budget that has been set was set before the Premier declared climate change as his next pet project. In fact, there is nothing in their budget, but I guess we'll see, in this regime of taxation without representation, whether or not part of this will go towards climate change.

Frankly, their own Gateway plan is sort of the antithesis of a green plan — right? — the antithesis of a climate change action plan when it does not involve any transit expansion until past 2013. We know that that transit expansion is needed right now, and if we are going to meet any kind of climate change goals, false or otherwise, from the Premier, we have got to put steps in place right now for commuter options, and that is transit, transit, transit.

It's very interesting to me that we don't see anything in the budget. We do not see anywhere in here any kind of comprehensive plan.

I think the minister very recently even said, very interestingly, that one of the reasons that transit expansion is waiting until 2013 is because we can't put buses across the Port Mann Bridge. The minister says we can't put buses across the bridge because of congestion. Well, that must mean we can't put buses across any bridge in the lower mainland, because they are all subject to congestion.

I would say that the biggest myth ever perpetrated by this government is that somehow those buses are not on the bridge because of congestion. That's absurd. If you didn't have buses because of congestion, they wouldn't run anywhere in the lower mainland. In fact, you could put buses on there tomorrow.

The reason that buses are not running across the Port Mann Bridge today is because part of good planning…. You know what? This government even talks about creating transit hubs, building density around that, having integration of your bus system with your existing SkyTrain. Why there are no buses on the Port Mann Bridge is because the hub is at the Scott Road station.

We could put buses back on this bridge tomorrow. If the government had a will, they could do exactly what was done in the Deas tunnel. This was the argument around the Deas tunnel, and it is true. The Deas tunnel had two lanes of traffic going in and out during congested parts of the commuter rush hour, and buses were stuck for hours and hours in that congestion.

Do you know what the simple solution was, Madam Chair? A queue-jumper lane. The buses scooted to the front through the tunnel. Once that was done in the

late '90s — boom — it worked like a dream. Transit ridership went up. Buses functioned in and out of the Deas tunnel. If they can function in and out of the Deas tunnel, for goodness' sake, they can surely be put on the Port Mann Bridge.

So while the members say, "We can't put buses anywhere until 2013," we say hogwash, Madam Chair. Hogwash. We can put transit in place right now. We don't have to wait seven years. If this TransLink board — this all-visionary, non-elected-representative business board — has real vision, that's exactly what they will do. If they are concerned about triple bottom line and if they are concerned about social policy, they will mandate that as one of their first acts. Let's put queue-jumper lanes onto the Port Mann and get bridges running right now, not seven years from now.

It's very interesting that the minister then went on to say in his comments that the plan for raising funds — the plan that this new, non-elected, non-representative, taxation-without-representation board is going to take on — is comparable to what's actually happening in great cities around the world.

Well, I'm going to tell you right now, Madam Chair, that great cities around the world are seriously investing in public transportation — have been, will continue to be. Many cities are tearing up blacktop in favour of public transportation. Are we doing that? No, we are not doing that.

That is happening south of the border. It is happening all over the world. The World Bank transportation strategy for urban cities has dictated that the only way we will move forward in a climate change world, the only way we will move more people and fewer cars, is by massive investment in public transportation and transit.

Will we talk about how this government is old school in their approach? It's about blacktop first and buses later — much, much later; only 20 buses. We could use 500 at least in Surrey, but we're only going to get 20. Nonetheless, the minister likes to think we're following the great cities of the world.

Well, I would have to say that if we're going to follow the great cities of the world, the first thing we should do is go back to a board that is in charge of transportation infrastructure expansion for the next 30 years, which has no elected representation, has broad-reaching powers of property taxation and appears to have no boundaries that will constrain it.

And the government is going: "Gung-ho. Gangway. Let's just move as fast as we can. In fact, let's not even wait for the legislation. Let's get this process happening right now. We don't need legislation. Why do we need pesky legislation and debate before we move on with a business agenda?"

