2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 6

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continued second reading of Bill 22.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Fairview. My apologies, Member.

Government House Leader.

Hon. T. Stone: We might want to let the rest of the world know what the other House is doing.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Environment.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview, please continue.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

G. Heyman: It's always a pleasure to sit behind our leader and be welcomed before my remarks. I was delivering my remarks on this bill prior to the adjournment of the House before noon and didn't quite get to the end of my remarks, so perhaps I should summarize.

I see some promise in this bill. I see some significant movement toward moving away from the bad decision in 2007 by then Transport Minister Kevin Falcon that removed governance and policy-making at TransLink from the elected and accountable representatives of the people of Metro Vancouver. I believe that was a mistake.

[1335]

A governance review that was commissioned by the Mayors Council — but reviewed at some length the governance principles across all kinds of public and private agencies, not just in Canada or B.C. but across the world — demonstrated clearly where the different levels of policy-making, management of the implementation of policies and actual operational carrying-out of the policies should lie.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

It clearly indicated that at the policy-making level, that is not a level that should be populated exclusively by managers, certainly not by managers who are unaccountable, as expert as they may be, managers who are not elected, managers who meet in private, managers whose activities are not transparent and, most importantly, who are not also charged with the responsibility for other planning to which transit must be intimately related. That would be economic development. That would be all forms of regional development and planning. In fact, what we have seen is transit in the Lower Mainland not keep pace with the livable region plan, which is Metro Vancouver's regional plan.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

This bill, Bill 22, introduced by the minister, tacitly acknowledges that, although it does set off a rather odd hybrid form, where many of the duties of the board are transferred to the Mayors Council, yet the board continues to exist.

The test for us on this side of the House will be, during committee stage, what we can discover about the meaning of some of the changes, whether they in fact give true decision-making powers on planning and priority to the elected officials in the region or whether there are still residual conflicts that exist between the Mayors Council and the board.

Let me add that it will be very, very important, I believe, to ensure that we don't, in fact, have a conflict that results from a duplication. I've said that the Mayors Council now appears to be a hybrid form of board, yet we still have a board. How will those interactions be effectively managed so we don't waste resources, we don't waste money, we don't have confusion about where policy-making lies and we also don't have confusion about what it takes to implement the policies that are developed by the Mayors Council — the strategic planning and the investment strategy?

Let me focus now for a moment or two on what I think is one of the most significant glaring omissions in this bill. Everybody, I think, understands that you can do all the strategic planning you want. You can set all the strategic priorities that you want. But if you're not in a position to oversee the development of the budget that actually implements those priorities, implements that strategic plan, does it in the form of priority order that you have already established as a matter of policy for TransLink, then it effectively doesn't matter. Or as some people say, those who control the purse strings control the policy.

What is missing from this bill is control over the annual operating budget of TransLink being placed in the hands of the people whose responsibility it is to develop the strategic plan, both the long-term and the shorter-term strategic plans, and set the priorities for TransLink.

Now, I will note — and I look forward to exploring this in committee stage…. In a February 6 letter that was sent to the mayors by the Minister of Transportation, a letter which covered a number of details about the referendum,
[ Page 2944 ]
laid out the minister's vision of how things should proceed and then went on to talk about governance, virtually every item identified by the minister in the letter has shown up in this bill, with the exception of one thing.

Let me preface that one thing by saying I still believe, I believe strongly, and the mayors believe, that without the ability to set and approve the operating budget of TransLink, there is a disconnect between the planning and priority-setting process which has been granted them and ensuring that it actually proceeds in the way in which they envision.

[1340]

It is too easy, far too easy, for a board with budget-making authority, divorced from the people who set the planning and policy priorities, to, in effect, substitute something else simply by the way in which they allocate money.

The minister's letter said…. And I intend to explore this more fully in estimates with the minister. I look forward to his explanation, but this is, in fact, a glaring absence from the bill. The minister said: "TransLink's board will be expected to prepare budgets, oversee operations and implement plans consistent with Mayors Council–approved strategies and plans." That seems to me to be pretty clear, with the exception that it's one thing to expect somebody to do something. It is quite another to require them to do it. I think we all know examples where we have high expectations for friends or family but they don't deliver.

I think that we need to require very clearly, in the absence of handing budget-making authority back to the Mayors Council, which I still believe should be done, and I still believe should be incorporated in the bill, which, of course will beg the question at that point about why exactly we have the second board with not much to do…. This explicit commitment to the mayors on February 6 is absent in any form whatsoever from the bill. It's a glaring omission, and it needs to be fixed.

With that, I look forward to continuing dialogue with the Minister of Transportation at committee stage. I think I have spent quite some time talking about all of the reasons why the change in governance in 2007 was a bad idea, why I believe it was a change in governance implemented by the Transportation Minister of the day for all of the wrong reasons.

It was a change in governance implemented by the Transportation Minister of the day, Kevin Falcon, without regard to all of the commonly held beliefs and knowledge about what works for effective governance, what is best practice for effective governance and what has worked in other jurisdictions. It has created needless conflict with locally elected politicians, needless conflict with the mayors. It has set up a bad dynamic with the Mayors Council.

All of this has been to the detriment of British Columbia's economy, the Lower Mainland region's economy and the people of the Lower Mainland who desire and who have the right to travel on roads that are freer from congestion, far freer from congestion than they currently are, which means that those people who can travel by transit do because it's affordable, accessible and available and that those people who have no other choice but to use roads find that the roads are not plugged and choked with people driving who could otherwise be just as happy on public transit.

This minister, I will grant you, has met some of the commitments he has made to the mayors. He has taken a step away from the bad governance model that was introduced in 2007. He is doing it, I will say, in a bit of a hybrid way, not in a way that I think we on this side of the House would choose to do. Nonetheless, he has given, in this bill, significant planning and priority decision-making to the mayors, where it belongs. That is worthy of notice, and I do take note of that.

Having said that, I think there are some flaws in the bill. We will be carefully evaluating the position we will take on this side of the House as a result of questions that I will ask of the minister and others will ask of the minister during committee stage.

As I have said, the question of budgeting is absolutely key. I don't think anyone who has run a business, anyone who has been involved in municipal governance, anyone who has been involved in this House or politics at the provincial level, anyone, even, who has worked for a non-profit society would believe that separating approval and input — significant, meaningful input — of a budget from the priority-setting process actually works. If you can't implement what your priorities are, your priorities effectively are devoid of meaning.

With that, I will take my seat and turn further speeches over to other members of the House.

[1345]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to stand in this House and speak about this piece of legislation for a number of reasons. The first is that I spent a good 12 years of my life working on transportation issues in Metro Vancouver as a locally elected official, and I served in the capacity of vice-chair and chair of the Mayors Council. I sat on many committees over those years talking about transportation.

As I rise today, I do so because, having given a lot of my own personal time without remuneration…. I did that because the region is absolutely critical to the province, to our economy, and transportation is one of the key arteries that lets the flow of economic growth happen.

I find myself a little bit perplexed that the member for Vancouver-Fairview spent most of the time living in the past and talking about what happened in 2007. There have been four subsequent Ministers of Transportation since that time, and there has been significant work done bringing us to the place we are today, where the minister has brought a piece of legislation that reflects the will of
[ Page 2945 ]
the region, that reflects the priorities of the region, that reflects where we see transportation going in the future and how we can work with local governments to achieve those goals.

The member opposite also talked a lot about TransLink. The reality is TransLink isn't just moving people; it's also moving goods and services. It isn't just about more rapid transit; it's about the major road network. It's about all of the pieces that make a truly integrated transportation system, which the region has not only a significant investment in but has a significant stake in the outcomes as to how that works.

It's easy to criticize a former member of this House and a minister for trying to do something innovative, to break the logjam of disconnect that existed at the time, to change a leadership structure that was not working to the interest of the region, that was very narrow-minded at times and very parochial but that needed to re-evaluate the goals of the region, the goals of a transportation system across the spectrum.

I think to be critical of that and be critical of someone's attempt to try something new and innovative just really reflects the narrow-mindedness in terms of policy that I do see across the way and without an ability to understand the complexity of transportation.

The speaker opposite talked about a report. Pulling things selectively out of a report misses some key elements. Ken Cameron's report that he referred to made a couple of other points that I think are really important to be read into the record of this House.

The first was: "The scope and mandate of TransLink — including not only transit but roads, cycling, goods movement and transportation demand management — are still seen as state of the art internationally." So TransLink and its programs are viewed by the rest of the world as being state of the art as reflected in this report.

[1350]

The second comment is, "TransLink's funding sources are enviable in the eyes of many others because they are diverse and appropriate," in what they reflect in terms of user-pay principles, and that is fundamental. I heard as an elected mayor and I heard from my constituents that they agree: a user-pay principle is something that they support.

