Hansard — Thursday, November 8, 2007 p.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


Introductions by Members		9201

Tributes		9201
	Aboriginal war veterans
	S. Fraser

Introductions by Members		9201

Tributes		9202
	Barry Stecyk
	Hon. T. Christensen

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9202
	Operation Remembrance in Prince George
	J. Rustad
	Diwali
	C. James
	Vancouver Canucks event in support of Canadian Armed Forces
	L. Mayencourt
	Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame
	C. Puchmayr
	Prevention of identity theft and Internet fraud
	R. Lee
	100 Mile House Junior Secondary pledge against global poverty
	C. Wyse

Oral Questions		9204
	Reorganization of Children and Family Development Ministry
	C. James
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Children and Family Development Ministry renovations
	N. Simons
	Hon. T. Christensen
	A. Dix
	Business compensation for Canada line construction
	G. Robertson
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Government response to gang violence
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. Les
	Liquor sales at rural agency stores
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. J. Les
	R. Austin

Petitions		9208
	V. Roddick

Second Reading of Bills		9209
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43) (continued)
	On the amendment (continued)
	S. Simpson
	C. Trevena
	J. McIntyre
	D. Thorne
	N. Macdonald
	C. Wyse
	R. Fleming
	D. Cubberley
	L. Krog

Point of Privilege		9236
	J. McIntyre

Second Reading of Bills		9236
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43) (continued)
	On the amendment (continued)
	L. Krog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On October 16 and 17 more than 43 million people in 127 countries took a pledge to take a stand against poverty. Over 76,000 Canadians took part in more than 500 Stand Up events across the country. These people spoke out to demand a more urgent political response to the growing crisis of global poverty and inequality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was on those terms and conditions that the rural agency store licences were accepted, and I think it actually is something that benefits rural British Columbians in terms of their ability to access their liquor products.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's interesting, hon. Speaker, that when you look at the folks who are making the selection, probably the least explicable of those is the Vancouver Board of Trade. It's hard to understand how the Vancouver Board of Trade got chosen of all those groups. The Vancouver Board of Trade, the last time I checked, represents business interests in the city of Vancouver proper. It doesn't represent interests in Surrey, Abbotsford, Coquitlam or any of the other municipalities. It represents Vancouver's interests. Yet they, as the most parochial of those interests, sit at the board that will make selections about who the members of this expert board will be. That's probably the least explicable of the business choices who are going to be the decision-makers on this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If this gets through, Madam Speaker, if this bill becomes an act, if we get a whole new governance structure for TransLink, this is going to be a model across the province. That is terrifying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

municipalities. It's their chief administrative officers. There's a whole administration and bureaucracy that run these. You think that elected officials like you and I actually run the cities? No. She's got it all wrong. Whereas business people actually do run their organizations and are accountable to their shareholders…. So enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi talked about the experts being better at running the show, so to speak — that we really don't need elected people to be doing transportation in the lower mainland, that we should be emulating the head of the ferry corporation and YVR. Certainly, we know how well the ferry corporation is doing these days, and we know how popular the head of the ferry corporation is and how many promises have been broken already by the head of the ferry corporation. We know that if this is the road we're going down, heaven help all of us. Even what I'm reading here, which is bad enough, won't happen, because promises will be broken and changes will be made as we go along.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The argument I would make is that given a whole range of experiences with B.C. Liberal boards, this should be deeply, deeply troubling. That is my central point. A B.C. Liberal board is not something that is new. We have experience with it.

That's an experience that I would like to spend a bit of time exploring so that the public can look at that experience and then ask themselves: is that something that they want to replicate with their transportation system? I think there is a compelling argument to be made that that's something to fear rather than to embrace.

The second point I would make is that you're setting up structures that are definitely going to remove decision-making from public view. It is going to be a system of making decisions that will move decision-making into a secret place.

The reality for almost all decisions is that they are always made with a degree of parochialism, a degree of self-interest. That exists in every grouping that you get. To say that it is an advantage to hide that does not mean that it doesn't happen. It simply means that it is out of view and, therefore, more difficult to hold people accountable for what they say and what they do.

Out in the open, it may be a bit of a messy process. You may look at it, but at least you know who has said what, what people are doing and what decisions they've made.

The other thing about these boards…. We've seen it with health authorities. We've certainly seen it with the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. The thing with these B.C. Liberal–appointed boards is that they are, more often than not, not the ones that are actually making decisions. They are used to deflect accountability.

That's something that British Columbians should be concerned about, too, because what we hear far too often in this Legislature is ministers, who should be ultimately responsible, deflecting that responsibility onto a board that they appoint and control. Therefore, it is a useful tool for somebody in government, but it certainly does not serve the public interest, and we should be concerned about that.

The usefulness of the hoist motion is that we are going to be able to take some time and consider it. If it were delayed for six months, hopefully, the public would sit back, have a good look at this legislation and ask themselves a number of questions.

If the government has made the case — and I would suggest that they haven't convincingly — that the current TransLink board structure needs to be changed, then is this the best structure that the minds of British Columbia can come up with, or is it a structure that serves some fairly narrow interests? Those narrow interests are to put in a B.C. Liberal–appointed board that will be easily controlled and to put up a structure that will deflect accountability for any mistakes that are made.

People in the lower mainland should, I believe, be asking themselves: is transportation policy critically important to quality of life?

We know that there are certain things that the government provides that are of critical interest to people. The education system — people care deeply about it. If you've ever been at a school closing or at normal meetings of schools, you see that people come out. They have passion, and they care deeply because it impacts

their lives — where schools are, what they're offering in terms of curriculum, how well resourced they are. It touches people's lives. They care.

They want an open, accountable governance structure, which is why people have high regard for volunteers who are elected to school boards. Now, those school boards are not experts. They have experts underneath them, but they are held accountable by the people who put them there, and they make the decisions that the professionals then put in place.

Another thing that people care deeply about is health care. I can tell you that what we have in the province now is a B.C. Liberal structure which puts in place a board that is not accountable, a structure not unlike what is proposed here. I can tell you definitely that that sort of a structure is extremely frustrating for people.

The last election…. I think that many of the 33 here, as we went door to door, knew that the major frustration…. At the top of the list was frustration with health decisions that seemed to be something they could do nothing about. They seemed to be poor decisions. They seemed to be decisions that nobody was held accountable for. You had a board structure not unlike this, a B.C. Liberal–appointed board — nobody accountable.

When you're looking at transportation policy for close to half the population of the province, people need to ask themselves: is it important? Is it important to their safety?

I would say critically so. If you do a proper job with the system, you are going to have people feeling safe in travel. You are going to have them physically able to move from one place to another place without feeling that their security is at risk. Is that important to people? It absolutely is. Does it cost a lot of money? Yes. Cost is something with transportation systems that is huge. Does it impact their health and their lifestyle? Absolutely.

If you were to ask people to rate what things impact their life, what things are important to them, there is no question that near the top of the list would be transportation policy.

The people of the lower mainland, the people of the province are going to pay a lot for any transportation decisions that are made. They are going to pay a lot of money through taxes. Decisions on what type of taxes are going to impact their lives, decisions on how much, decisions on how effectively that money is spent — all of those things are going to be important things that impact people's lives.

If you live in the lower mainland, you really need to ask yourself: how accountable is this group going to be with spending your money? How accountable are they? What I would suggest is that when you look at this bill, if you are not deeply worried about the accountability angle here, you should be. Mistakes can be made, and nobody will be held accountable.

Let's give you an example of how a B.C. Liberal–appointed board works, and we have many, many examples. We have the health authorities, and certainly for me that's a source of tremendous frustration.

I think a better example, and one that the people in the province would be more knowledgable about — certainly more knowledgable recently — would be the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. That is a B.C. Liberal–appointed board, and I think it gives us an excellent example of what the governance structure for TransLink will be like. It is a fine model for us to look at, to see if the structure that the B.C. Liberal–appointed board for Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project is a model that the people of the lower mainland want for their transportation system.

You need to ask yourself: do we know how a B.C. Liberal–appointed board will be, how it will act? Like I say, we get a pretty good idea from the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. Let's look at some of the language that is being used to justify Bill 43 and, from that, understand why we would use a hoist motion to slow it down.

What the few speakers on the government side have said is: "Don't worry. There is going to be a board of experts." That is what the B.C. Liberal–appointed board is going to be called — the board of experts. That's what it has in Bill 43.

I think people should be mindful of the fact that the Premier used similar terms to describe the board of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. He publicly was very clear that it was a board that had tremendous expertise and experience and that that should comfort them. They needn't worry about what was going on there. These were experts. They're not going to leave it to accountable people on that board; they put experts in charge of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project.

So take comfort in that, and I think you would take the same degree of comfort in this promise to have a board of experts running TransLink. I don't think there's a person in the province who doesn't know the end of that story.

Well, it's not over yet, is it? We're not even sure if they've finished yet, but certainly, the story so far is a waste of $400 million of taxpayers' money. That's what your board of experts, when they are a B.C. Liberal–chosen board of experts, can get you.

Would a board of experts start something without a plan? I think there are many people who would stand up and say: "No, that's ridiculous. With this Bill 43 we're putting in a board of experts. They're going to have plans."