It's very interesting that the minister alludes to a small group of individuals who will launch criticism on this plan. Well, I would have to say it's a lot more than a small group of individuals. Taxpayers across the lower mainland and beyond should be greatly alarmed. I know they are alarmed. There is a great deal of concern about the shift in this TransLink board away from elected representation to a business-centric board that is only representative of business interests that the government has approved.

It's very interesting. The minister finds it interesting that we somehow are ignoring the widespread public dissatisfaction with the current system. Well, I would say that most of the dissatisfaction with the current system has been borne by the minister's comments and by this government's push to profoundly change the representation and basic governance of this transportation authority.

Very interesting — the minister's kind of closing comments here: "The amendments that are contained in Bill 43 will restore public confidence and accountability in TransLink." Well, that couldn't be a further stretch if it had been written on an elastic band. Frankly, there is no accountability whatsoever for this board. They got a rubber-stamp committee in the mayors council that they've stripped of all authority, all responsibility.

The board of directors will put in place a business-centric plan that will not be about public policy, will not be about triple bottom line, will not be about climate change, will not be about autonomy of local government over their own right to taxation. The minister has got the audacity to say that this is going to restore accountability and confidence. I don't believe anything could be further from the truth.

"They will provide TransLink with the revenue stream necessary to achieve its strategic goals." Well, you bet they will, because they have the capacity now to tax without accountability and without constraint. Property tax, business classes can be changed. Fares will most certainly be raised in a time when we should be making transit more affordable, more effective and more efficient to get people out of their cars — to give them alternatives if we are going to meet greenhouse gas emissions — if we are going to actually offer a quality of life for commuters that doesn't involve two hours in traffic congestion, breathing in smog, away from their families.

If we don't make moves that allow us more effective goods movement, because goods are also trapped in this congestion….

The revenue stream. Of course, you know, this TransLink board is going to have a revenue stream with unlimited powers.

Then the minister goes on to say that they will achieve the "strategic goals and help achieve provincial and regional environmental objectives while at the same time giving residents of the south coast a transit system they can be proud of." A transit system they can be proud of. This is a government that's not going to put any buses in place for seven years. How could that be a transit system to be proud of?

I would say that the province's fix on all of this — their review that said TransLink was so broken that it could not be repaired…. Their fix, their partnership

with local communities, has come down to steamrolling over TransLink and reorganizing it based on a business model that cannot and will not take into consideration the social policy perspective in transit planning and that will have this insidious ability to tax at will and to override local government autonomy.

With the overlay of the Premier's and, frankly, the government's fervour for P3 partnerships, we are going to see most of this done — if at all — under private hands, much like the private building of the Port Mann twin. That will be in private hands forever. The tolls will go to private pockets. There will be no money put back into infrastructure.

There will be no endeavour to reduce the number of automobiles going across that bridge, because the private partner will want more cars, not less. We will continue to see that clash of culture, that clash of needs here. At a time when we need to be reducing the number of cars on the road and offering real options for people, we will see an initiative that does the very opposite.

The government has actually proudly brought forward this bill for us to examine, and we will examine it line by line. But I think this is taking us into a future that we should be extremely cautious of. The overarching implications of how this board is being created, how it can operate, how it can manage and where it can move in the future should be of concern to every single person in British Columbia.

I know that my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington has had a proprietorial involvement in this as the previous critic. I know he will also have some extremely intelligent, thoughtful, provocative and real comments to make on this.

I am looking forward to debating many of these issues with the minister at committee stage, line by line. Frankly, we will fight this line by line as long as we possibly can in this House, because this cannot be allowed to happen. This is a travesty here in British Columbia.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm speaking today in opposition to Bill 43, and I'm doing so for the following reasons.

I am speaking in opposition to the bill because it is an intrusion into municipal autonomy. I am speaking in opposition to the bill because it undermines local democracy. I am speaking in opposition to the bill because it will result in dramatic increases in local property taxes and dramatic increases in transit fares. I am speaking in opposition to this bill because it will not provide the resources necessary to create the public transit improvements which are so necessary in the lower mainland.