The third point that's in the report that was not quoted is: "The achievements of the present structure, in the form of development of an urban transportation system, are considerable and a source of justifiable pride." So to say that the work that was done — the activities of the Mayors Council, the board and TransLink management — has been a waste and has not achieved anything is absolutely incorrect.

As a matter of fact, I believe that we are well served in Metro Vancouver by a system that now needs to move to the next level. When the current minister was put in, one of the mandates that he had was to find a way to work with the local mayors, to find legislation that would meet the goals of the region and the province and to work together to do that.

When we talk about structure, there is a suggestion that the board that was put into place was unelected, unaccountable and had no relevance to the system. That is absolutely and patently incorrect as well. I was there at the beginning of the implementation of the new structure, and I had colleagues from the Mayors Council who sat around the table, who actually left a lot of the meetings because they said: "I don't like this structure. I'm not prepared to work with it, and therefore, I won't participate."

They were able to do that because we do operate in a democracy. But then to criticize the structure that you're not even willing to try and work with and to say it's unaccountable and unelected is not appropriate. Members opposite should be aware that the board is selected by the Mayors Council, is voted on by the Mayors Council.

Indeed, one of the members opposite has a close relationship with someone who chose every time not to sit in on the selection, sat in while the criteria were being discussed but then got up and walked out and said: "I will not vote for the board because I don't want to be held accountable for that decision."

Well, I respect that individual's right to make that decision. I said that publicly at the time. But it was clear to me that there was no willingness to even try and make the structure work. You know what? I could give you a litany of issues around that, disagreements that were held at the Mayors Council. I want to focus on the future. I want to focus, as the minister has done, on solutions, not problems.

One of the realities that I've learned in my life…. And I heard a comment, anecdotally, that I have no credentials and no credibility to stand here. Well, I can tell you that the amount of time I spent in local government looking for solutions, not focusing on problems, absolutely gives me the moral right to stand here and speak about something that I am very passionate about, that I put a lot of my own effort into, along with many others.

And I'm not patting myself on the back. There were many mayors around that table who worked very hard to find solutions, and there were others who didn't want to find the solutions. That's democracy. But now let's talk about the future. What does this bill really hold?

[1355]

Well, first of all, it builds on a system that is meeting the needs of the region, that does have many challenges ahead of it but is recognized around the world as being functional and being one of the places where people come from around the world to look at how it's run, to look at the governance structure and to look at why we've been able to achieve what we have.

That said, the minister introduced a bill that reflected a lot of discussion, a lot of back and forth. And I will say in this House that the ministers that have served this
[ Page 2946 ]
province over the last number of years since 2007 all have been committed to finding solutions — not fighting with the regional government but looking to how we get to a solution.

One of the major steps was when a memorandum of understanding was signed with the region. There were two communities that voted against the memorandum of understanding, and they voted against that because of the very thing that I said at the beginning — not looking for solutions but focusing on an unwillingness to cooperate with government to move forward in a positive way.

That memorandum of understanding forms the foundation of the changes that the minister has brought in, and it forms the attitude of this government that we are going to work with the region. To stand in the House, as the member opposite did, and say that it misses some of the key principles and that there is a suggestion here that there isn't going to be direct input, consultation and work with the region and the elected officials to develop the long-term plans, the strategies and the funding envelopes is absolutely incorrect.

We see in this legislation a mechanism where the Mayors Council, as elected officials, clearly will articulate the vision for the region, what the transportation priorities are. They will be responsible with TransLink management to engage the public in that dialogue and to say to the public: "What is your vision? Here is what we believe you have told us. Do you agree with that?" I think that is a very appropriate process for TransLink, the Mayors Council and the board to work on in order to be able to achieve that long-term goal.

Also, when we talk about the governance and the mayors…. There is some criticism already about this legislation that's come from certain quarters. It is that the mayors still don't have the final approval.

Well, the new structure requires that the Mayors Council can choose not, as they did in the past, to have two seats at the board table when those plans, based on the vision, based on the input, based on public consultation, are brought forward within a funding envelope that we will hear about in another, subsequent bill. The opportunity for the Mayors Council to have direct input on the day-to-day operations at the board table is absolutely fundamental to this governance change, and it gives the mayors a direct seat.

Now, when I was chair of the Mayors Council and a previous minister brought in a change to legislation to allow for two seats from the Mayors Council, the Mayors Council chose not to fill those seats. I was opposed to that decision at the time. I said: "What is the problem with having the chair and the vice-chair sitting at the board table when those decisions are made so that they can come back to the Mayors Council and report to the mayors on the discussions and the essence of where things were being decided so that the Mayors Council could be fully in the loop?"

Do you know the comment that I was given back at that time? "Well, there is a conflict of interest in the mayors having representatives sitting at the board table." I had trouble getting my head around that, because it seemed to me the link between the board and the Mayors Council should be absolutely seamless, robust, ongoing.

[1400]

The argument was made that: "Well, we won't be paid if we sit at that table." Indeed, the minister responded to that and said that absolutely, there would be remuneration. But I remember there were a number of mayors who were willing to go to the board meetings without remuneration simply to do the very thing that the legislation did, and that was to ensure the communication.

I think what's important in all of this is not what was wrong but now what is going to be right. And what are those key principles? Well, the board is maintained to provide that professional input.

One of the other keys with the mayors selecting it…. I don't know if members of this House are aware of this, but the reality is that the Mayors Council, with professional input, developed a matrix of skill sets that the mayors felt should be on the professional board. They wanted transit riders. They did want accountants. They did want to have IT professionals. They wanted the cross-section of professional expertise that could provide valuable input to TransLink management and to the Mayors Council.

The problem was that the relationship between the Mayors Council and the board that they appointed was virtually nonexistent. That was a travesty, because it did not allow for that building of relationship to keep our focus on the vision for the region and how we were going to achieve that.

The suggestion is that the previous governance structure took away accountability. It didn't take it away. It just was never followed through on by all of the parties to make sure that they had the kind of communication and the relationship to ensure that the vision for the region was met.

I want to thank the Minister of Transportation and his team within the ministry for the work that they've done to take all of those issues and to look at them in the cold light of day, to say: how can we develop a governance structure that is going to ensure a seamless transition from vision to action plans to funding envelopes and to delivery of an integrated transportation system? I believe that this legislation has each one of those ingredients inherent in it, and it will deliver that because it recognizes the role of regional planning and it recognizes the need for provincial input.

The minister is now going to have two representatives from the province at the board table, along with the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council and the other members appointed by the Mayors Council to that board. If you look at that and you look at the rest of the world, it is probably the best system that we could possibly have,
[ Page 2947 ]
and it will ensure that decisions made are done in light of the vision, the action plans, the funding envelopes and delivery of an integrated transportation system.

I noted that the member for Vancouver-Fairview also had a couple of quotes, which I have here and would like to quote: "I am concerned that without significant input into the operating budget, the annual operating budget or decision-making power over the operating budget — or something in regulation that links the decisions the board makes about the operating budget to the ten-year strategic plan — we have a potential problem."

I can assure the member, having read the legislation, having sat at the table and recognizing what the minister is going to do in terms of regulations as this moves forward, that that absolutely will not be an issue, because all of the linkages are there.

Another quote I'd like to read: "The Minister of Transportation continues to shirk his responsibility to work collaboratively with regional mayors on funding options for the clearly identified needs in Metro Vancouver's transportation system."

[1405]

Well, you know what? This minister and previous ministers have put in hours after hours to work with the mayors. I believe that the relationship that exists today, with a few exceptions, is a healthy one. It's one of collaboration and communication. It's one that is reflected in this change in legislation that recognizes the role of the local elected officials. But it also recognizes that if the region wants more responsibility, along with that comes the accountability.

What is critical as we move forward — for the taxpayers of Metro Vancouver and the province, because Metro Vancouver isn't a bubble that exists in isolation from the rest of the province — is that the accountability has to be there for every dollar that's invested in transportation. There is only one taxpayer. There is only one taxpayer that funds the future of TransLink and transportation throughout the province.

This minister and this legislation says to the mayors in the local communities that if you want the responsibility, then you have to be willing to take the accountability for those decisions and not blame someone else if it doesn't go the way that you think it should. You will be making the decisions on the vision. You will be given input into the priorities and the funding envelopes and the decisions on how those dollars are being spent, and you will be accountable for those to the electorates that elect you as local mayors and councillors in the region of Metro Vancouver.

I think this legislation reflects, truly, many years of hard work and a commitment by this government to an integrated sustainable transportation plan. It is a reflection of this government's recognition of the role of local governments and how we need to work together in partnership, in collaboration and with a view to the future. That is going to ensure the strong economy that we have in this province and that we're going to continue to build on.