Yet when we look at the most famous B.C. Liberal board of experts, we see that they started building without having a plan for what's going to go on top. The Auditor General said that. They started putting the pilings in without knowing what was underneath there. According to the Premier, they didn't have a crystal ball. I didn't know that you needed a crystal ball to do engineering work, pre-work, but apparently they do need a crystal ball to find out what is going to happen when you put in pilings.

I'm sure that with Bill 43 you'll have people standing up and saying: "Well, of course we're going to plan before we do anything." But our experience with the convention centre is that the board of experts did all of

this work, and they did not have a plan in place for the convention centre that was going to go on top. It seems ridiculous. It seems like a ludicrous thing to do.

In many ways, it's not fair to the people who are put on these boards. They're put there, and I guess they decided and made the choice as adults to go on there. But it has to be a bit humiliating for how it's all turned out. They were the wrong people in the wrong job.

Let's look at another thing that we know from B.C. Liberal–appointed boards. Let's be clear here. Bill 43 is going to put in place a B.C. Liberal–appointed board to run all of the transportation system for the lower mainland.

What are the qualifications for being an expert? Well, let's look at the convention centre expansion project. The person that is put in as the chair — the lead expert, so to speak — is somebody that the Premier had tremendous confidence in. He is chosen, though, primarily because he is somebody who has been the right-hand man of the Premier for a long, long time and I have no doubt a very capable person. I have no doubt that these have been uncomfortable times for him. I have no doubt, as well, that he was the wrong person in the wrong job.

There is no question that in putting the board together, loyalty to the Premier — that connection to the Premier — was the primary factor. Yet the Premier said: "That's a board of experts."

This is why we have the hoist motion. Take six months to think about it. Do you want that same sort of decision-making on who's on the board for your transportation system? I mean, the idea of changing a governance structure is to improve it. So ask yourself: are you improving it?

Who else was on that board? When I looked at it, I asked that question. I'm not from the lower mainland. These are names that are new to me. Given the file and asked to look at the makeup of this B.C. Liberal board, I took the opportunity to read and find out what sort of background they had.

What you had on that board was a former president of the B.C. Liberal Party. Now, some would say: "Oh, yeah. But he wasn't there for that. He was also a deputy minister."

I was new to the place, but when I left for four years to go to Africa, I remember at that time the current Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, spoke a lot about a professional civil service and that you would not get political appointments. So that was a surprise to me. That was a learning experience to me — that somehow the president of the B.C. Liberal Party quickly became a deputy minister. But I've come to see that that happens in this government. I don't think it should, but it does.

Nevertheless, somehow that person got on as a member of this board of experts. Who else was on it? Well, there was a defeated B.C. Liberal candidate. So there's another expert who also happened to become a deputy minister, which is another strange coincidence. Nevertheless, that's what happened. You also had, filling out the table, a series of people that were responsible for huge numbers of donations to the B.C. Liberal Party.

It is a central flaw of that board. A board that wasted $400 million of provincial taxpayers' money was run from day one by a board that the Premier described as expert. But the criterion for choosing those experts is particularly strange, and the decisions they made were fundamentally flawed. I think nobody would stand up and argue. In fact, anybody who did would be….

The counterpoint to that is that the government has given up on that board and, to a person, gotten rid of them because they saw that it didn't work. Yet now the government is proposing it as a model that we should put in place to run the transportation system for the lower mainland. It is something that is worth taking six months to reconsider and think about.

Was that B.C. Liberal–appointed board competent? I think the facts would make a pretty strong argument that it wasn't really. You're supposed to have a plan. I think you could go to a grade 7 class and ask them: "When you start to do something, should you have a plan?" Yeah, you should have a plan.

Secondly, should you really think through big decisions? There's a lot about this project that relates to milliseconds. You often think: how much thought was given by that board about using the Olympics as a finishing point for the project? The board went along with that. Did the board actually make that decision? What was the thought process on that?

Does it give people in the lower mainland confidence that a B.C. Liberal–appointed board is going to make good decisions, that they're going to stand up to a minister or a Premier who directs them to do something? I suggest that the experience from the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project is one that you'd hesitate about. You'd think: "Man, that's not something we want to replicate to run our transportation system."

Well, here's another question. Was the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project board open? As you know, with transportation policy, we are talking about a tremendous need for openness. You are making decisions that have a huge impact on people's quality of life. You have a board that will make decisions that deal with massive amounts of money. You sure better not go 200-percent over budget, yet what we've seen from B.C. Liberal–appointed boards is that, yeah, that happens.

The other thing is — and I think everyone here knows it — that transportation policy is tied incredibly closely to real estate. Whenever you're dealing with decisions that impact on real estate, you'd better have it out front and in the open, or it invites all sorts of abuse — decisions made not in the public interest but in private interests. You need to put people in a position where there is an open, accountable system.

When we look at the B.C. Liberal board that ran the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project, it is clear. The Auditor General has said it. They were not open with information. He describes their reporting as presenting a rosier picture than was the true picture.

That is Auditor General language, I would put to you, for: "You're misleading us. You're not being open at all."

The Auditor General says they were making reports that were rosier than they should have been, but what we would say is: "Hey, you're misleading us. You weren't telling us the truth about stuff that we have a right to know. It's our money."

Is that the sort of system that you want in place to run your transportation system? I'd ask people that. It's worth thinking about for six months.

Well, was the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project board of B.C. Liberals accountable? No. Has anybody been held accountable for the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project? No, absolutely not. We even asked about some of the people that were removed. Were they accountable? Were they removed because they were doing a poor job? The minister was clear — no.

What was the purpose of that board? An awful lot of people would say it's just to provide a screen.

People at home, when you're looking at the governance structure for the governance of TransLink proposed in Bill 43, what are you getting? You're getting a board that takes direction directly from a minister who will then use any mistakes that are made to use the board as a screen.

Are the people on the board going to suffer from it? No. Is the minister going to be held directly accountable? No. There are problems with that.

I can see from the red light going on that my 30 minutes is complete. I see that the Chair, as a former teacher, will appreciate that I have to stick to time lines.

N. Macdonald: I wish I had more time. I've got lots of things to say. With that, I take my seat. I thank everyone for their rapt attention.

C. Wyse: It is indeed not only my pleasure to rise to speak in favour of the motion that is in front of us, but it really is my responsibility to do such. I intend during the time that is available to me to develop a reasoned rationale for why further time is required by this House before we move any further upon Bill 43, TransLink.

Earlier I did have the opportunity to rise in the House and speak in second reading on this particular bill. I made observations at that point in time that Bill 43 is a continuation of Bill 36, which had been introduced to this House earlier in the springtime.

It had been my hope that the government, in looking at the initial legislation they had introduced, had recognized that there were indeed two major flaws contained in that legislation, in my estimation. However, upon reintroducing Bill 43, I see that these two flaws, in actual fact, still remain.

I wish to start off the development of my case in support for the hoist motion by giving a quote by the Premier with regards to the Community Charter. This quote may be found in Hansard. It's a quote that I've heard on a number of occasions, but I would like British Columbians to also hear that quote.

The basis of the two flaws is contained in that particular motion. The Community Charter, which was passed in 2004 by the Liberal government, prohibits downloading onto local government. It eliminates unnecessary provincial interference in local decision-making.

Now, as the critic for local government affairs, this is of particular concern to me — these two flaws that are contained in Bill 43. It is around those two items that I intend to develop the rationale for the support of the hoist motion, of it being delayed for six months.

I'm sure the Minister of Community Services would likewise share with me the same concerns that I'm going to develop here around this particular bill. I am certain, absolutely positive, that the Minister of Community Services aggressively looks after those items that are of importance to local government. However, that is a testimonial that I give.

However, the underlying flaw, which I'm now going to begin to develop, is that not only do I not know what happens about the defence for local government, neither does the province of British Columbia, because this defence takes place within the cabinet.

Because it takes place within the cabinet, it is subject to secrecy and its own rules. So the openness is lost; the transparency is lost. Therefore, in order to deal with the downloading aspect of it — the provincial interference into local decision-making — we need to go back and review how Bill 43 fits into history since the Community Charter.

The Community Charter's signature was not even dry on the paper before Bill 75 was introduced, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. What that legislation said, from a layman's interpretation, was that any project that interfered with the overall provincial good would be overruled by the government, by the cabinet.

There's the distinction, a subtle distinction, between those two words. No one would argue with a reasoned case being made for the interests of the province being put ahead of the interests of a local need. However, in the previous methodology, the government was required to explain in a reasoned, public fashion why the provincial needs were overriding the local needs.

Maybe it was a little more cumbersome, often politically embarrassing. But it was open, it was accountable, and it was transparent.

Bill 75 took that process, put it into secret and removed it from public scrutiny. Local government was very, very concerned not only about the act but also about the process and the timing within which Bill 75 was introduced. As I mentioned, the ink was in the process of drying on the Community Charter. That piece of legislation was held high, spoken about proudly by the Premier and used as an example of how interference would not take place.

Now, there is much for me to develop in support for the hoist motion. So I'm going to move relatively quickly through a chronological number of bills that this government has enacted since 2004, which restrict local government's authority, removed local government's authority and interfered with issues that traditionally had been of a local government nature.

The aspect that runs through it is that it takes all of those decisions and moves them into the cabinet. It moves them out of the public purview. That is a continuing aspect of Bill 43.