Let me begin by exploring what I think is the first and most important question. That question is: why is it that this minister and this government have chosen to bring forward this bill in the first place? It's important for us to have a sense of the motivation for the bill.

The minister has told us on numerous occasions that the reason for this bill, the motivation, is that TransLink is a circus. It's dysfunctional; it's parochial. He has repeated those accusations on numerous occasions, including yesterday when he introduced the bill.

Now, we know this minister, and we know that he takes any opportunity he can get to insult locally elected municipal politicians, so we shouldn't be surprised. That's consistent with this government's approach.

We have had piece after piece of legislation introduced in this House over the last couple of years that stripped power, autonomy and control from locally elected municipal and regional politicians and placed that power and control in the hands of the provincial government or the corporate sector. So this bill is consistent with the government's undermining in every way of local, municipal politicians and locally, democratically elected municipal leaders. This is just another example.

But, no, that's not what the minister says. The minister says the reason for the bill and the reason for the legislation is that TransLink is a circus, that it's dysfunctional and that it's parochial. The minister told us yesterday, as he has told us on numerous occasions over the last number of years…. He gave us evidence of that circus, that parochialism, that dysfunction, and what was his evidence? Well, he talked about the RAV line. He said that you only have to look at the debate over the RAV line to understand that TransLink is a circus.

Let's think back — shall we, Madam Speaker? — to when the RAV line was being debated. Some municipal politicians had the gall to participate in a debate on the RAV line. Some municipal politicians in the lower mainland had the temerity to hold differing points of view about the RAV line. The lower mainland politicians had the nerve to want to follow the lower mainland transportation plan, and they articulated that. What a nerve.

Some municipal politicians, in short, had the chutzpah to disagree with the Minister of Transportation. That's what he calls a circus. That's a circus; that's dysfunctional; that's parochial. That's why we get this bill here today. That's why we're debating Bill 43 — because this minister doesn't like it when somebody has the nerve to disagree with him once in a while.

Now, as it turns out, he got what he wanted. There was bullying; there was threatening; there was manipulation. And eventually, he got his vote in TransLink and at the GVRD to agree with the RAV. It's important to think back about these things and to remember what the deal was, what the manipulation was, what the threatening was, what the bullying was.

Eventually, the municipal politicians in the lower mainland agreed to the RAV line on the condition, which was put forward by this government, that northeast rapid transit to the Tri-Cities would be done parallel with the RAV line. That was the deal. That sure turned out the way we expected — didn't it? That sure turned out.

On the one hand, the municipal politicians who this minister bullied and cajoled and threatened and manipulated finally agreed with the RAV line on the condition that northeast rapid transit would be done at the same time. It never was.

But the transportation minister got a scare. People — elected municipal politicians, the politicians who are closest to the people — might disagree with him once

in a while. They might have another point of view. They might see things differently, and that was very, very scary for our Minister of Transportation.

The notion that democracy requires discussion, debate, compromise and cooperation — all of that — between different levels of government wasn't his idea of a good time. This minister didn't like the fact that municipal politicians might have a different point of view and might want to debate it, might want to compromise, might want to have a discussion and might want some cooperation from this minister — not a good idea, as far as this Minister of Transportation is concerned.

You know, the minister is not a big fan of democracy. He travelled to China, and he had a look at the way they do things over there. This is what this Minister of Transportation had to say about the Chinese process. He says: "No one there ever questions the need to build infrastructure like this. Now, granted, China has a bit of a different governance structure, but in many ways it's the ideal governance structure." That's this Minister of Transportation, who brings us this bill which stamps on the process of democracy.

He went on to say: "China really has the ultimate governance structure. The Chinese don't have the labour or environmental restrictions we do. It's not like they have to do community consultations. They just say, 'We're building a bridge,' and they move everybody out of there and get going within two weeks. Could you imagine if we could build like that?" That's this Minister of Transportation, and he's not kidding. That's exactly the way he wants to do things, and that's what this bill is about.