As I said at the beginning, transportation is at the heart of every part of our economic framework. It is goods movement. It is moving people. It's about education — so students can get to schools by the transportation options. It is at the heart of health care for seniors — so that they can get to their doctor appointments and their other medical appointments and move around when they are not able to drive themselves.

If we have the kind of transportation system that the vision has shown we want, then we're going to be able to see people move throughout the region without congestion because we will take cars off the road. We will allow trucks and goods movement, and we will do that in a transportation system that meets the needs both of our economy and of every one of our citizens.

I'm looking forward to the ongoing debate on this bill. I can tell you that the work that has been done, the years of challenges that we face…. I think we have a golden opportunity to move ahead in a positive way and to see a transportation system that is funded and sustainable — and that the buck stops where it should. That is with the decision-makers who are going to be charged with the responsibility to make those inputs and then, finally, to make the decisions that need to be made.

C. Trevena: I stand to take my place in debate on Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act. I do so following the Minister of Education, who has acknowledged he was on the Mayors Council. He was talking about the fact that we were perhaps a bit gloomy about what has happened in the past. I have to ask the minister: if things were going so well, why change it?

I think one of the things we have to recognize is that things haven't been going well. There was a big mistake in 2007.

[1410]

Then–Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon brought in… He separated this whole concept of democracy — just took out democracy. I stood up in this place in 2007 when the then minister, Mr. Falcon, introduced the bill. People wondered why I, as a representative from the North Island, would stand up and criticize this. I have some of my constituents who may be able to afford the ferry ride to get to the Lower Mainland occasionally, but it's not a big issue.

What is a big issue is the fact that we have elected representatives, who are elected to do a job on behalf of their communities and their constituents. We have the Mayors Council, who are elected to represent their communities. As part of that, we all acknowledge — I hope we all acknowledge in this House — the importance of transportation, the importance of public transit, the im-
[ Page 2948 ]
portance of our highways and the importance of getting people and goods moving freely.

Part of that is that we have people who are elected in our communities, who have a voice, who should continue having a voice. So in 2007 we got this…. Basically, the democratically elected representatives lost control over TransLink. It was put into a non-elected board, an appointed board, where there might be, as the minister says, two members who could sit on this. But it wasn't democratic.

We want to see democracy brought back into the system. We hope that this bill will do this. We are wanting to explore the bill. I mean, the minister has the opportunity in cabinet briefings to get all the details about the nuances of how this bill is going to work. We aren't afforded that luxury. We're going to have to find out through committee stage, the next stage of this bill, after we've all put our voice to it, just how this bill will work.

Will it bring back democracy to the TransLink governance? Will it ensure that the Mayors Council, the people who were elected by the people in the Lower Mainland…? Will it give them the voice necessary to do their job, which is to ensure the free movement of people and goods through their communities? That we have mayors who have a vision for how they want the Lower Mainland to develop, as a very livable place?

We are portrayed as one of the greenest provinces and greenest conurbations, metropolises in North America, if not the world. But how are we going to achieve that if we cannot ensure that that vision, that livable cities vision, the ideas that mayors and councils are embodying, is enacted?

The minister sat on the Mayors Council and says that what's going to happen now is that the mayors will be able to articulate their vision. I do think that that is being a bit denigrating to the mayors. They do have a vision already. They can articulate their vision. Unless we are very careful, it's fingers crossed that the TransLink board will ensure that that vision is enacted upon.

As my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview, the critic for TransLink…. And we do have a critic specifically for TransLink, because we acknowledge how very important this is for the whole of the economy of B.C. We're very aware that TransLink and the movement of people and goods in the Lower Mainland is vital for economic stability, economic prosperity, environmental good and social good. So we have somebody who is dedicated there.

As my colleague said, what we seem to have here, and we do need to explore it in the committee stage, is a hybrid structure. We have the Mayors Council that may have more influence, may have more involvement in the board than we have had in the past. We can't guarantee that.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think that we have to acknowledge that for the last seven years there has been a discord. I think people would be really wrong to just ignore that and assume everything had been going on normally. There has been great discourse. I think that is partly responsible to the Minister of Transportation of the day who brought this in, in 2007, Kevin Falcon, who was effectively at war with the system and wanted to ensure that the mayors lost their voice.

The mayors are elected by people in their communities, and they represent the concern of their communities. They represent the concerns of their communities across the board. The reason they run for elected office, whether it's as a councillor or a mayor….

[1415]

We've been talking about municipal elections for the last few days. The reason people actually run for this is because they want to represent the people. They have a vision for their communities. They have a vision. It may seem quite mundane for a lot of people, but they have a vision for how they want to see their communities develop through their transportation policies, through their housing policies, through their parks policies across the board. This is part of the whole meal deal of being a locally elected person.

So to take that responsibility and that ability to be involved in the specific decision-making over TransLink was, really, a blow to the mayors. What we are hoping, what we really do hope, is that this bill will ensure that there is more ability going back to the mayors. But what is troubling is that if they get, really, the opportunity to either put their vision forward to still have it ignored or that they put their vision forward not knowing that the TransLink board will ensure that there is the money available or it will be enacted.

It's very interesting that the minister has…. He's, I think, had a difficult time with his own Premier over this. There has been back and forth over a number of issues, and we're going to be discussing, in the next bill, a specific one. But he wrote to the TransLink board back in February and committed to them that in this session there would be a piece of legislation. We actually have two pieces of legislation in front of us. He did commit to the board that there would be this piece of legislation.

The concern that I think is being voiced on this side of the House is that we want to make sure that that democratic voice is heard and that democratic voice is actually acted upon. It's not just a voice going to an appointed board and saying, "This is what we'd really like. Please, will you do it?" but: "This is what we really like. We're going to do it." It's as simple as that.

The fact that we have the Mayors Council, the board…. As I say, I'm not going to go over what my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview expressed about this, about the concerns about the potential confusion of governance. But the fact is that we want to make sure that if we're going
[ Page 2949 ]
to have this, it has teeth.

I think the telling part of it is in the letter from the minister to the TransLink mayors back on February 6 — so just a week before we came back into the Legislature — saying that "TransLink's board will be expected to prepare budgets, oversee operations and implement plans consistent with the Mayors Council–approved strategies and plans." That sounds great. But it is the "expected to."

The word that is very powerful and people use with caution — but lawyers are very aware of it, and people who love grammar are also aware of it — is the word "shall." Shall gives suasion. Shall says that the TransLink board will do it. This is going to happen. "Expected to" is like, "Well, we really want you to do this, and we would expect you to do this, but if you don't" — what is it, a rap on the knuckles, no decisions?

I think that this is a bit of a concern because there is a legacy, despite the Minister of Education's effusiveness, of caution between the Mayors Council and the ministry on this. They knocked out once in 2007, and they're treating this with some caution.

What would be ideal is that the transportation system in the Lower Mainland, as the transportation systems in other communities, is locally controlled. We have the mayors who are elected to represent the wishes, ideals and thoughts of their constituents. If their constituents don't like them, they can be voted out. Every three, or maybe now four, years that can happen. But they are democratically responsible.

A board is not responsible, is not democratically accountable. So I do think that this is the underlying concern, that we still have this hybrid. We acknowledge that the new legislation has the…. The three-year base plan and the seven-year outlook are replaced by a ten-year investment plan, which is going to be approved by the Mayors Council.

[1420]

I'm not sure whether it's going to be reviewed every year or how regularly. Let's hope that we can find this out in the committee stage. I think we're approaching this bill not in a confrontational manner, as was expressed by the Minister of Education, but we want to actually look at this, explore it, see what went wrong in the past, learn from history, learn from the government's own mistakes of seven years ago and see how we can make sure that this is the best possible piece of legislation. We're very concerned about that, so these are some of the things that we'll be asking about.

This legislation also ensures that approval of the 30-year regional transportation strategy is transferred to the Mayors Council from the board. Now, that's very good — a 30-year vision coming back to democratically elected people. Good idea. You have a strategy, a long view, as you see your communities develop. I think we've got to be cognizant that communities are developing very differently these days than they were 30 years ago. We're living in an era…. Two things in B.C. — one is exponential growth in the Lower Mainland of population but also of climate change.

People are looking at how we are going to be approaching all our community living, whether it's housing, whether it's transportation. Any part of our community development is going to have the awareness that we have climate change. Transportation is central to this, so a 30-year vision, having that scrutiny, is very, very important, and having two people who are responsible to an electorate, not to those who are appointed.

The bill also allows for the responsibility for executive compensation transferred to the Mayors Council from the board. I don't know whether this is possibly a bitter pill or it's going to be a good thing. Again, this is going to be analyzed when we get to committee stage. I'm sure that some mayors think that this might be very good.

Some mayors are going to be very cautious about this, left with some of the nasty stuff, where if this bill doesn't work properly, the mayors are left with all the tough stuff, and the board still has the control. That's not going to make anybody happy. So let's see. Let's work through this bill and see how we can make sure it works for the mayors as well as the governance structure.