It is that aspect of Bill 43 that demands support for the hoist motion. It demands that more time be provided for a reaction to this. By the time I'm finished, I will bring in comments from local elected mayors of the lower mainland that raise concerns about the two flaws, in my judgment, that are contained within Bill 43.

Now, quickly. Like Bill 43, which removes local government authority, Bill 30 was introduced and passed, the independent power-producing legislation. That removed the ability of local government to have a say over those decisions and once more, like Bill 43, put the decision-making into the hands of the cabinet. It is an important part of our governmental process. Some would argue it's a necessary part of our government process, but that process contains in it cabinet secrecy and solidarity.

Bill 11, likewise. Like Bill 43, the mountain resort municipality allows cabinet — that secretive group again — to make decisions about structuring mountain municipalities, once more removing input and decision-making aspects that local government used to have.

Like Bill 43, Bill 48 on fish farms removes accountability from local government — once more, that restrictive aspect of it. TILMA, the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement, was signed in secret by the cabinet — once more, in secret.

Bill 43 carries on with that same trend of the removal of discussions. Bill 43 has that same characteristic that runs through it. More time is required to have a look at this particular bill. It is why I'm speaking in favour of the motion that is in front of us to provide six more months of debate upon this particular issue.

Now it's time to move on to the actual Bill 43 itself and look at the comparison within Bill 43 and why it requires more time for review. To do that, I wish to start off with this quote. This is from the Minister of Transportation in the Globe and Mail. "I've always thought the governance structure was doomed to failure. There's got to be a better way."

With that in mind, remembering that Bill 43 contains components within it that have aspects that are within the cabinet decision-making process, concerns….

In the minister's new TransLink model, the day-to-day administration and the long-term planning done by the nine-member board of directors are done by an unelected group of experts. The screening panel that brings forward the names for this all-important group — this board — consists of representatives from five groups. From the Vancouver Board of Trade, a very fine body. It consists of people that diligently go about doing their job and work hard at it. But why the Vancouver Board of Trade? TransLink covers a much vaster area than simply just Vancouver. It includes a huge area larger than that.

The association of chartered accountants — a fine organization. But chartered accountants? What about other interests that come into play?

The Greater Vancouver Gateway Council, a council that consists of a large number of government appointees themselves.

Finally, the council of mayors. It's that group that brings forward the list of nominees from which the board of directors that makes the decisions is then appointed.

The question that is in my mind, one of the questions that demands more time for study, is: why only the business interests? Are there not other interests that must be considered when we're looking at something like transportation? Are there not environmental concerns, for example? Is the only group of individuals that are affected by transportation that of business? In my judgment, the answer is no. It requires a broader representation than simply that of the business interests — for me a reason, once more, to be speaking in favour of the hoist motion.

Now, given the aspect of the all-important first board of directors and the lack of democracy that is involved in it…. This first board is important, very important, because they will write the initial ten- and 30-year strategic plans — plans which require no approval by that vestigial democratic oversight from the council of mayors.

That council of mayors only meets four times a year. The operations are handled by the board that has been undemocratically appointed. The accountability has been lost. The elected people are removed and further away from the discussion.

There has been an argument presented that this new board will be a board of experts, but the fact is that the current TransLink already has experts in the form of highly competent and qualified staff, who do much of the administration and planning.

They provide options and recommendations to the democratic board of directors. Moreover, many of the elected directors of the existing TransLink are, and have been, highly educated. The achievements at TransLink, a world-renowned transportation authority

We are moving from a narrow board of directors that have not been democratically appointed, with simply a vestigial democratic accountability within the process. We are turning over this important component of transportation to this body. That raises concerns. It raises concerns. It is why this hoist motion needs to be supported.

There has been an argument made that the current TransLink board isn't really elected, because it's only local politicians who are selected by a process through the GVRD. By that rationale, any cabinet minister is open to the same criticism. They were elected to represent a constituency. They have then been appointed with additional responsibilities.

To follow that argument through with the local elected people has that same flaw in judgment, in my mind, when we apply it to the cabinet. That is my response to the members opposite when we are talking about mayors versus a board of experts narrowly appointed from a very narrow field, with a definite vested perspective that they are representing — not necessarily those interests that run across that large area that TransLink is to serve.

It fails the test of openness and accountability. It fails the test of being democratically responsive to the people that are paying the bill.

That brings me into further parts, underneath this first component, in opposition to Bill 43 that require support for the delay — the hoist motion.

We must remember that the board of directors do the planning and the day-to-day running of TransLink. A ten-year and 30-year plan may have adjustments made to them — supplements — down the road, but the initial plans are done by that group. That is an interference into local government that the Community Charter said would not happen.

I wish to move on to the second part of the concern in Bill 43, which is the downloading of the costs. The downloading of the costs, in part, is onto property taxes. Property taxes are the major source of revenue for local government.

It's with that, as I mentioned earlier, that I would like to bring in some discussion — some quotes, if you like — from local mayors. The local mayors were reported on recently in the Vancouver Sun on November 4. They're asking the province to share some of their surplus with them. It requires some study, because I believe their point has validity contained within it.

But let's not have me put my words into their mouths. Let me share with you their words so that you can see the wisdom and so that the minister may understand the importance of supporting this particular resolution.

From the mayor of Vancouver: "I've seen provincial and federal governments cutting taxes and experiencing surpluses while Canadian cities are raising property taxes and being really pressured by the demand for services."

That's the second part — that promise in the Community Charter that there would not be downloading onto local government. Local government is saying, "No, we are having difficulty handling the demands that are on us" — demands that are defined by legislation in this House as being their responsibility.

Let me carry on with the mayor of Vancouver. He points out that cities have been forced into paying for the consequences of social programs that at other levels of government have been cut. Now a quote from the mayor of Vancouver: "Our police budget has actually had to increase because police are taking on the health and social services downloading." Not my words, but the words of a lower mainland mayor.

Let me move on to the mayor of Delta, the chair of the GVRD, November 4 — reason for hoisting, reason for further study, Minister. She raises the question around the challenging of independence of local government. I took a few minutes of everyone's precious time in this Legislature to outline the track record of the Liberal government restricting and moving into things that traditionally have been the responsibility of local government, which the Liberal government has taken and put behind closed doors within the cabinet.

Now to a local mayor, the mayor of Delta: "Each municipality has its own crosses to bear, and they may be different. If there is a substantial surplus, the funding should be coming back to local governments so we can look after things on the ground." Looking once more for that independence.

Mr. Speaker, two quotes are great. Three mayors from the lower mainland sum it up. Let me help this House understand. Hopefully, the minister will get the message to support the hoisting motion.

From the mayor of Surrey: "Cities are constantly being asked to pick up costs they never used to, which takes away money from the basic services cities are expected to provide." The quote, directly to Bill 43 from the mayor of Surrey: "TransLink is asking us to raise our property taxes to pay for infrastructure that's going to be 4.7 percent per year. We need that money for our own infrastructure."

When we had Bill 36, I thought it was being taken away to be improved upon. What Bill 43 did was empower property tax to be used, and to be used through the cabinet. As I mentioned in second reading, the major source of revenue for local government is property tax. It is that sum of money with which they are expected by their taxpayers to provide services.

This government, in Bill 43, made changes to Bill 36 that bring property tax, now of residential nature, in to pay. You have heard from the mayor of Surrey their concerns, once more, on the Campbell government moving into the aspects that local government is responsible for, directly affecting it….

Deputy Speaker: Member, you only refer to the members in the House, not by their names.

C. Wyse: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I knew that. I got carried away with the emotions of the moment. I extend my apologies unconditionally.

Now back to the point. In this particular aspect, we need to have changes made to this act. If we cannot have changes to the act, then the motion will allow more time for the rationale for Bill 43 to be fully understood and an opportunity for the government to be brought to its senses.

I am recognizing there are other colleagues of mine who have other aspects around this bill and the motion that is in front of us to be brought forward. But as critic for local government affairs, I have developed a case around government legislation, the Community Charter. Both parts of that, they were assured, would allow them no downloading. They would allow respect between the two levels of government. Bill 43 continues on with the practice of the government here in Victoria of doing neither part.

Local government is clearly stating that enough is enough. This bill requires more review and further study. I am hoping that with the support of my colleagues across the floor, the Community Services cabinet minister will be carrying forward the same message and will be in support of local government having the opportunity to have their points of view heard, to have their points of view listened to and, more importantly, to have their points of view enacted upon.

R. Fleming: I rise this afternoon to speak in favour of the hoist motion, because I would like to be here along with a number of members in six months' time talking about a different piece of legislation, a different idea of governance reform for TransLink,

I think that's an opportunity we can have. There have been a lot of things said in this debate. There have been a lot of things said in the communities directly affected in Metro Vancouver. They would desperately like to see changes to this legislation.

I think there's perhaps a way for the province to get some of the things that it wants, even as expressed under the current leadership in the ministry. Most importantly, there's a chance for the democratically elected civic leaderships throughout Metro Vancouver not to lose representation, not to lose the ability to control and administer public transportation and transportation infrastructure projects in their municipalities — which, after all, they pay for.

I think there's a chance for the leadership of a new, revitalized TransLink to come in its majority from elected leaders that are responsible to voters and to taxpayers. By and large, the funding for TransLink comes from locally paid taxes, whether through property taxes, fares, gas taxes or other sources of revenue. It's possible to have elected leaders accountable to their electorates in the majority on that governance model. It's possible to have it as a smaller model.