This bill is about a minister and a government who are put out by democracy. It's a pain. It's really kind of icky. "Community consultation — they don't have to do that in China. Why should we have to do it here? Let's find ways to avoid that community consultation. Let's find ways to avoid that democracy. Let's find ways to avoid that transparency. Let's do it the way they do it in China. Let's do Bill 43."

I want to get back to the RAV line for a minute. The minister used what he called the circus around the RAV line as his justification for bringing this bill before us and for these radical, anti-democratic changes. There is, of course, a dysfunctional aspect of the RAV line. The dysfunctional aspect of the RAV line is this government's response to the chaos on Cambie Street and in other areas where the RAV line is being built. The minister says: "That's not us. That's not me. Don't blame me; I'm not responsible."

Anyway, he said in estimates — and it was extraordinary — that it was the merchants' fault. Can you believe it? On the chaos on Cambie Street and the companies going under and the businesses being closed, this Minister of Transportation says: "No, no, that's those merchants. It's the business cycle. You know, maybe they aren't very good business people. It's their fault."

It's not enough to insult local government officials. It's not enough to insult the mayors and the councillors who have been elected by the people of the lower mainland and across the province. That's not enough. He's got to insult the merchants on Cambie Street as well.

Madam Speaker, just a little piece of advice for the Minister of Transportation: it would be a good idea if he had a little chat with the Minister of Finance. I understand they have meetings; there are cabinet meetings. It would be a good idea for the Minister of Transportation to have a chat with the Minister of Finance, because the Minister of Finance has the good sense to avoid blaming the victims, avoid blaming the merchants on Cambie Street. She blames TransLink.

"Not us. We didn't have anything to do with it. Not this government." The Minister of Transportation blames the merchants. The Minister of Finance blames TransLink. Well, they should get their stories straight. It would be a good idea if they got their stories straight. It's a bit dysfunctional. It's a bit of a circus when ministers don't have their stories straight.

Where they agree with one another is that while the Minister of Transportation blames the merchants and the Minister of Finance blames TransLink…. One thing they agree on is: "It's sure not this government's fault. This government has no responsibility for the problems." A bit of a circus, wouldn't you say?

Of course they're responsible. Of course the government is responsible. They, this government, will be responsible when the ridiculous ridership estimates for the RAV line, for the Canada line, are shown to be incorrect and when the people of the lower mainland have to pay year after year after year for the false promises of ridership on the RAV line.

The minister didn't like the democracy of TransLink, didn't like the fact that people had the gall to discuss and debate the issues, didn't like the fact that from time to time people disagreed with him about transportation policy — didn't like any of that. He wanted to have a Chinese process — snap your fingers and do the project. So he named a panel to give him advice about the future of TransLink.

Let's be very clear. The minister was very clear when he was asked. When I asked him in this House, "What's the public process going to be for input to that panel that's going to give you advice about TransLink? " the minister said: "No, no, no. This isn't a public process. No, no, no. This isn't a public inquiry. This is advice from this panel that I chose, to me." It's a kind of tautological process.

The public weren't to be involved. But a strange thing happened on the way to the report. What happened was that some people actually found out about the panel and actually went and gave their opinions and their suggestions. Those people were municipalities and business people and community folks and workers. All kinds of folks came and gave suggestions to the panel about the way things might be better with lower mainland transportation governance.

All of these groups made submissions, and thereby hangs the tale, because the submissions seem to have disappeared — poof! They seem to be gone. What

happened to those submissions? What happened to the opinions that people brought to the panel that was looking at TransLink governance?

At the time of the panel I was the official opposition critic for Transportation. When the minister announced the panel, I got up in this House and said: "Minister, are you going to make these submissions public so people can know what members of the community had to say about TransLink governance?" He said: "Oh yeah. Don't worry about that."

"After the report comes out," he said…. "After the report is brought to me, we'll make those public." It was a long time ago that the report came out — way, way back last winter and spring.