They're also saying that the bill will take on the commissioner's responsibility, including the approval of fare increases, the authority over the sale of major assets and the oversight of TransLink's complaints and customer satisfaction survey process. That's a lot of responsibility for the Mayors Council. I think it is important, but that's important if they have control. If they are charged with setting the fares and selling assets and dealing with all the customer satisfaction but don't actually have authority…. It's one of these questions like: why are you handing us this bitter pill? Why do we have to do your dirty work for you?

This, again, is going to be something that really needs to be analyzed. I think it also hinges on the next bill, which I believe is the next bill on the order paper, Bill 23, the authority funding referenda act, which looks at new ways of funding local transportation in the Lower Mainland, funding for TransLink and finding ways of ensuring that funding.

I think that some of the mayors are going to be looking to see what comes out of that before feeling too eager about this.

This is a bill that is really, as they say, a long time coming. Since 2007 we needed to get a democratic system back into Lower Mainland transportation. I think that mayors acknowledge that it allows input into planning now. Most of them acknowledge that it isn't perfect, but there is also concern from a number of the mayors about the fact that they don't have control over the annual budgets. I think that this is going to be one of the sticking points.

[1425]

I mean, we have the Mayors Council chair, who is the North Vancouver district mayor, Richard Walton, saying just last month: "I can't represent the fact we're all happy, because I think, still, the large issues we want to address have not been addressed" — very concerned about the budget.

Others saying that while it's consistent with the letter…. I quote the Richmond mayor, Malcolm Brodie: "If we're not overseeing the budget, how can we ensure the vision is being carried out?" As I said earlier on: here's our vision, fingers crossed that the board will approve it even though the mayors are left with dealing with the whole difficult thing of compensation, fare increases, and so on.

Again, we've had the mayor of Coquitlam saying that it hasn't always followed that what we decide, even on the core budget and the supplementary budgets, is presented to the Mayors Council. Again, concerns there.

Concerns also from the Port Coquitlam mayor, who says it's not what we wanted. Because what we wanted was complete control, which is what happened before.

There is also concern from the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, who dismisses it as "all spin."

I think that on this side of the House we want to make sure that we get the right legislation. We think that the mayors, as the elected representatives — they have a council, they come together, and they're working on behalf of their communities — should be the ones who are responsible for this planning.

We shouldn't be looking necessarily at a hybrid structure. But if you're going to have the hybrid structure, make it work for all the parties. That's what we're hoping we will find during the committee stage: how it's going to work, how it's going to fall into place, what the minister's vision for this is and whether it meshes with a vision of some of the mayors.

Or is it just: "My predecessor, Kevin Falcon, made a mistake, and I'm going down this way because I'm trying to fix it a bit but not all the way, because I haven't got the authority. My Premier doesn't want to give me the authority, so this is just a little bit." So we need to clarify that.

What we're doing in this place we should be doing with seriousness. We should be looking at things seriously, because it is hard to fix them, and a lot of people's lives really depend on them. I mean, when we're talking about TransLink, we're talking about economy, social issues, environmental issues.

We are talking about serious issues that really need to have serious discussion, serious debate and serious policy — not a policy that's done out of bitterness or that comes out of whim or expedience but a policy that is really working for the best interests of all the people living in the Lower Mainland, all the people living in the TransLink area — and people outside of there who rely on that area operating effectively and efficiently.

That is the area through which most of the goods that we produce in our province — whether it is coal or whether it's lumber…. Whatever it is, the resources are shipped through the Lower Mainland, so it is necessary for all of us that this happens right, that we get the best governance model for that area, for TransLink, so that our roads are operating well and the transportation system is operating well and so that our economy and our social structure and our environment can be sustained and can go forward with the fewest problems.

I think that we should acknowledge that this comes out of a major mistake back in 2007. It is an attempt to try and fix that mistake. Let's hope it is an attempt that works.

We will have many, many questions during the committee stage of this bill, to ensure that we get some of those answers. With that, I take my place in debate and look forward to hearing from others who are participating.

[1430]

S. Hamilton: I'm pleased to stand up and speak in support of Bill 22. I'm going to find it very difficult to come up here and speak on the heels of the eloquent words that were espoused by the Minister of Education. They did resonate with me, and I hope they resonated with every member in this House, because he was there. He was in the trenches. He saw the problems. He saw the dysfunction.

He acknowledged the fact, as has being acknowledged on the other side of the House, that there are things that need fixing. That's what we're doing. We're responding to the needs of the mayors in Metro Vancouver and, as such, looking at ways to improve TransLink governance, of course.

We are listening, and that really is what this bill comes down to and what it's all about. The acknowledgment that there were problems, that there are problems, is basically at the centre of our decision-making. That's what is pushing this bill through, and I'm glad I am able to support it. The role of government is to govern, and we're showing real leadership that considers the best interests of British Columbians.

When Metro Vancouver mayors asked for more say on TransLink, we listened. This bill gives local governments more control over the future of their transit system. The Mayors Council has asked government for more say over how investments are made in transit and how planning is done for the region. We responded with amendments to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.

The changes allow the Mayors Council to approve TransLink's long-term strategies, including a 30-year regional transportation strategy. That's important, because it gives control to the people who will make the most use of transit in their communities.

The Mayors Council assumes responsibilities that have been the responsibilities of TransLink commissioners, who operate, essentially, outside the democratic process.
[ Page 2951 ]
Again, both sides of the House have acknowledged that fact, and we're moving to change that.

Under this legislation, the Mayors Council will approve fare increases, decide the sale of major assets and oversee TransLink's complaints and customer satisfaction survey process. That's a direct connection between how service is delivered and the people who will be paying for the bulk of that service.

The Mayors Council will also oversee how much TransLink executives and board directors are paid. Our government will add two provincial appointees to the board, though the size of the board will be unchanged, to improve communications between TransLink and the Mayors Council and this province.

As I said, our government recognizes the value of municipalities. Many of us in this House began our political careers at the municipal level, myself included. We know how important it is to have a provincial government that's willing to listen and to respond. This legislation is a great example of how we're building those relationships.

We're taking local government seriously and working with the cities and towns of this province to better represent the people of British Columbia. Having a functional relationship with other levels of government allows us to achieve what voters want, what our constituents are asking from us. After all, the goals are the same, even if we have different roles to play in how we get there. Whether you're a politician or represent a provincial or federal riding, all of us want a secure society.

We want a strong economy and a bright future for our kids, and I'm pleased to be able to play a role in that at the provincial level now.

Our government has been able to set the stage for future investment. We balanced the budget for the second time. That fiscal restraint is what the people of British Columbia expect from their government at any level.

When the people of British Columbia chose us last May to lead this province, one of the promises we made was to give taxpayers a say on how their money is spent on transit. We're following through with that promise, and we're doing so in a way that works for local governments.

We promised to reimburse local governments for the cost of that referendum, and this legislation keeps that promise. We're also keeping our commitment to allow the Mayors Council to have direct input into the wording of any referendum. And when the mayors asked for more time to hold a referendum, we agreed to work with them.

If the people of Metro Vancouver are being asked to pay for new taxes or fees on top of those that local government and TransLink already collect, then taxpayers must have a say. We're listening, and we are proud to have the mayors of Metro Vancouver on our side.

K. Corrigan: Well, it's been really interesting to hear lectures about democracy and accountability from the other side of the House when we have a fundamentally undemocratic board, essentially picked from the business friends of the Liberals. It's been that way since the beginning, and nothing has changed over the last several years.

[1435]

I'd like to say that what we have here with this bill, with these changes, is essentially providing some areas of control to the mayors, all the crappy stuff — getting to raise fares, getting to decide what the compensation is for the board members that are unelected and unaccountable, all those things — but no control over the one thing that maybe makes a difference.

I wonder how this provincial government, how the Liberal government on the other side, would feel if they were told: "Look, you can do a ten-year plan, as long as it meets our goals." Part of the catch here is that the ten-year plan has to fit within the government's approved economic plans and strategic plans, so there's no real control. There's less there in this strategic planning.

How would this government feel if they were suddenly told by another level of government: "Oh, by the way, you get to do this, this and this, but you don't get to set the budget every year"?

It's outrageous. If you don't have control of the funds, if you don't have control of the everyday planning of the system, which is what they used to have, there is no democracy whatsoever. It doesn't matter how much you move the deck chairs on the Titanic around. It's all smoke and mirrors. There is no democracy in this process, there has been no democracy, and there continues to be no democracy. Until this government figures that out and does something about it — it has no intention — there will not be peace with the local mayors.

