Hansard — Tuesday, November 6, 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


Motions without Notice		9091
	Appointment of Deputy Speaker
	Membership of Children and Youth Committee
	Hon. M. de Jong

Recommittal of Bills		9091
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House		9091
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40)

Reporting of Bills		9091
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40)

Second Reading of Bills		9091
	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

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.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 40, with which we dealt yesterday, be recommitted with respect to the schedule.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 40; S. Hammell in the chair.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report the schedule passed and the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

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.

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 the government of Canada…(e) the minister, and (f) any other persons the 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

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.

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, 2007.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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….

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

M. Farnworth: I am not the designated speaker on this particular amendment, but I will speak….

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.

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.