One of the observations about TransLink — and I think it's fair comment from observers about some of the problems around decision-making that have occurred in its eight years of existence — is, frankly, to have a smaller number of people at the table and to look at how, without sacrificing any democratic content or accountability to voters, the overlap with the GVRD's responsibility and the TransLink board, in terms of dual approvals for their major plans, can be resolved.

I think it's possible for the province, as I've said, to get what it wants out of a new governance model for TransLink by having some of the directors for a revitalized TransLink board be appointed experts from the government.

After all, there have been seats vacant on the TransLink board for years. This government has never filled its appointments. It's been entitled to have them. It's been entitled to have the people articulating its views have the confidence of the minister and sit at the table. It's chosen to keep those seats vacant.

That is why the hoist motion is so important and why I support it being debated here today, because it does give us a chance to incorporate feedback and some of the positions that are being taken in Metro Vancouver. It gives us a chance to ensure that we are not separating public transportation from land use planning in the region. I think that is a serious mistake that will not serve us well in the decades ahead. It gives us a chance, equally as important, to not separate a government entity, funded by taxpayers, from accountable representatives at the board — to have representation be equivalent with democratic input into who those representatives are for those tax dollars paid in.

I think those are two important principles, both of which Bill 43 makes the mistake of violating. That is not good governance for the 21st century. That is a mistake we will pay for dearly in the years to come.

I would also note that it's completely out of step with what we're seeing in other progressive jurisdictions around the world. You're not seeing in New York City or in London, England, or in Toronto a separation.… They are not moving in the direction that Bill 43 would take us. They're not separating land use planning from transportation — quite the opposite, in fact.

They're trying to capture the increased values in land. They're trying to plan for the future geographically in the city by using the power of planning, of transportation corridors being situated according to a plan that is linked to the land use and the growth management tools that local government has available to it.

That's exactly what we are proposing to get away from. It's amazing. You know, people in Tokyo, for example, would simply not understand what Vancouver is doing, because they're doing the opposite.

I think, most importantly, hoisting this motion is critical because Metro Vancouver residents are just beginning to realize…. You know, when you say "governance review," that's an invitation perhaps not to pay attention for most ordinary people. But when you put in plain terms what the implication are of Bill 43 and when you put it in the terms of the taxpayer, how they will experience it….

We are talking about centralization of power back to the province and ending the experiment with

regionalization, but we are not talking about any corresponding uploading of costs. So all the costs that were part of downloading the political authority and responsibility for TransLink in 1998 and 1999 are gone, but all of the taxes and responsibilities for funding that were put on regional residents of Metro Vancouver remain.

That is, I predict, going to be a fundamental issue for people from all walks of life who live in all parts of Metro Vancouver, when they wake up and realize that that's exactly what has happening — that local administration and accountability is gone.

They're going to wonder very quickly when bad decisions are made…. I think bad decisions are generally made by non-democratic, centralized bodies that are remote from the people and constituents that they try and represent. They're going to wake up when they have to live with those bad decisions and wonder what happened and wonder why they're paying for it, most importantly.

I would like British Columbia to be in step with the rest of the world and to in fact lead. There were a lot of people looking at us seven or eight years ago, looking at the TransLink model and saying: "You know what? It's time for regionalization."

This government talks about regionalization in other aspects of public services. It's interesting that we hear the Minister of Children and Family Development insisting that that's going ahead. I guess, it's how you define regionalization, again. Certainly the printed and stated goals of that ministry are to support regionalization.

When it comes to how we deliver transportation in the largest metropolitan part of this province, which represents almost fully half of the provincial population, we are talking about centralizing back to a central authority, away from the metropole where services and other decisions are made, and taking it out of local government's hands.

I think that is wrong, and I think it's going to be a mistake. It's something that the rest of the world has turned its back on. It's certainly something that stands in contrast with what we're seeing in Ontario today, and they've just come through an election.

What's interesting there is the McGuinty government's decision to, first of all, announce the largest sustained investment in public transit services — LRT, go-trains, subway services — in Canadian history and probably the largest procurement for public transit in North America today. Some $12 billion has been announced by that government. That's an ambitious capital program.

You know what they didn't do when they announced that $12 billion? They didn't say: "We're going to tell you how to spend it. We've got all the answers as to how you go about and do your business. We're going to take over the TTC." They didn't say that.

They said: "We're actually going to work with you. You're the local partner in this regard. It's your plans for your region. You will make the decisions on how infrastructure projects and assets are built and maintained with the money."

That's wise. It stands in direct contrast to what we're talking about here today with Bill 43.

I think it's one — and Toronto certainly feels it is — decision and way to go for that province that is the best possible way for them to proceed. They know what they need in that city. They know where subway expansion is of greatest urgency. They know which neighbourhoods are in most need of revitalization and where LRT will serve those purposes. They know which greenspace they seek to preserve and where they do not want development, where they do want development and densification, how they want to revitalize their waterfront and how that links to urban transit services.

They're better decision-makers than Queen's Park, than a centralized decision-making body made up of unaccountable political appointments. I wish that was how this government viewed its relationship to Metro Vancouver. I wish it had some confidence in the elected leaders who serve local government and their residents, their citizens, in that region.

Apparently, it's not, because Bill 43 is an absolute slap in the face to mayors and councillors who have served, who are interested in serving in civic governance so that they can make decisions around transportation. It was considered radical when TransLink was created, because no longer were we just going to have a bus company that also ran a SkyTrain.

We were going to have a service that was responsible for roads, bridges, transportation over water. It was going to have a relationship with the port authority. It was going to be a truly intermodal, comprehensive transportation authority. That was considered very unusual, very bold at the time that this was proposed, and it was going to be controlled by local government.

The negotiations were fascinating. Actually, I think Metro Vancouver residents came out of it quite well. They were able to say: "Yes, we'll take on the responsibility for directing this authority, for creating the plans that will guide it in the upcoming decades. But we will take the resources that we'll need to fund and buy the fleet and invest in the infrastructure needed. We will take the gas tax that goes to the province currently."

There were all kinds of resources that were on the table and that the province did relinquish ultimately to TransLink so that they were able to do that. There were some problems within that. I think some of the public's frustration around TransLink is the fact that it tried to access some of those resources. The province actually stepped in, because the attitude of government did change over those years. But they were able to re-sort what the province and the region were responsible for.

One of the things I was impressed with was that partial responsibility, 40-percent responsibility, for health care facilities and the funding of those was taken out of local taxpayers' property tax bill, presumably to make room for transportation investments. That allowed local government, TransLink, acting upon their decisions, to take on more debt, to borrow and meet

debt-servicing obligations to fund an expansion of transit and transportation infrastructure.

In 1998 when this experiment was begun, a lot of municipalities and small cities — and I represent Victoria, as you know, Mr. Speaker — around British Columbia looked at what was going on there. They said: "We would like to have the same thing." We have a remote, centralized Crown corporation called B.C. Transit that contracts for local transit services.

In Greater Victoria they have a strange, hybrid structure where there is, basically, a kind of mayor's committee, as proposed under Bill 43, which has some say over fares, routes and schedules of service but doesn't really have the budgeting responsibility. They said: "We would actually like to evolve as Metro Vancouver will with the transportation authority."

Look at some of the cities that are truly innovative and that have public transit systems that are actually studied by people from outside North America. There are not very many of them on this continent where we are seen to be doing things right in regards to public transit, where people would come from Europe and other places to look at what we're doing.

One of them that is close to this jurisdiction is Portland, Oregon. They have a governance structure that respects local authority. It has actually given powers to local and county governments from the state and federal governments. They make the decisions. They've got fewer than a million people in that metro region, and they have five LRT lines. It's incredible, what with the amount of service that has been created in the city of Portland — innovative LRT streetcars, even overhead tramways — and how over the years they've been able to sustain investments in that transportation system.

But you know what? It's because the ambition has been local, and the power and authority have been local to do that. It is they who have been able to leverage other dollars from the state and from the federal governments to invest in Portland. As a result, it is one of the greenest, most advanced public transit systems in North America.

That's exactly what Greater Victoria aspires to — or, I should say, aspired to. I think many civic leaders in this region have now put their desire for greater levels of autonomy, authority and control over transportation — and linking it with land use through the CRD — on hold, because they're watching the debate on Bill 43.

They're watching what is happening in terms of the shift of power but none of the shift of responsibility for paying for transportation services, and they don't like it. That's not what they had in mind. That's not what they signed on for. That's not what piqued their interest in the late 1990s when TransLink was created and when they had their own aspirations for their regions.

That's too bad, because we have spent a long time in the CRD coming up with a transportation strategy. It's called Travel Choices. We've spent a lot of time on our own regional growth strategy. What we would like to do is to be able to overlay both of those plans to converge decision-making authority and responsibility for land use and for transportation, to make those plans fit one another so that our desire to become a compact, dense, progressive jurisdiction that has exemplary public transit services can become a reality.

Right now we're not going in that direction. I've talked about the deficiencies of the governance model we have. We have no control, or inadequate control, over funding and over major decisions, and we have basically just a small bus company here in Victoria. It has no responsibility for road investments. It has no responsibility for other forms of transportation. As a result, it really doesn't do anything other than run a bus schedule and run a bus service.