I was very interested to hear…. It's so interesting to see that we have people who were formerly in local government sitting on the other side, including the Minister of Education. Mind you, the Minister of Education wasn't exactly necessarily looking out for the interests of the region. The Minister of Education had other aspirations, which he has now played out by coming here and working with the government that he's in.

Hon. P. Fassbender: That's so cruel.

K. Corrigan: No, it's kind.

It's funny to talk about…. We're going to be talking in the other bill about a referendum. Every single mayor in the Lower Mainland on the Mayors Council, every single mayor said: "We don't want a referendum." And yippee. What are they getting now? It's like being told: "Lookit. You're going to be executed, but you get to choose the date." I mean, really, it is pathetic, and it's sad.

I remember back in the 1990s, the good old 1990s when we were in power, we had the transit system of the year for North America — the transit system of the year, 1996, run by the good old NDP. And do you know what
[ Page 2952 ]
happened? Here's what really happened. Let's talk a little bit about the history of why we are where we are today. Why don't we talk about why we are where we are today.

We had democratically elected representation running transit in the Lower Mainland. Then in the early 2000s, the then Minister of Transportation, now Kevin Falcon, did not like what that democratically elected group of mayors said they wanted to do and came up with some excuse, saying they were dysfunctional.

They were exercising democracy. They were discussing the plans. They were figuring out what it is they wanted to do with their transit system and were doing well and planning well, like they do with their strategic plans for the community as a whole. That's a democratic exercise wherein every single community in the Lower Mainland got together and agreed about what they want to do with their community.

If this government would just get out of the way, the Lower Mainland would just do fine. Instead, they have their friends. They have the things they want to do. They have their business friends.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Well, let's talk about business friends. Let's talk about what the minister….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Corrigan: Let's talk about what the Minister of Education was talking about. He used the words "accountability" and "democracy" and "election."

When you talk about the board, how did this board come into place? First of all, they fired the democratically elected board. They got rid of them. Kevin Falcon, in a pique — because he was not getting his way, was not getting the priorities that he wanted for transportation — fired the board. He said: "We're not going to have democracy anymore. Instead, what we're going to do…."

I see lots of members who were around then that were in local government. You should be ashamed of yourselves for not speaking up for local governments and instead becoming toadies for this government.

[1440]

Let's get rid of democracy. Let's not even have elections for this place. What the heck. Let's appoint a board that's put together by business. They can do a much better job because they're professionals, and we're a bunch of amateurs.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Well, really, it's the same argument. Why not? I'm sure we could find a business board that could put together 85 people who'd do a much better job, and then you wouldn't have to deal with that damned democracy and accountability and answering to your communities.

Here's how the board was originally picked. A panel….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: What's so frustrating, member opposite? It is frustrating. You know what? It is entirely frustrating to have a government that cares so little about democracy.

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: Yes, so little. Let's get rid of the 85 members. A corporate board could do a much better job than any of us — any of you.

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: Really? Well, then why don't we bring a little bit to the Lower Mainland?

Anyway, I'm going to get back to the point.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let's have one speech at a time, please.

K. Corrigan: One speaker — right. I get my little moment here.

The way this was originally put together, TransLink was taken away, just simply gotten rid of, by this government. Instead, a screening committee was put together by then Premier Gordon Campbell, with representation from the board of trade, the institute of chartered accountants and the Gateway Council. They describe themselves as a "dynamic, industry-led organization of senior executives from the seaports, airport, carriers and other companies engaged directly in the gateway transportation business." I think it's still mostly the same players.

What they do…. This is democracy and accountability for you. What do they do? They come up with a list, and that list goes to the Mayors Council. They don't know who has applied. I don't think anybody who is anything but….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: I absolutely know what I'm talking about.

A list is…. I'm sorry that the minister has already spoken because I'd like to find out exactly where I'm wrong in this. The list comes together. It comes to the Mayors Council. They don't even know who applied. The list is put together by this group, who then presents: "You get to choose who you want from this list that we've given
[ Page 2953 ]
you." Now that is not democracy.

What have we got now? What do we get now in this bill? Well, what we get is no ability to have anything to do with the budget. You don't get to have control of the budget. A ten-year plan…. By the way, the minister was being quite upset during earlier discussions, saying: "They have to come up with a plan. They have to come up with a vision." That ability to plan is exactly what this government took away from the mayors in 2007. "You can't do it anymore. We do it for you. This board, this private board, does it."

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: Really? Baloney? I've been watching this stuff for a long time.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, please be careful in your speech.

K. Corrigan: The ten-year plan — they get to participate. It's like ParticipACTION: you get to participate. In looking at the ten-year plan, they have to consider the provincial transportation and the province's objectives, including their economic objectives, which gives more control to the province rather than less.

Get to help choose the question on the referendum. Every single mayor in the Lower Mainland said: "We don't want a referendum. That is no way to…."

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: There was a unanimous response. You weren't there at the time. There was a unanimous response — unanimous disapproval of having a referendum.

Again, you don't get to….

Interjection.

[1445]

K. Corrigan: I'm not making it up. It would be hard to make this stuff up. The complete lack of respect for democracy would be hard to make up.

You get to raise the fares. You get to be the bad guys. You get to be the bad guys who set the remuneration for senior staff. But you can't cut back, of course, because there would be wrongful dismissals. You get to set the board's remuneration. So you get all the dirty jobs. They get all the dirty jobs, and they get no…. If the government wants to give them responsibility, give them back the budget, because that's the only thing that matters.

And now the government wants to reintroduce the idea of having two members on the board, which they know has been rejected by the Mayors Council as undemocratic. I know the member opposite, the Minister of Transportation…. Now, I do believe the Minister of Transportation did advocate for, would probably have supported…. Given his present position, I think he probably would have advocated for that. But of course, because he was the chair of the Mayors Council, he would have got one of those positions. He would have had one of those positions.

Here's what a report said that was commissioned by the Metro Vancouver regional Mayors Council, which has repeatedly called on the province to make reforms. They had consultants, Acuere Consulting, who examined practices in 13 cities around the world.

It concludes that TransLink's structure with an appointed board of directors in control of all decisions except major revenue increases is an anomaly worldwide, while other jurisdictions invariably have elected representatives in charge who answer democratically to the people being served — as opposed to what this government has done here.

The report found accountability is "almost completely missing" from TransLink's current structure, and it's less than ideal on transparency, responsiveness, clarity of purpose, advocacy and productive relationships.

The report again says: "The province has exercised a dominant interest, feeling free to impose its priorities on the region and reluctant to provide a role in transit for local government institutions it did not directly or indirectly control."

I appreciate that some of my colleagues have said that they'll wait and see, and maybe there are a couple of little tidbits in here. I think it's just going around the edges and saying: "What is the absolute minimum that we can do in order to fulfil what we have been promising for several years, which is to review this structure because it's not working?" It never worked from day one.

A little nibbling around the edges, but this is not going to be bought by the local mayors. They are not happy with this. They're having a referendum imposed on them that every single one of them said they didn't want.

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: That's a change. That might be a change.

Unfortunately, it does not address the fundamental problem with governance of TransLink, which was pointed out in this most recent report, which is: there is no democracy at TransLink. It's controlled in a backdoor way by this government, has been controlled since 2007, because this government wanted to be able to control the decisions that were made in greater Vancouver. And if that means getting rid of democracy, then so be it.

M. Hunt: I have to admit to you that one of the real disappointments, I thought, in coming to the provincial
[ Page 2954 ]
government was that I was going to miss my times with the mayor of Burnaby. The mayor of Burnaby would constantly accuse me of revisionist history when I would recount different things that had happened in Metro Vancouver. I am just so delighted to be able to follow the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake and to be able to give my version of history and what actually happened in history.

We spoke about that back in July of last year, as there was a resolution concerning TransLink that was brought forward in this House. We had a discussion at that time about it.

[1450]

At that time I had recounted some of the history of TransLink and the tensions that were between the locally elected officials and the provincially elected officials. I'm just delightfully amazed that the good member for Burnaby–Deer Lake described that as the good old days of the 1990s. In fact, TransLink was originally created with 15 members. Three of those members were, in fact, from the government of the day, which was the NDP side of the House — including one of the members that currently sits with us today, who I will leave anonymous and let that individual speak if they so choose to.

Those three members of the provincial government that were working with the locally elected officials quit. They refused to attend because of the tensions at the meeting, I suppose, because they never did give us the reasons why they quit. Then, ultimately, the legislation was amended to take those three provincial members off the TransLink board, because of the inherent tensions that were built into the way that TransLink was built.

I guess I should pause for a moment just to put this into context. I am the only elected official who served the entire nine years that elected officials were governing TransLink. So I guess I have the context to be able to give the history.

Interestingly enough, TransLink in the 1990s was given all these wonderful ways to raise money to be able to create transportation and transit and deal with all these goods and the movement of goods and services and all those wonderful things. Except when we tried to use them, all of a sudden we found strings attached back here. The Premier of the day said: "Vehicle levy? Oh, no, no. You can't do a vehicle levy. We're not going to allow that one."