We were waiting for the submissions. We were waiting to have a look at the submissions that people made about what the future of TransLink should be. In fact, I got an opportunity, and my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin referenced that earlier today.

In March I asked the minister…. March — that's a long time ago. It's almost a year ago now. I asked the minister: "Where are the submissions?" He said: "Don't worry. We'll have them for you. We're working on it."

You've got to think about what this work is. What is this work? People brought submissions to the panel, the panel looked at them, and he's working on them. The work would require him, or somebody, to go to a Xerox machine and make a copy and bring it. That's the work we're talking about.

In March he said: "We're working on it. You'll get it soon." Then in April or in early May, I think it was, in estimates in this House, I asked again: "Minister, when are we going to get a look at these submissions?" He said: "Oh, it'll be in the coming weeks." I reminded the minister that every week is coming. Every week in the future is a coming week, so maybe he should be a bit more precise about when we're going to get a look at these submissions that people, in good faith, brought to the panel to talk about the future of TransLink.

He said: "We're working on it. Soon as we can." Then nothing happened. I went to the ministerial assistant of the Minister of Transportation. I said: "You promised us these submissions. Where are they?" He said: "Leave it to me. I'm working on it."

Then I saw him again. I ran into the minister. You know how it is in the House. Members here will know that once in a while you run into another member in the hallway. I ran into the minister, and he promised me again. This is May — at least six months ago, more than six months ago.

He was going to personally get them for me. You know the minister. He had that kind of aw-shucks grin on his face. You know how the minister gets. He patted me on the back as if we were kind of co-conspirators in the game of politics — right? He patted me on the back and said: "Don't worry about it. I'll have them for you soon. We'll have them for you."

We put in FOI requests, and we've continued to phone. It's a year later, and we haven't got the submissions. You know why we don't have the submissions, Madam Speaker? Because nobody asked for what's in Bill 43. That wasn't the advice of any submission, including from the business community, transportation experts, municipalities, workers' groups, advocates and community people. Nobody asked for what's in Bill 43.

The minister, of course, doesn't want us to see that. That's why there has been an enormous delay in this difficult task of providing to us the submissions that 120 groups made to the panel. It's a complicated business — going to the Xerox machine and making a copy.

By the way, the minister, in his submission on the bill yesterday, talked about the official opposition wanting to leave things the way they are. "The official opposition wants to leave things the way they are." Never let the facts get in the way of an insult — not this minister. He hasn't had a good day unless he has insulted somebody.

We all have had frustrations with TransLink over the last number of years, and they've made some errors. I certainly have been assertive in pointing at some of those errors. It's all there in the submission that the official opposition made to the TransLink review panel. The minister should know that, but that would require him to look at the submission, and the submission that the official opposition made is hidden somewhere with the rest of the submissions that they can't find. I don't know. Maybe it's in a back room somewhere or maybe in a warehouse. This government has lost a lot of things in warehouses over the years. Maybe it's under the bed. I don't know where it is.

Clearly, the minister hasn't had a chance to look at the opposition submission, which made concrete suggestions about ways to improve TransLink governance. We were and are prepared, and we have talked with municipal politicians about it, heard their point of view, haven't insulted them and have called for ways in which we could make TransLink work much better. But the minister hasn't seen it because....

D. Chudnovsky: Right. Maybe it's in the back of the office behind the booster seats. Who knows? Who knows where the submissions are? They can't find them, and they certainly don't want anybody else to know what they say.

The minister also says that TransLink has been parochial. It's really important that we take seriously this notion that TransLink is parochial, because it's absolutely untrue. TransLink, made up of all the elected representatives — municipal politicians, representatives of all of the municipalities in the lower mainland — had created and was following a plan for transportation in the lower mainland that included rapid transit to the northeast sector as its number one priority, which wouldn't have any impact at all on many of those municipalities. Yet they had come to a consensus on what the transportation plan should be.