We would like to grow that. We would like to change that. We would like to adopt and have the powers that TransLink has had, but I don't think anybody here is interested in surrendering political accountability and giving all of the power to do that — to direct the work of a local regional authority — to the province. They're just not.

I think that people would rather stick with what they have, with all its inadequacies, with the correlation of the last six years that we've lost something like 30,000 hours of service levels on the public transit system that we do have, inadequate as it is. I think they're willing to put up with that, to try and just get on for the next few years until maybe attitudes change in the leadership of this government — and to pursue those ambitions at a later date.

They have had three requests to this minister for a gas tax increase rejected in as many years. It's incredible. They're asking only for the power to tax themselves. These are mayors and councillors sitting on the Victoria Regional Transit Commission, and they have been refused every single time. The results are that we have fewer buses on the road and that we have less service.

That's what centralized, dispassionate, remote government over your transportation system looks like. You don't get what you request. You are refused the ability to grow your system. You are denied any opportunity to link up the transportation sector with land use, with your regional growth strategy, and that's exactly what is coming to Metro Vancouver.

You know, the livable region strategy and TransLink's list of capital priorities were at one time very closely aligned. In the future, there is not even a feedback loop in that direction. There's going to be a new 30-year plan that's required to be completed by August 30, when this new appointed board — consisting of business-only representatives and that doesn't have to meet in open session before the public — first convenes itself.

I suspect that report is already written. I really do. The screening panel has already been up and running even without this legislation. That's indicative of how respected debate and consideration are in this chamber. In anticipation of the government using its majority, they have already moved ahead with some aspects of this bill and created them, at least in shell form, to begin working. I mean, that is outrageous, but that's what has happened.

One of the problems is the smoke and mirrors in this bill too. You've got this thing called a mayors' council that has a subsidiary, surrogate, secondary, ultimately powerless role in relation to the appointed, all-business board. It is not allowed to make final approvals of key decisions. It's allowed the power to suggest.

Now, these are the people that in the city of Vancouver are elected and represent 900,000 residents. In Burnaby it's 500,000 or 600,000. Major municipalities and partners, ratepayers that elect their mayors and councillors, are shut out of any decision-making ability in this new model. It's incredible.

Do you really think that irate residents are going to track down the appointed director of the Institute of Chartered Accountants when, a few years from now, they are dealing with their fifth fare increase in as many years, to hold that person accountable? How would they? I suppose they could write letters and express dissent, but they would never, ever be able to throw that person out of office if they didn't like the job the board was doing, yet it is going to control hundreds of millions of their local tax dollars and their fares. Billions of dollars in capital programs will be under the responsibility of this handpicked, undemocratic board, and if they're making bad decisions, nobody is going to be able to hold them accountable. That's wrong.

This is not at all inconceivable. I think this is the whole idea here. Let's just think for a moment of a scenario where instead of the TransLink plans that are in place now, the thing that is implemented by August 30 is radically different. Instead of it being about LRT, public transit and bus service, we see and notice a dramatic shift towards a road-based transportation agenda.

I don't think that's too much of a stretch to believe. I think members, both candidly or in their chance to debate this bill, would say that that's exactly what the minister intends to do. This is his way of exacting revenge for those who dared to debate and discuss whether they wished to proceed with the RAV line in the manner that they ultimately did.

You know what? That line was approved, and it was approved by TransLink ultimately. But let's leave that aside. The point is: democracy was at work. Local tax dollars were the major source that contributed to that project and other projects. There was a priority list that was in place. The province wanted to come in and turn that on its head and re-sort it all.

You know what? Those people that sat on the TransLink board — elected mayors and councillors — said: "Well, hang on a minute. No. We have some questions about the business model for this project. We have some questions about how it will be paid for over the years. We have some questions about how it will displace key transit infrastructure in the northeast sector."

Those are fair questions, but the minister didn't like them. Ultimately, he came to the fact that what he couldn't live with was that there was a body in place — a devolved regional authority — that was democratic and that was a forum to make those decisions. The fact that they could turn it down and the fact that they actually did turn it down and then renegotiated the cash contributions from senior governments — that they bargained with it — upset the minister and the government greatly. That is how we got to where we are today.

But you know what? Fair is fair. If you believe in partnership, a partnership requires mutual agreement by the different levels of government. It does not involve the attitude of: "We're the senior government, and you're going to do what we say." That wasn't part of what the deal was in 1998 when TransLink was set up.

If the government wanted to advance the RAV line — and it did — to make it a project that had to be constructed in time for the Olympics and that had to be constructed on Cambie Street instead of other options that the city of Vancouver wished to pursue, well, fine. It was their obligation to convince and to fund and to strike agreements with local representatives. Ultimately, they had to do it. They didn't like it, and that's why they're seeking to undo ever having to do that again, with Bill 43.

I mentioned that what we would like very much in Victoria is an intermodal transportation authority of our own. I think the outcome of this debate will define how that's expressed in the coming years. We want a governance model, though, that is democratic, and we want revenue tools so that we can grow our transit system. There's actually quite a strong interest in light rail transit in Greater Victoria, and I'm one person who shares that very actively, with a number of civic leaders and federal representatives as well.

That's how you get these things going, by starting that kind of dialogue. You create the institutions that can plan, fund and ultimately implement them. I think there is a chance for us to move ahead, but I think there's going to be a tremendous setback to those efforts, based on the outcome of debate on Bill 43. I actually do.

The ability for people to realistically continue in that dialogue will depend on how this government dismembers, breaks apart, the regional authority — the one that we have in this province. I can tell you that nobody is going to put up with a business-only, screening panel–picked, provincial-controlled, top-down, bureaucratic and unaccountable structure to decide the future of how Greater Victoria's public transit and transportation infrastructure will evolve. Nobody will stand for that. That may be the only thing on offer, depending on whether Bill 43 is passed or not.

I think a lot of people here would say: "No thanks." They will not subject themselves to having further taxes foisted on them, having their property taxes increased; being disallowed to do anything but increase fares first, as Bill 43 will subject Metro Vancouver to; and to shipping out all the responsibility, power and control to the province. They will take the inadequate system that they work under today over that kind of future.

The funny thing is that I've mentioned that public transit is inadequate in Victoria. But to be fair, ridership levels have increased quite well over the last

decade in particular. It continues even until most recent years. Even during six years of a funding freeze ridership has increased, but service levels have gone down.

There is a point where you can't continue to increase your ridership and reduce your service levels at the same time. There is a point of reckoning where you are going to systematically discourage people from using public transit. You will push them into other modes of transportation, and I think we're at that point right now, actually, in Greater Victoria.

I had the pleasure of being part of a public transit forum this week at the University of Victoria. Students are obviously one major section of the ridership in this region, particularly since the U-pass program was created in 1999. They have increased their segment of the ridership, and they're very concerned.

They're concerned that it now takes 45 minutes, in some cases, to get on a bus, where it should take five or ten. They're concerned about the lack of reliability that that kind of service has — being late for class or late for work or unable to connect with a second bus, in some cases. That is a sign of bad service. That's not the model we want in Greater Victoria.

D. Cubberley: It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to rise, both to oppose Bill 43 and to speak in favour of the hoist motion that we have put in front of the House.

I believe it performs an important service on behalf of the House, which would allow members of the government and members on this side to engage in some dialogue with the communities that will be affected by the proposed legislation, to give them an opportunity to talk to those in local government about how they feel about it and, hopefully, to get a little closer to those who are in a much better position to discern the impacts and the implications of the bill as proposed and perhaps provide them with a little bit of guidance on how it could be retooled into something that the entire Legislature could support.

I think that there would be the possibility, if the government engaged in that activity in a meaningful way with communities, of bringing a piece of legislation into this House that both sides of the House could endorse and that local communities would welcome. But it would be a vastly different piece of legislation than the one that we have in front of us.

This bill, unfortunately, is regressive in many, in fact most, respects. I appreciate having an opportunity to discuss that and to give reasons for my support for the hoist motion.

The agency that we're dealing with here, TransLink, as it exists today and as it will exist in future, serves the purpose of regional transportation planning, development and operation. It's linked directly, as the implementation tool, to the vision for the lower mainland's regional future, which has been agreed to by the communities that comprise that region over a long period of time and concretized in the livable region strategy.

Earlier today the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi engaged in a really amazing display of contempt for local government and for TransLink itself as an agency, basically portraying both as dysfunctional. Now I recognize that she was in all probability having an episode in the House. I know that one of the uses of the House is to allow members to experience catharsis, but I think a better use of our time in the House is to try to clarify what's at stake in legislation and not indulge in those kinds of displays.

TransLink is not perfection. I don't think anybody would argue that on this side of the House, although we do have a much greater sense of pride of authorship for what was a groundbreaking metropolitan planning and implementation agency.

All these agencies require cultivation. They require redesign, tweaking, retooling. But the problems that TransLink actually experiences aren't primarily related to or a product of local governance, which is what this bill, Bill 43, is aimed at. It's aimed at changing the governance structure. They're much more to do with funding and the integration of transportation and transit with regional land use plans.

There's a whole history there of the inadequacy of some of the funding arrangements put in place, despite the fact that they were groundbreaking in and of themselves, because of the level of debt that the region and the existing transit agency brought into the new TransLink entity. They have struggled as a result of that and because of an inadequate tax base.