It was in the legislation. It was something in the Valhalla days that was given to us, but we weren't allowed to use it. That was the Premier. And I'll just say the party that he was Premier of was the NDP — okay, just so we get it clear — the guys who created the legislation in the first place.

Then we get on with life. We try to struggle. We try to come up with a plan. But that was a plan that we had gone through extensive consultation on with the electorate. We had done all sorts of things in creating that plan. And then, bingo, the Premier of the day says no.

Well, by the same token, let's be fair here, because in this House we're all in this thing together. The reality is that we then went through another plan. We created the parking stall tax. We tried to work through the parking stall tax to try to be fair to Vancouver and Richmond, who had the most parking stalls that were being charged. We tried to work that. Again, the concept: trying to spread the pain all around so everybody was contributing, everybody was working together to build a good transportation system in the Lower Mainland.

Regrettably, the Premier of the day said: "No parking stall tax. We're not going to let that one happen." So this continued tension between what TransLink wanted to do and what the provincial government, the elected officials at the provincial level…. We had this tension between the two. They both were elected by the same group of people. They were both saying, "We represent the people; we want to give action on behalf of the people," and coming to two completely different conclusions.

I am very proud of this minister that we have today, the Minister of Transportation. During the election one of the platforms we put forward is that we want to solve this problem. We want to get this thing solved so we can get on with good transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland. This minister, to his credit, went out and listened.

Let's just think for a moment who he listened to and the dispersion of ideas that he listened to. He certainly listened to the Mayors Council's opinion on things. He certainly listened to some of his own caucus members, because I want to assure you that I was talking to him, and he was glad to receive my opinion. I don't doubt that there were many others that spoke to him, as well as the general public. He listened to them.

[1455]

I, quite frankly, had my doubts, because we had seen previous ministers work on this file and no progress being made. This minister is making progress. He is heading in the right direction. I credit him for that, and I stand in this House to credit him. He is working on it, he's listening, he's taking the input, and he's working at getting solutions that are going to work.

Ultimately, the Mayors Council — and yes, we've heard this from both sides of the House — asked very specifically if they could get control over the long-term plans and how to finance those plans. That we have in this legislation. They wanted to be able to manage the 30-year vision for where this is going and how we're going to get there. That's in this legislation.

Ultimately, the funding of it has always been the problem from day one. Actually, to be bluntly honest with you, although I was not in the House during the 1990s, I have the sneaking suspicion that the NDP government of the day wanted to get rid of the problems with funding TransLink. I'm sure that's why they created it. They
[ Page 2955 ]
just wanted to push those decisions off to another order of government, to let them handle it and deal with it.

No matter what you try to do, there are going to be people furiously mad with you, one way or the other — the ones that want more transit and aren't getting it and the ones that are having to pay for it and are not using it. We constantly have this tension. We constantly have a problem. But that's part of politics. That's part of the art of politics and working the compromises and working on things together. This legislation is giving that opportunity. It's giving that power to the Mayors Council to get on with the job and get things done.

In fact, I would suggest that possibly the amendments of 2007 — we've heard that discussed here too — were trying to deal with the constant conflict that we had in TransLink coming to decisions. Some people say we were dysfunctional, that we didn't get anything done, but the Golden Ears Bridge is there today to the credit of the TransLink elected officials. The Canada Line was built and is there. We can go down the list of huge things that happened during those nine years and were set on course in those nine years. We got it done because we had a vision.

Yes, it was painful. I have a certificate on my wall for chairing the mother of all Metro Vancouver meetings. It was nine hours long, five challenges to the chair — and yes, I was the chair. It just was a most interesting meeting. But at the end of the day, we had the vote that said: yes, let's build the Canada Line. Today people are travelling it and enjoying the benefits of that good transit system. Without controversy? No. Without challenges? No.

This legislation that is before us is working at cutting those strings back to Victoria so that the elected officials can get on with the job of building transit.

Now, by the same token, we have another piece of legislation — which I'm only going to slightly refer to, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker — subsequently, to follow this, that deals with the issue of the tension between the provincially elected officials and the locally elected officials concerning TransLink. I think: "Well, is it what they wanted?" Well, no. But by the same token, again it's a compromise that can work so that the citizens work on the basis of buying into a vision and into the pain that that vision is going to be in order to get things done.

Is a referendum not democratic? I couldn't believe hearing those words in this House — that a referendum is not democratic. I think it's extremely democratic because the actual people who are going to pay the bills are the ones that say yes and no. "Let's get on with this. Let's do this." As a matter of fact, I heard the words that this is against democracy and all of those sorts of things.

I remember during the 2000s that there were those who were complaining because we as the TransLink board, as locally elected officials, were not directly elected to that office. Therefore, they said that was not democratic. So even the original can be argued, depending on your perspective, that it was not democratic.

As for me, I believe it is democratic. I believe it is working in the spirit of that because we have democratically elected people making the decisions. They are there representing their local municipalities. They're representing their people.

[1500]

It's a federation of the municipalities, 22 member municipalities, plus First Nations working together in order to find solutions to get things done, to get transit and transportation moving in the Lower Mainland. That's why I will be supporting this bill.

I want to say it one more time so that nobody can think that I didn't say it: I am proud of this minister and this legislation being here.

H. Bains: I went through this, I think the previous ten years almost, going back to 2007, actually — if you really look at what brought us here. And as you know, 2007-2008 is the time when the debate was going on at the Mayors Council.

These are the elected mayors or councillors that made up the TransLink board. These are the people who are elected, or were elected, from their communities, and they were accountable to their communities. They knew what was needed in their communities because they are the people who make land use decisions. They would be the right body to make the right decisions, because all experts in the world will agree that land use decisions and public transportation go hand in hand. There's no argument about that.

So who is best in that position? Mayors and the councillors, in their city halls, make decisions on land use every day. They also know what is needed as far as the services needed to serve that community as far as the transportation is concerned. So they were the right mix. They were the right body to make the decisions to look at this very, very important but complex situation that our growing communities face. And it's all over the world. Every city has huge and complex challenges when it comes to public transportation, when it comes to moving people and goods.

At the same time, you're talking about how to be responsible to our future generations, which means: how do we look at and protect our environment? I think that was the duty, that was the responsibility, that those elected mayors prior to 2007 did a remarkable job on. If you look at what they were able to deliver in the Lower Mainland, it's remarkable. And since that time, what do we have? This government came to the table kicking and screaming. Finally, they worked with the mayors so that we have the Evergreen line.

If you may recall, Mr. Speaker, and those members on that side also know, it was becoming a joke because there was no leadership coming from this government here. The mayors weren't allowed to do the work that
[ Page 2956 ]
they needed to do because of the change in the government in 2007. No wonder people who were hoping to have the Evergreen line built on time started to call it the Nevergreen line. You may remember that. They used to call it the Nevergreen line because they stopped believing that this government is ever going to deliver on that promise.

Finally, it was the mayors again who showed the leadership and advised this government of what is needed. That's when the two cents per litre was approved here in this House so that they could have the revenue that they need to pay for their portion of the Evergreen line. As you know, it was a three-way split. It was the provincial government, federal government and TransLink. It was TransLink that was having a difficult time in coming up with their portion to fund their $400 million.

I think I will be very, very cautious in looking, at committee stage, at exactly what this Bill 22 does, what the intent is.

[1505]

Mayors, time and again, ever since 2007 when they were removed from being on the board, have been saying that they are removed from the decision-making table and that an unelected board is making all those decisions behind closed doors. Once they come up with a plan, the Mayors Council, then, is required to say yes or no to that plan. They could not amend it, could not change it. They have to say yes or no.

If they said yes and they require more money, then it was the mayors who had to find the new money. It was a system that was designed to fail. How do you ask someone: "Make a decision, but you cannot amend it. You cannot change it. You have no participation in designing and planning that plan, but you have to say yes or no. Once you say yes, if there's additional money needed, you have to find the money." I mean, it just does not work that way.

Also, they were saying: "We're the ones who are accountable to the people who elected us. We know what goes on in our communities. We know where the growth is. We know what is needed when it comes to land use decisions and match that with the transportation decisions." But they were far removed from that decision. All they could do….

And the Minister of Transportation can sit here, as he did all of his life when he was on that board, being an apologist for this government. He's still doing that. He got awarded for that, by the way. That's why he's sitting here.

I think the reality and the facts are different. I remind the minister how frustrated he was even, at the time when he was on the board, with this government. I'll show that to you, and I'll read the quotes from the minister.

The problem was just because the Minister of Transportation of the day, Mr. Kevin Falcon, had a little snit, had a fight with the mayors because the mayors were making the decision — who were democratically elected, and the councillors. The minister didn't like the decision that they were making, so he fired them. So democratic.