It was this government that intervened in that consensus view as to what the strategy for transportation in the lower mainland should be. It was this government that intervened with the RAV line.

What's in the bill? The key aspect of this bill is the creation of something called a professional board. That professional board will have all of the key decision-making power when it comes to transportation policy in the lower mainland. That unelected, unaccountable, professional board will have all the key power.

The minister said yesterday about that board: "They have expertise" — and he went on to say — "in finance, legal, accounting and human resources. They will be conversant and capable of overseeing a large, complex organization." Imagine that. Expertise. Who does he think works for TransLink now — idiots?

Let's look at his list: expertise in finance, legal, accounting and human resources. The people of the lower mainland pay professionals good money to do exactly those things, and you know what, Madam Speaker? Those are people who do a tremendous job for the folks of the lower mainland and work very, very hard. Who does he think the local municipal politicians are in the lower mainland — idiots? Finance, legal, accounting and human resources — they have all of that expertise, and they've been using it.

I guess he thought before he said this that he'd already taken care of the requisite insult for yesterday, or maybe one wasn't enough. Who knows?

In every case, the unelected, unaccountable corporate board will make the key decisions in the new authority, and that's the way he wants it. This minister wants a compliant, corporate, business-oriented board that will agree with his road-based strategy for transportation in the lower mainland.

This is the only jurisdiction in the world whose strategy for climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to build roads. It's the only jurisdiction in the world whose strategy for climate change is to build roads and highways. To accomplish that goal, he's created a bureaucratic circus.

Let's see if I've got it right. TransLink, according to the minister, will be run by the provincial government; a council of mayors; an unelected and unaccountable professional board; a commissioner; a CEO, chosen by the unelected and unaccountable board; and a staff. They will function within the ambit of provincial policy, the GVRD growth management plan and, presumably, the growth management plans of the non-GVRD municipalities that join the new TransLink.

It will take into account the province's 30-year vision, the mayor's ten-year strategic plan — which can be overruled by the unelected, unaccountable board — and the unelected board's three-year operational plan. Now, that's efficiency, wouldn't you say? That's efficiency. That's the plan that this minister brings to us.

I want to talk about funding for just a minute. In a letter to Mayor Brodie, the chair of TransLink, the minister said: "The new funding initiative will mitigate the need for property tax and fare increases well into the future." Where's George Orwell when we really need him?

This is doublespeak of the highest order. In fact, this new plan is not going to mitigate the need for property tax increases and fare increases. It requires increases in property taxes and fares. There is the possibility of three cents more per litre in the gas tax, but that is there if and only if property taxes and fares are raised. Now, there's a brilliant strategy for expanding public transit in the lower mainland: dramatically increase property taxes, and dramatically increase the fares.

This bill is dysfunctional. This bill is a circus. This bill undermines democracy. This bill undermines local autonomy. This bill will mean increased property taxes and increased fares. This bill will not provide the necessary resources to expand the public transit that the people of the lower mainland need.

This bill should not be passed. This bill will be opposed. We will vote against it. We will fight against it. We will argue against it. It is not in the interests of the people of the lower mainland. I oppose it.

C. Puchmayr: I, too, rise in opposition to this bill. The main concerns that we have — and you're certainly going to continue to hear them — are the fact that we are taking democracy out of transportation planning. Not only are we taking democracy out, we're also taking out a lot of concerns for the environment. We're taking stakeholders that have interests in ridership, in usership, in cycling, out of the equation of transit planning. We're replacing them with an unelected, undemocratic board that will have interests that could be in conflict with what the needs of the region are.

In our city in New Westminster we've had quite a considerable issue with transportation. If I can just focus on the new governance with how it may affect my community.

The new governance will not address the fact that we have 300,000 cars a day running through New Westminster, a city of 62,000 people, and yet New Westminster has the second-highest transit ridership in the GVRD because we have stations, we have transportation, and we have transportation initiatives.

When you look at this board that is made up of people from the board of trade, it's made up of accountants, of people from the ministry, from the government, it doesn't affect the fact that the environment right now is at risk with the types of transportation planning that are going on.