That has, I think, worsened the kinds of questions they've had to wrestle with and the divergence of interests that occurs in all metropolitan planning agencies of whatever kind. Whether it's transportation or whatever, there are always divergent interests. There are always centrifugal forces. When there isn't enough money, it leads people, especially in smaller outlying communities, to say: "Why should I pay to finance a better level of service" — in this case transit — "for the city of Vancouver or for one of those downtown municipalities?"

Certainly, that's the history of these kinds of agencies. The other part of the history of them is that eventually they do reach agreement. Transportation systems do get built, and we move forward.

The challenges with TransLink, as I see them, have to do primarily with a lack of funding. They haven't had enough money to aggressively move the transportation system forward to actually implement the livable region strategy as envisaged, whether it's bus-based transit, light rail, commuter rail, heavy rail, SkyTrain; whether it's a subway, or it's in the air; whether it's a high-quality walking environment in livable regional communities or a cyclable region. Of course, walking is a mode of transportation, and cycling is also a mode of transportation.

Whatever those things are, they are grown through this kind of agency. And they're only grown to the

extent that there is money available to invest in infrastructure. If you don't have supply, you can't cultivate demand, and it doesn't really matter what mode of transportation you're talking about.

Having a metropolitan agency like TransLink, which is the only one of its kind in British Columbia, unfortunately — although given the redesign of it, it may become fortunate that it's the only one — is essential for any urban region that's attempting to avoid uncontrolled sprawl, that wants to achieve sustainability or preserve liveability and sponsor a higher density of mixed-use communities.

It's a way of giving force to the kind of intentions that are embedded in regional land use plans, because it's based on recognizing that transportation choice shapes growth, and it meets or frustrates if wrong strategy objectives are embedded in the plan. We govern ourselves locally via cities and as urban regions via regional districts, which exist to enable and to require local governments to develop agreed-to plans for future growth and servicing for entire regions.

There's an obvious connection between a plan and economic opportunity and liveability, now and in the future. These plans that we produce by requirement of the province are rooted in the communities that are affected by them, who also are the principal taxpayers.

The politicians who make those decisions, the local government representatives, are subject to control via election by their electors on a set schedule. They're required to do their business out in the open, to a far greater degree than provincial governments or their agencies are. Regional governance is often a tussle, a messy tussle, because the interests involved are different and they reflect different communities, the different types of people in them and the different stages of evolution and development in those communities.

I had the experience of serving for many years as a councillor in a suburban municipality and as a regional director in the capital region, and I know how that works. It's a noisy squabble, and it often takes time to come to some sort of common understanding — a lot longer, sometimes, than many of us would like. I think that the more downtown we are, the more frustrated we are with how long it takes to reach a decision.

But regional government is a democratic institution, and one should not be afraid of public discussion and the airing of issues out in the open. That's ultimately what allows us to bring land use and transportation together — which is, in the end, the key to achieving a sustainable and low-carbon future for our regions.

That raises two problems with this piece of legislation — which show, to my mind, that it isn't an advance over what exists currently but an enormous leap backwards and that it will have negative consequences. In fact, it's the very last thing the minister should be preoccupied with at present, at a time when global warming threatens the future of mankind, according to the Premier of British Columbia.

The first problem is that this legislation removes control from democratically elected local politicians, putting it in the hands of unelected special interests with undeclared agendas that run counter, in all probability, to the entire direction of 50 years of land use planning in the lower mainland.

In the last while — I'm sure other members had a look at this as well; at least I know some on this side have — I've had the chance to read City Making in Paradise, co-written by a former Premier of British Columbia who does believe in regional governance, land use and transportation planning. Its subtitle is Nine Decisions That Saved Vancouver's Livability.

I think the misfortune, really, is that if this bill passes, that book is going to be out of date almost immediately. They're going to have to rewrite it with a new heading. It'll be "Nine Decisions That Saved Vancouver and One That Nuked It."

Anyway, what did the decisions save Vancouver from? What are the decisions, the key decisions, saving it from? It was saving it from sprawl. It was saving it from unmanaged growth. It's saving it from loss of farm and recreational lands, from environmental degradation, from the distancing of government from the people and control of government by special interests. It saved it from breakneck freeway-building, which has been the bane of American cities and many Canadian cities, and so on.

What were the tools that allowed it to be saved? Essentially, they were regional planning, metropolitan planning agencies, citizen engagement both in the creation of those agencies and in the stopping of the freeways and the acts that would have damaged or killed neighbourhoods in the interests of short-term gain. Out of all of that came the elaboration of a livable region plan that would shape future growth.

Creating Our Future, I believe, was the first iteration of the plan. That actually breathed life and purpose into the GVRD and ultimately gave rise to the livable region strategy — which the province, if it took its role seriously, would feel obliged to help implement today rather than undermine — a land use plan to guide Vancouver from desolation to hope.

Guess what. Our Premier, as mayor of Vancouver, believed in local control back then. He played an important role in bringing the whole process to fruition, helped to create the regional framework that eventually led to the creation of a regional transportation agency. Like the design of that agency or not, it was based on confidence in and respect for local government.

The first problem with this legislation is that it removes control. It takes it away from local government and it hands it to technocrats, special interests and the provincial minister.

The second problem, which in my mind flows from that, is that it has the potential, as mentioned by my colleague in his preceding remarks, to decouple the land use vision entirely from the transportation plan. That would undermine the progress that has been made in the lower mainland throughout 50 years.

Land use and transportation have to be linked together to realize any vision for a sustainable region. We

simply can't get to denser, more environmentally sustainable communities without investing dramatically in modes of transportation other than the automobile. We also can't get to a place where we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without dramatically ramping up investments in transit, walking and cycling, all of which support denser communities and more efficient movement.

At one time, at least when the Premier was in opposition and some of the members opposite were there with him, they all believed in the autonomy of local government to make decisions about the vision for the Vancouver region and the ways that that would actually translate into investments in transportation. They insisted on that. Now they appear to believe that a group of technocrats, special interests and a provincial "minister of highways" will make the choices and tell local governments what they can do.

I heard the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi go on about the council of mayors and how they were going to somehow control all of this. The idea that the council of mayors has any control is just pure bosh. It's like saying the caboose is running the train or the trailer is driving the truck. Special interests, friends of the government, technocrats — most of whom nine times out of ten will choose the automobile as their planning frame of reference — will be doing the minister's bidding. That's what's going to govern.

I also heard the member from West Vancouver denigrate local government, elected officials, as having no place in making decisions about their communities. Implicit in that, for me, was that the electors themselves, who they represent, should have no say in their government. Government, to me, is about making choices for citizens. The member apparently thinks technocrats should make transportation choices, without any vision, based on their training, without discussion with the communities that are affected by the choices, just with reference to their technical skills and to what a single minister and some special interests want.

I think she might want to take a look at the history of urban planning sometime, maybe read City Making in Paradise, think about it and think about what her Premier thought when he was in local government — even think about what he stood for and what he expounded in this House dealing with TransLink, on this side, when he was in opposition.

He was concerned then about controls to prevent just the kind of interference this legislation is designed to enable. He was concerned then about protecting the community vision and the vehicles for implementing that vision from undue interference by the province, from special interests. Well, I guess it doesn't appear to appear to him now the way it appeared to him then.

The member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi — it really was quite a remarkable demonstration — selected out of the air cyclists as a group of people who should be denigrated as well — cyclists. Cyclists shouldn't be on the board. She snorted contemptuously at the idea that a cyclist would be on a board and make any decisions about transportation.

It's curious. I ask myself: why? Are they unlawful? Don't they shave? Do they wear sandals? Are they marijuana smokers? Presumably, they shouldn't run for office. They can't sit on a board. Apparently, she thinks they're contemptible. Perhaps she thinks they don't pay taxes or they're so eccentric they shouldn't be allowed to play a role in public life or to voice an opinion.

I couldn't help but smile to myself. I wonder what she'll do the day she discovers that some of the transportation engineers who are a part of the technocracy she thinks should rule without reference to local government officials are themselves cyclists who ride bicycles to work. That will be very difficult for her, I'm sure — that day. She'll have to go on a quest to out those engineers, because they are eccentric, or maybe they got their credentials through the mail or maybe they just don't share her windscreen-shaped view of the world.

What about walkers? They're eccentric. I mean, think about it. They're not riding in motorized vehicles, when 80 percent of the people are. That's weird. They're walking about in the rain. They're carrying umbrellas. Think of that. They're wearing running shoes instead of high heels. It's not glamorous. They probably don't own homes either. Almost certainly they don't pay taxes. They're behind the times. If they're not driving a car, they've got to be a bit kooky, wouldn't you say?

That's what it struck me she was saying, really. They certainly wouldn't follow orders from the central government about how to plan their urban region, so they definitely shouldn't be on a board. Bring on the technocracy. We can count on those folks. They'll give us what we want.

That's not even invention. I was thinking of environmentalists, but it would be foolish to go there. But it's funny, you know, Madam Chair, because walking and cycling are, in fact, modes of transportation, and they can be grown to carry more traffic or disregarded and not encouraged, and they can carry less traffic.