As the Minister of Transportation was standing here earlier on and praising this government and the board of how democratic they are and how accountable they are…. He didn't like the decision that they made. He fired them. That's how democracy works in their world but not with the rest of the world, not on this side of the world.

What did he do? Replaced those members. Who did he replace them with? Not through election. He went and said they will be from the board of trade, Gateway Council, chartered accountants and the Minister of Transportation. So much democracy there. As the Minister of Transportation and my friend from Panorama are talking about how democratic they were in the last ten years.

That's what happened. That's why hardly any decision got made. In fact, if you compare to the services we had back then to the services that we have today, there's a cut in services right now. So much leadership coming from this government that we have to take cuts in transportation services.

My friend comes from the Surrey-Panorama region where, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you…. The members from Panorama and Tynehead know, and the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Education knows, that south of the Fraser right now we have one hour, on a per-capita basis, of public transportation compared to 1.9 hours for Vancouver-Richmond-Burnaby. About half. So much leadership coming up from those elected on the government side from Surrey.

This is the fastest-growing community. It's not that they could stand up here and argue: "Oh, we didn't know that Surrey was growing that fast." They can't make that argument. They knew it. They knew it in 2001, and they knew it in 2007 — that Surrey is the fastest-growing community.

We need more buses. We need more public transportation. Guess what happened. We got cut. I'll tell you exactly where the cuts were. I'll remind the Minister of Education where the cut had to be made — because there's no money; there's no funding coming — because of lack of leadership from this government. They ran away when there was a chance and the time for them to make a decision.

[1510]

That's not leadership. They ran away from their responsibility: "Oh well, by the way, yes, we need the public transportation, and yes, we need to increase the services, but we're not going to make any decision. We'll have a referendum. Oh well."

Why wasn't there any referendum when Evergreen line was built? Why wasn't there any referendum when the previous two lines were built? Why wasn't there any referendum when Port Mann Bridge was built? All of a sudden…. I ask the members from Surrey to pay real
[ Page 2957 ]
attention here. When it's Surrey's turn now, when it's Surrey's time now, they're running away from the responsibility and saying somebody else is going to make a decision. That's not leadership.

Let me go back into the history. My friend from Panorama started with the history, and I was hoping that he would continue on, but he stopped at 2001. I'm going to fill inthose blanks for my friend. He talked about how the government was interfering here in the 1990s. They wanted to do the work. The minister here, the government of the 1990s, would say: "Oh no, you can't have that."

But let's talk about the last ten years. I will go back to, actually, the Minister of Education and see how he felt. On March 23, 2012, the day after the Premier announced the audit and ruled out the vehicle levy, the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Lekstrom, admitted that he and the Premier had not collaborated or talked. He had not. Here's the minister; there's the Premier. The minister is saying one thing; the Premier is saying something else. For the memory of my colleague from Panorama, this is true interference by the Premier. That's why decisions aren't being made.

He was a good soldier, Mr. Lekstrom, and I like him. He said: "She is my Premier. I serve in the cabinet at her discretion." So he's throwing his hands up in the air: "What can I do? I know what I'm doing is right, but the Premier is interfering."

But let's go a little further. The Minister of Education was so forceful in saying, "Well, we had so much good stuff going on in the previous ten years. There was accountability. There were all of the decisions being made." Then he went on to contradict himself by saying, "Well, there are changes needed," because the old system wasn't working.

On one hand he was saying such wonderful things the minister, the previous minister and the previous minister have done — all the great things. Then all of a sudden he's: "Oh yeah. That stuff isn't working."

Here is just a recent memory for the minister. When the Premier pulled the rug from underneath that minister at that time, Mr. Lekstrom, this is what the Minister of Education had to say: "Langley mayor" — I will not use the name — "vice-chair of the TransLink Mayors Council, said the Premier seems to be 'drawing the line in the sand' without even bothering to talk to the mayors who struggled for the past two years over the difficult decision of what new funding mechanisms to request."

This is what the vice-chair, who happens to be the Minister of Education now, had to say about this Premier. She was pulling the rug from under her ministers. He went on to say: "She has never talked to me or Mayor Richard Walton, the chair." The Minister of Education further said: "Nor does she seem to have talked to her own cabinet members. I am never surprised at things the Premier says. I think that she makes decisions in isolation." What a lesson for the member for Surrey-Panorama.

[1515]

You want to talk about interference by the Premier. Here is a prime example. This is what's happening. This is after 2007 when the Minister of Transportation at that time said: "The old system doesn't work." The member for Surrey-Panorama said: "The old system didn't work." They were fighting with each other, and here is what was happening in 2012, right here in this House.

There is a lot more history, Minister and Member for Surrey-Panorama, because interference after interference by the Premiers of this House in the last ten years is the reason nothing got built. Never mind that nothing got built. We had to cut services.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Yeah, the Minister of Health is talking about the Canada Line.

I gave a little history there — how the Canada Line came about, how he fired the democratically elected board so that he could appoint his own board. The elected mayors and the councillors were looking out for the region, but the minister and the Premier of the day had their own agenda — nothing to do with the Lower Mainland, but they had their own agenda. That's the way they operate and they continue to operate to this day. I've just read some of the quotes.

Her own ministers are saying that she doesn't talk to anybody, that she works in isolation. "It never surprises me how she makes decisions."

An Hon. Member: She works with Harry Bloy.

H. Bains: Works for Harry Bloy, I guess. Okay.

Let's come back to 2010. Let's talk 2010 — September 2010. I was present. The Minister of Education was present — such a huge fanfare — and the previous Minister of Transportation. They were all there. They were all there, and I thought: there's a hope that finally we are going to sign a piece of document that will have some solutions to our badly needed public transportation. This is September 2010, and we're talking about it now, almost four years later — still, the same thing.

The commitment was made by this government with the local mayors that they would find a long-term sustainable funding formula to have the Evergreen line and all of the other extensions and expansions that we need in the Lower Mainland. That decision was made in 2010. So what are we doing now? Still talking about the same thing.

It's hard to believe that the minister, who was vice-chair at that time, could stand up here and praise that system of the last four years of doing nothing — doing nothing those four years as far as public transportation is concerned.

We needed more buses in Surrey. What did we get?
[ Page 2958 ]
Service cut. We needed an expansion to south of Fraser. What did we get? Nothing.

If you look at the handyDART part of public transportation, there's another story. I hope the Minister of Transportation is paying attention. There's another story. There are disabled people who use this service to go to work so that they keep themselves busy. It's good for their health. It's good that they're not depending on anybody else. But what's happening? Because of a lack of service, and we have cuts in that system, they are told, "You can't go to work," because they have no transportation now.

This is the reality. This is happening right now. I ask the Minister of Health to come over, listen to some of the real people in Surrey. Let's listen to some of the real people in Surrey. Let's come and talk to….

The Minister of Health is always sitting here chirping away about something that makes no sense at all. It's not relevant to what we're talking about, but he has to have his two bits in here. But real people are hurting, as they waste their time trying to put somebody else down over important issues such as handyDART.

We're standing here today again, since 2007, to talk about the change in governance.

[1520]

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: I was also seeking leave to give my colleague from Surrey-Newton a chance to catch his breath.

We are blessed to have in the Legislature today a group of dynamic students. They're grade 11 students from Elgin Park Secondary School, along with their teacher Lindsey Ellett and a vice-principal who is questionable in terms of his knowledge of the Legislature. The students now know everything there is to know about the motto and the themes of our province.

Sarah is actually one of the students and is a very good rap singer. I heard her do a rendition of that famous rap song called "So Fly." Would the House please make them most welcome to the Legislature.

Debate Continued

H. Bains: Let's continue on with what has happened — the system that isn't serving our public transportation. I just finished suggesting how the Minister of Education was engaged with the Premier, contradicting each other, and how the minister at that time said: "I'm never surprised at things the Premier says. I think she makes decisions in isolation." I think that time, when that was said, was 2012 — March 22, 2012.

What happened as a result of those actions by the Premier? The mayors passed four resolutions, one rejecting future property tax hikes. Originally they were talking about…. As part of their deal in 2010, everything was on the table, and they would work with the province to come up with a long-term sustainable funding formula.

Because this government continued to second-guess the mayors and not cooperate with them and would not sit down with them, they said: "Fine. You play your game over there." What they did was…. They did four things. They passed a resolution: no future property tax hikes. They requested that there should be a governance change from the minister. Then they said also that in light of the two previous audits, another one is not needed unless it is done by the Auditor General, cancelling $30 million in property tax and service expansions until alternative funding sources are determined. This was later found not to be legal.