For instance, if New Westminster has concerns about the increase in traffic in New Westminster, the board that is going to be governing those interests, as opposed to having a say in the municipality, on a region, and using those planners and using the planners that facilitate a decent growth in transit…. They will now be looking at it more as dollars and cents, as opposed to what's good for the community or what the social impacts in the community are.

Dollars and cents, of course, meaning…. For instance, the new bill allows for tolling. It allows for

increased tolling that the board can put in place. The increased tolling will now have significant effects on our municipalities because the tolling will actually create diversions of traffic that could have very adverse impacts on certain municipalities.

My community is in the absolute dead centre of the GVRD. It is the hub. It's not the spoke; it is the hub. Massey stadium in New Westminster is the dead centre of the GVRD. Traffic moves, greatly, with what happens in other areas. For instance, if you have a toll on one bridge, people that don't want to pay the toll will try to take another route and go through our city.

So when you have accountants that are looking at the impacts of traffic or the impacts of the governance of this board, they may very well have different interests. Goods movements, for instance…. An accountant may select that more cars should go through New Westminster so that goods can move in a different area.

There is no consultation in our community. There is no way that we can actually get up and say that this is going to have very negative and adverse effects to our community. Right now we have a Front Street project where the city of New Westminster actually undertook more traffic in New Westminster.

What we did was…. We understood that there was a need for goods movement. We sat down with the old board. We suggested that we would allow the North Fraser perimeter road to be built. There was the widening of Front Street. But we did so with some negotiations.

We said that we needed some work done on the bridgehead of the Queensborough Bridge. We needed some mitigation done to communities to alleviate some of the potential rat-running that might be created. We needed an overpass on Howe Street. We were able to sit down at a table and negotiate a package which also included a different structure for the South Fraser perimeter road.

That no longer exists. That model will no longer exist. We will not have a say. We will not be able to negotiate or mitigate the impacts that are now going to be driven strictly by an accountant, a board that has accountants, a board that has the board of trade on it — which really has no respect for the impacts of transportation in our community.

If you go into our community, shortly after the North Fraser perimeter road project was completed…. Those 300,000 cars that go through there Monday to Friday at some times are absolutely gridlocked. It's gridlock. People in my community don't even get in their car to go shopping during rush hour, because it has a negative impact.

This new governance could actually direct more flow into the community, and not only my community. I'm giving my community as an example, because it's a real example that you can actually go and look at today and say: "Wow, this is what could happen to most communities." This is what could happen to most communities in Burnaby, in Coquitlam, in Vancouver and eventually in Surrey and in the rest of the Fraser Valley where there are transportation networks.

In New Westminster, if you go in there today and see the traffic and the volume of traffic that is going through there, you will certainly see the effects that poor traffic planning will have. If we're seeing the effects of what we thought was reasonable traffic planning, you can imagine when there is absolutely no consideration or no consultation for the impacts of the traffic.

Now, if you look at the new governance board and the people that sit on the board…. I think some of the stakeholders are people that ride transit. People that take buses are great resource people to talk to, to see how we can get more people riding buses, how we can get more people on transit, where the transit needs are for people to travel on transit.

Environmentalists. What's wrong with having a panel where people can sit there and talk about the environment? Is an accountant going to really have a social conscience for the environment when the accountant is trying to bottom-line something or is trying to maximize the profits of, let's say, twinning a bridge? The accountant says: "Well, gee. A private-public partnership…. The private partner is going to need to maximize revenues from this in order to make a lot of money on this bridge." So you have conflicting interests between putting transit across, putting ALRT across and putting cars across.

The accountant will certainly come to the table and make a calculation that will maximize profits, which means more single-occupancy vehicles on that bridge, which means more money for the toll, which means more money for the person that is running that project, which means more toxic gases going out into the Fraser Valley.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's 2007-2008 report 3, A Review of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project: Governance and Risk Management.

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.