It's instructive, if we were to compare say, Holland to North America, and check and compare how things go there. Of course, walking and cycling are environmentally positive, and they don't contribute to global warming. In fact, they reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They don't pollute, and they're not reliant on oil.

I could be wrong here, but the last time I checked, transportation was the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia — the single largest source with over 40 percent of all the emissions from the transportation sector.

Now, here's the dilemma for the GVRD in a nutshell. From 1996 to 2006 the GVRD's population rose from 1.9 million to 2.1 million people, up by 200,000 people. That's disturbing. It must have been growing during the '90s as well, and that's so counterintuitive, given what the members on the other side like to say. But in the same interval, the number of cars went from 1.06 million to 1.3 million. Automobile growth and the use of the automobile is outstripping population growth. So that's the trend line in the lower mainland.

Here's another snapshot, to give you a sense of how this is working. The population between '02 and '03 grew by 31,200 people, but the number of vehicles registered grew by 55,000 or 1.7 vehicles per newcomer. Residents use cars for 70 percent of all peak-hour travel and 80 percent of all travel.

So what's the challenge? The challenge is to invest in the vision for transit, walking and cycling that's embedded in the livable region strategy. The challenge is to overcome the deficit in funding those modes of transportation in the lower mainland by investing more.

Sustained investment is required, but TransLink today is effectively $3 billion to $5 billion behind where it needs to be on infrastructure building in a plan that was designed before the Premier made us aware that humanity is threatened by global warming and that we have to reduce emissions by 2020 by one-third.

That's a serious challenge — eh? It's not going to come out of a business-as-usual scenario. You know, one of the big challenges for the lower mainland is that the business-as-usual scenario is really the one that is being promoted through the Gateway project. If you take all the rapid transit investments underway in the lower mainland, which are positive, and you add in the impact of the Gateway project, in a do-nothing additional scenario, total greenhouse gas emissions are going to rise from 5.5 million tonnes to 6.5 million tonnes by 2020. That's a huge increase, all going in the wrong direction.

To meet the Premier's new green commitment of a one-third reduction over today's level by 2020, which is less than 13 years away now, you have to reduce the 6.5 million tonnes projected by 45 percent. That's unprecedented. That's a 45-percent reduction in order to bring it down to the target level in 13 years.

The clock is ticking, and what they're talking about is undermining the livable region strategy and centralizing control in the minister's office over transportation projects — the "minister of highways" with an obsession with moving cars and trucks. That's the strategy for addressing it.

The whole strategy…. And this was conceived before the Premier had his revelation on the way to his office one day and realized that our future, quite rightly, is endangered with the do-nothing scenario. The planning hasn't caught up, though.

You know, the good news is that in reality, it's doable. It's all doable. But it's not doable if we undermine the vehicle for implementing a positive strategy, and we don't pay attention to the livable region strategy. What we have to do is accelerate the investment that's required to support the realization of that strategy.

One of the things I think it's good for us to keep in mind, when we're thinking about these agencies and about investments in transit, is that 92 cents of every dollar in tax that's collected in Canada by governments today — 92 cents of every dollar — goes to provincial and federal governments. That means that cities, in supplying all of the goods and services that they supply to people — and the array is enormous — are doing that on eight cents on the dollar. Almost all of the money that is invested in those goods and services is coming from property tax, and property tax is a regressive tax base.

I heard, again, the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi, and I think quite rightly, complaining about relying on property tax to fund investments in transit. I would agree with that. I would agree very strongly with that. I think it's a mistake. I think it's an inelastic tax base, and I think it imposes costs of an undue order on people who can ill afford them.

It's also entirely decoupled from use of the automobile. It bears no connection to the primary source of problems, which is undue reliance on the automobile. What we really want to see, and I believe that the member for Victoria-Hillside was pointing towards this, is the making available of gas tax revenues to local communities to invest in low-carbon infrastructures.

Dedicated low-carbon infrastructure is the most effective way we have to reduce emissions. As an aside, it's also the most effective way we have to reduce waistlines, but that's another story. We could get a twofer if we could get people focused on investing.

I have had some experience not in the lower mainland but in the areas that are touched on by this legislation. I've been a transit commissioner, and I've worked at improving bus service with inadequate resources. I've been, for a number of decades now, a walking and cycling advocate. I've enjoyed some success in the course of 20 years, both in my community and in other communities across British Columbia, in planning, designing and building cycling and walking infrastructures and in growing participation in those two modes of transportation.

Because I actually have a good sense of what it is that I'm doing when I'm engaged in that work, I've had some impact on the user group. I have, in my host community, had some impact and, in the case of this region in particular, managed to have some impact on the modal split for both those modes. They happen to be, in Greater Victoria, the highest in the country: the highest level of walking, where we're tied with Halifax — this is walking to work; we're talking peak hour — and the highest level of riding bicycles by a factor of nearly three and growing.

I've also served as a regional district director and served on the regional planning committee. I worked on the regional growth strategy and worked, along with colleagues in this room, to finalize the Travel Choices Strategy, which is our region's attempt to create a transportation plan to support our vision for a livable region both now and in perpetuity.

I believe, and I believe very strongly — I know, in fact — that you absolutely have to have citizen representatives involved in elaborating the community's vision for itself. That vision has to be concretized in some way in a plan, and in order to move forward with that plan, you have to translate that into investments in transit, walking and cycling.

You have to keep cars moving, as well, and you have to provide for goods movement. That will require modifications of road infrastructures. But you will not create a sustainable region by favouring those kind of investments over investments in softer modes.

You also need both elected representatives and citizen advocates to be involved in your local process in order to challenge the technocrats, who tend to think in the most linear and siloed ways about transportation and transit systems and who tend not to think at all about things like walking and cycling. They don't exist for the so-called skilled technocrats that the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi was saying should make all the choices for us.

What galls me about that, in thinking about that, is that walking and cycling are absolutely your best dollar of investment. Any ride that you can shift to foot or bike is your lowest possible cost investment, with your highest yield on the environment and your best way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions — entirely environmentally neutral. Like many of the members opposite and like the board of trade and the chartered accountants…. I think they're often prisoners of the windscreen-shaped view.

I believe that local government assembled as a regional government has to play the role of final decision-maker. I believe the province has an important role to play, as well, not primarily in the form of the "ministry of highways" but rather as a co-partner in actually realizing the regional vision and implementing the transportation plan.

With 92 cents of every dollar in tax revenue collected by senior governments, senior governments have to be involved in funding transit systems in order for us to make the changes we need. This bill is not about improving investments in transit, transportation, cycling and walking in the lower mainland. Much more money is required than is being spent today to keep the modal split that we have.

In order to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets that we have, transit use has to more than double in less than 13 years. That is going to require billions and billions of dollars of additional investment, and this bill does nothing to even begin to address any of that.

I think a focus on putting more resources into play, a focus with the region on determining what the priority systems are to invest in, perhaps some tweaking of the structure of TransLink — which I'm not the best person to advise on, because I have not had to work with it, but many members in this House have had some experience with it — is the direction we should be taking.

For those reasons and because I think discussing it further with local government is the right thing, I will support the motion and take my seat.

L. Krog: This amendment is really about trust. The opposition has no trust or belief or faith that this bill represents any improvement to TransLink's structure; nor does it trust and believe that the bill as it stands is good politics, is good for democracy.

J. McIntyre: I rise because — I did try to rise after the previous speaker — I'd like to reserve my right to raise a matter of personal privilege regarding a comment that was made by the former speaker.

L. Krog: The long history that brings us to this place, that allows legislatures to pass laws, arose out of a matter of trust. The people in our parliamentary system didn't trust that the king should have the power to tax without some responsibility. The people didn't trust that His Majesty or Her Majesty — and it certainly was generally His Majesty in those days — would, in fact, use their moneys wisely.

Over a long period of history the concept became entrenched in the view that there would be no taxation without representation — that the government, the king would have to face Parliament every year in order to receive an allowance to run the affairs of state.

People have become rather fond of the principle that there would be no taxation without representation, that nobody could reach their hand into your pocket and take your money unless they had a right to do so, a right recognized at law.

What this new Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act proposes to do with the creation of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act is create a body in which there is no direct responsibility to the voters, to the users of the system, to the people who are paying the freight, if you will — pun very much intended. There is, indeed, taxation but no representation.

It is astonishing that this government would expect that this bill would slide through this House without comment and opposition.

For those of the listening audience who don't necessarily understand where we're at, we're speaking to an amendment. The amendment is that the bill itself be read a second time six months hence. It's what's referred to commonly as a hoist motion. But the purpose of the motion, hopefully, is to give the government a useful opportunity to in fact have what has been referred to many times by many speakers in this House as W.A.C. Bennett's famous second look. They could step back and consider what the polls, the people, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and their own staff are telling them, and consider what various ministers or backbenchers and, certainly, what Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition might have to say about this.

What Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has to say about this is quite simply that this is the most antidemocratic structure that has been placed before this Legislature, I suspect, in living memory, and maybe in

the history of the province of British Columbia. You have this wonderful proposal….

L. Krog: Some member suggests I smoke. I want to assure the hon. member that although I may have many vices, smoking has never been one of them — anything.

We have section 170, which talks about "eligible individuals." As I said in my remarks in second reading, it's rather like the old pocket boroughs of England. You've got this small body of electors. You have to be this eligible individual, and to be an eligible individual, one qualification is that you cannot hold any elected public office of any type.

So we are excluding people who have placed themselves in front of the voters and have received their confidence, who have been out there on the hustings, put their views forward and taken the judgment of the people. And the judgment of the people was that they were competent to serve, qualified to serve, able to serve and, indeed, should serve. What this bill does is say that those individuals have no right to serve. They are not eligible individuals.

We then go on to talk in section 172 about the screening panel. That says that the minister must appoint, on or before June 30 of each year, one eligible individual. So it can't be anyone who is actually qualified by the political process. The mayors' council on regional transportation must appoint one eligible individual. The mayors' council is an interesting little body which I will discuss a little later. The council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia "must appoint one eligible individual, (d) the board of directors of the Vancouver Board of Trade must appoint one eligible individual, and (e) the Greater Vancouver Gateway Society must appoint one eligible individual."

L. Krog: But taxpayers can't. Taxpayers not only shouldn't, but they mustn't. They can't. This wonderful screening panel then gets to pick and provide to the mayors council a list of 15 qualified individuals who may be considered for appointment as directors.

Now, I've heard of narrowing down the field. I've heard of going through a selection process, but we are talking about an area that essentially has roughly two million or more individuals living in it, and we're going to narrow the field to 15 qualified individuals — 15 only — who will have the privilege of running a major enterprise that will have the right, amongst other things, to lay out a 30-year transportation plan for the majority of the people of British Columbia, based on where they presently live and based on our population.

I'm pausing for a purpose here. When you stand back and think about what has been proposed, it is an astonishing suggestion. It's absolutely astonishing that the government thinks that we should just trot through this, get it out and get on with it. The opposition is offering an opportunity to the government, through this amendment, to think, to reconsider, to ponder.

The opposition is filled with words and suggestions today that would assist the government in doing the right thing around the issue of TransLink. Instead, the government wants to bull ahead, oppose this amendment, not take advantage of this graciously extended opportunity, and instead proceed to create this star chamber, if you will, that will have enormous authority and power over what is, clearly, one of urban life's most important aspects, and that is transportation.

The government talks about a golden decade, and that golden decade presumably includes attacking greenhouse gas emissions, getting us out of our vehicles, creating livable cities, livable suburbs and livable communities. Oh, but the people who actually live in those communities, who live in those livable cities and pay the taxes, will not, in fact, have any direct say when it comes to this.

What does this amendment propose to do? This amendment gives the government an opportunity to go back, look at a different structure, look at a different process of selecting a board, look at a different strategy and restore accountability.

If you will, to go back to my main point, allow only for the taxation if, in fact, there is representation. Because otherwise, you have this narrow little group, this screening panel, standing in the place of literally hundreds of thousands — indeed, over two million people, hundreds of thousands of whom are electors and have a right to vote — to make decisions that we have come to expect in a democratic society. That is, that those who govern us, those who use our tax dollars are, in fact, elected by us.

Now, it's a pretty remarkable proposition, this screening process. You have this narrow group who are entitled to make decisions. Is it a representative group? The member for Saanich South, speaking earlier, suggested — quite wittily, I thought — that cyclists would have to be off the list. Goodness, we wouldn't want any cyclists actually having anything to do with modern transit. In fact, anyone who might have an interest in public transportation is largely off this list.

Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that the individuals who are members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants don't ride the bus every day or that the members of the Vancouver Board of Trade don't ride the bus every day.

I'm not suggesting that, but I don't think it's an unreasonable inference, based on the incomes generally associated with the individuals involved in the chartered accountants, the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Greater Vancouver Gateway Society.

I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that those individuals might not, in fact, ever set foot in a bus. They're probably not the people who want to ride in on a RAV line, you know, or use light rapid transit or light rail. I suspect that those people don't rub shoulders and elbows too often with the common folk who actually would like to get out of their cars, who actually find the cost of transportation in their vehicles prohibitive and who actually have some genuine concern about

We have this little screening panel. I would suggest that one thing the government could do in the six months they have to reconsider, if this motion passes, is to — even as a minimal gesture of reconciliation to the opposition — widen, lengthen, broaden, expand the list of those people on the screening panel.

L. Krog: The member for Nelson-Creston suggests, quite wisely, someone who rides a bus. Someone who rides a bicycle, as the member for Saanich South indicated wisely. The member for Delta South suggests someone who actually drives a bus. There's a novel idea.

How about the workers, going to their places of employment, who ride the bus? How about the people who might actually build a transit system? How about the people who maintain the buses in the transit system?

Once you start to think about it, why don't you just let the people who vote elect the board? Why does the government wish to create this narrow body, which is absolutely unrepresentative of the vast majority of British Columbians, to be the body that picks the selected little list of 15 chosen token members for the Liberal government who will get to run the transit system, who will get to lay out plans that will last for 30 years?

Gosh, even Joe Stalin used to stick to only five-year plans. This government wants 30-year plans. Mao Zedong would be proud of this kind of thinking. We're going to live forever. For 30 years the plan is laid down, unless this government is prepared to step back and take advantage of the six months that's being offered to them.

There's nothing wrong with a screening process, in some respects. We have a screening process in a democratic system. Generally speaking, we run in a party system. You have to run to be nominated as a candidate by a political party.

Even if it's a small political party, they actually get together and vote. They consider your speechmaking ability, your background, your income and your character. In most modern political parties you have to fill out forms that get you to list all your weaknesses and your strengths.

Then you're trotted out in front of the voters, and the voters get a chance to engage in another screening process that we call an election. There's a novel concept — an election.

Where is the election in this bill? I don't see it. I could be persuaded by some member wiser than I, who has perhaps read this bill more thoroughly, that there is a provision somewhere in here that allows for election, but I don't see it. The closest we come to the election is when we talk about the mayors' council on regional transportation, that wonderful little group that gets to meet, they suggest, not less frequently than four times annually.

That's the body that actually gets to make a choice, arguably, from the select list. So once we've had this funny little screening process, which I haven't heard the Minister of Transportation tell this House is replicated anywhere in the world…. Once we have this little screening process completed….

L. Krog: North Korea, one of the members suggests. Perhaps I should investigate further. I'll get research on it right away. But with the exception of North Korea, where else would you have a system that says: "I've got 15 cousins. It's very democratic. You pick nine of them, and there's your board"?

As I said earlier this week, Ferdinand Marcos couldn't have done a better job. The President of North Korea couldn't have done a better job. I mean, the old Chinese politburo couldn't have done a better job.

All we have is a government that seems heck-bent — I can't say the other word in this chamber — on driving this through to ensure that they have this tiny, select, unrepresentative, unelected and unaccountable group who are going to run transit for 30 years or more in the lower mainland. Hon. Speaker, it is absolutely unacceptable to the opposition — absolutely unacceptable.

If the Minister of Transportation thinks it's such a great idea, why doesn't he resign his seat, resign his position in cabinet? We'll just have a little screening panel, and we'll pick an expert. We'll have an expert be the Minister of Transportation. Why should we trust the people of British Columbia, who went through a screening process in 2005 to pick the Minister of Transportation?

Oh gosh, maybe we should do it with the Premier's office too. Heck, we'll just turn the whole government over to a small panel of experts. Why would we want to leave it to mere amateurs? Instead, we'd prefer this draconian process.

You know, I don't think the Medicis ran a system this close. At least the great families of Europe intermarried amongst other great families in Europe in order to expand the bloodline, and this process, in fact, narrows it. The bloodline is down to the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

L. Krog: Incestuous, one member says. Incestuous barely describes it. Incestuous. It is such a small group.

Why doesn't the minister just fess up and say he wants to do it? Why doesn't the legislation simply say: "The Premier of British Columbia gets to appoint the board, and if you don't like it, tough"? That's really what we're saying here.

With great respect to the Chartered Accountants of British Columbia and the Vancouver Board of Trade, I don't think they're the people's friends. I don't think they're representative of the majority of British

Columbians. Yet this is the group that is going to make the sole decisions about how transit is going to be governed.

It's not that they aren't fine fellows, to use the words of T.C. Douglas in his famous speech about Mouseland. It's not that they're not fine fellows; I'm sure they're all fine fellows. But they can't help being what they are, and they are not elected. They are not representative. They do not speak for all of us.

Hon. Speaker, we have a six-month opportunity for the government to step back, to step away from this madness, to step away from this ridiculous bill, to reconsider its position, to come to the appropriate conclusion about what kind of transit system we want. As I've said before, this is crucial. This is absolutely crucial.

The kind of transit system that is going to be developed and created in the lower mainland of this province will have enormous impact on the British Columbia we all want to create, the British Columbia we all want to see come to fruition, where people actually live in the livable communities we all desire, where they're not choking on pollution.

L. Krog: I believe, notwithstanding what some of my colleagues say, that the government probably and hopefully has good intentions in their hearts some where. I'm sure they do, but if this is the best manifestation of their wish to build a better British Columbia, then I say to the government side: take the opportunity; take the six months; do the right thing.

Hon. Speaker, I know that the members are anxious to hear more, but noting the hour and reserving my right to speak more in this debate, I would move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. C. Richmond: I wish everyone a very pleasant weekend and a week out of the chamber. We'll see you all in a little while.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, there will be some time when members are gone. Have safe trips home.

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.