This is the system that was brought in by the previous Minister of Transportation that they are so proudly saying how great it was. They could never work with the mayors since 2007. The mayors were sitting over there. This government was sitting over there. Even when they tried to do something, the Premier would always say one thing. The minister would show something else. She would pull the rug out from under the minister, and then nothing got done. As a result, we have service cuts.

I'm going to tell you what the service cuts were and how that affected our communities. Many of the members who are from outside of the Lower Mainland — it may not mean much to you, but I can tell you that we have people who want to leave their cars at home to go to work, to do their business or just to go to a shopping mall. They can't do that. They are forced to drive cars. These are the people who really care about climate change. They want to help to keep our air clean and not leave any footprints, but they're not being helped by this government. These are the people who are way ahead of this government, but they're not being helped.

What happened? In September 2012 TransLink released the 2013 Base Plan. Despite aggressive cutting of costs, TransLink faced a $472 million shortfall between 2013 and 2015 and had to cancel the following plans. This is what happened; in 2012 they had to do this.

[1525]

The planned increase of 306,000 annual service hours needed to reduce overcrowding on key routes, accommodate population growth and meet U-Pass demand, and full Highway 1 rapid bus project — cut. Full King George Boulevard B-line to White Rock was cut. Extension of SeaBus service to every 15 minutes and upgrade the Lonsdale Quay — cut.

Full funding for major road networks and cycling was cut. Not only that. What was expected at that time didn't get done. We have a SeaBus, the third SeaBus that was built, and I think that it cost over $20 million. The plan was to have three SeaBuses running. They had no
[ Page 2959 ]
money. They had to park one. It's still parked. This is how the decisions are made. How are they fiscally prudent decisions?

We have a SeaBus sitting there, parked — not being utilized because they have no operating funding. This minister and the previous Minister of Transportation and all of the members stand up here, one after one, about how great the system works and how great a job they're doing when it comes to public transportation. I'd just like to go back to what is happening to that $20 million SeaBus that was there to take those passengers that had to come across from the North Shore to Vancouver for work.

Absolutely, change is needed. Absolutely, we need governance change. Absolutely, the mayors have been asking for governance change ever since they were fired in 2007. You know what? Knowing this government, I will be watching in detail to see what this Bill 22 actually means. Are they actually bringing the changes that the mayors are asking for? Are they giving them the powers, especially on budgeting and planning and developing strategies? I want to see how those powers are transferred over to the mayors.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Now my question is to the Minister of Health, who again is chirping away rather than giving any logical argument behind his chirping. My question is: what is the role of the board? What are we going to use those seven seats for — to have more defeated Liberal candidates, to find some place for them to go to? Is that what we're looking for? What do we need them for?

Interjections.

H. Bains: The Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Education should know better. The minister decides the governance change. The minister decided in 2007. The minister fired the elected board at that time. He could do that now. He can do that now.

My question is: what is the need for the board? I need to know the answers to that. If the mayors are going to do all of the work that the board is currently doing, if that's what they're doing, and all of those powers are transferred over to the mayors, then what is the role of the board? Again, it shouldn't be a room for the friends of the Liberals or the defeated candidates to have a little place to go to. "Here you go. You served us well. Yes, we will appoint you there."

I think those are some of the serious questions that we need to ask. Before those questions are answered, it's hard to say that this thing does the job that it set out to do. It is such an important issue. I mean, in all seriousness, this is such an important issue. We're running behind right now. In about 30 years, 2040, in Metro Vancouver, by their own estimates, there will be another million people — over a million people moving into the Lower Mainland.

Over a million, and you know what? Most of them, if not the majority of them, will be settling south of the Fraser, northeast section.

[1530]

It's the south of the Fraser that is suffering right now for public transportation. We don't have services now. Imagine when all those new people move in. That's just around the corner. It's not 100 years down the road; 2040 is just around the corner. We're not prepared for that.

We're not prepared for our education. We have 7,000 students in portables. We are behind in every service that we need to meet the needs of the growing community south of Fraser, and none of them is standing up there acknowledging that — none of them.

I'm so surprised and disappointed that especially those people who are from Surrey would be standing up and saying…. We're failing the south of Fraser population. We need more schools built right now. We need more buses. We need expansion to public transportation. I don't hear them. They make all those good…. What they're told to say, they say it. They stand up and say it, and then they sit down, but there's no action or resources behind it.

Schools? By the time some of these new schools are going to be built, we'll need four more. All of those members know we need ten schools now. There's only funding for four more — okay? We need ten now. We need 500 buses now, but we are seeing the services being cut to south of Fraser.

I'm really hoping that the government, at least at this juncture…. They have seen ten years of mismanagement and non-cooperation. This one somehow will….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Thornthwaite: I'd like to actually say a personal thank-you to the Mayors Council for the hard work that they have done throughout the years and throughout the transition and for the work that they do, and in particular, to my mayor, Richard Walton. He's the mayor of the district of North Van, but he also happens to be the chair of the Mayors Council, and I know that he works very hard. I want to give some kudos there.

I'm standing up to support Bill 22. Our government is committed to ensuring that the Lower Mainland is provided with a working transit system designed to deliver some of the priorities of the Metro Vancouver residents. I believe that this legislation will enable locally elected representatives, the mayors, to have an important say in how transit operates in their community, in our community.

In my brief history with this issue, one of the main things that I've heard consistently is that the mayors want more say. Well, they've asked for more say over TransLink's long-term plans and investments, and that's
[ Page 2960 ]
what this bill is about. We've listened, and we're delivering.

The proposed legislation will significantly increase the ability of the Mayors Council to establish TransLink's long-term strategies and to approve its plans and projects. In the words of Richard Walton: "This is a step in the right direction."

I really liked what our Minister of Education said, and I was very impressed with him and the member for Surrey-Panorama because they've got this huge history in this issue and talk so passionately and so eloquently on it. I liked the way he said that this looks to the future, to solutions and working towards solutions, not to being hung up on the problems. It works towards a truly integrated transportation system and to help articulate a vision to set priorities, to engage the public and to work towards long-term goals for the region.

The government's commitment is outlined through these amendments to assume the responsibilities of the TransLink Commissioner; allow the Mayors Council to approve TransLink's long-term strategies — and they will be appointing the majority of the board of directors; manage a 30-year regional transportation strategy; and develop a fully funded ten-year investment plan.

The ten-year investment plan will replace the Mayors Council's current planning and review process involving base and supplemental plans. The council will approve fare increases, decide the sale of major assets and oversee TransLink's complaints and customer satisfaction survey processes. The Mayors Council will also oversee executive and board of director remuneration.

[1535]

Recognizing that these new responsibilities and accountabilities will place greater demands on the Mayors Council, government will ensure that the Mayors Council has appropriate resources to support that expanded role. Government will also be adding two provincial appointees to the TransLink board of directors to improve communications between TransLink, the Mayors Council and the provincial government.

The decision-making power, therefore, has shifted to the mayors. Local decisions will be made at the local levels. They will approve the long-term funding and taxation strategy, and I understand we keep everything on the table. What would that be? A regional carbon tax, vehicle levy, road pricing, fuel tax, regional sales tax — whatever — that will be decided, I assume, in a referendum, which is the subject of another bill.

One thing I wanted to mention is a personal visit that I made over the Christmas holidays to Australia. One of the things that I noticed when we landed in Sydney was this huge amount of transportation infrastructure.

I travelled through Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane — highly connected road systems, rail systems, water systems, a tremendous amount of infrastructure in all of those three cities involving roads, boats, ferries, river ferries, tunnels, bridges, trains, buses. I was taken aback and even recommended to the Minister of Education that he take a visit there just to check it out, because I was really, really impressed.

Then my sister, who we went to visit, who actually lives in Brisbane and travels quite regularly between the cities…. I recognized it too, when I was in her car, that every once in a while when you were driving along the road system, their beeper, their transponder, would go off — a highly connected transportation tolling system that connects all of these major cities. So it doesn't matter whether or not she's driving in Sydney or Brisbane or Melbourne; that car that she owns is connected to the transportation system via tolls.

Everybody wants more transportation systems and infrastructure, but nobody wants to pay for it. I can tell you the Australians have a wonderful system there and a huge infrastructure, but I've also been told that it costs $30 a day just in tolls to get from one end of Sydney to the next. So we do pretty well here in Metro Vancouver. But as I said, everybody wants increased transportation, but nobody wants to pay for it.

What this bill helps to do is to improve the governance model, which allows all levels of government to work together and give the Mayors Council new tools that can be used to expand the regional transportation system for all of us, for all of our benefit, in Metro Vancouver. That's the reason why I will be supporting this bill.

S. Robinson: I rise today to speak to Bill 22, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act. I'm pleased to see this legislation come forward, recognizing that the 2007 decision that this government made wasn't the right decision, that they hadn't got it right, and they were going to attempt to amend the error that they made back in 2007. So I was very pleased to see this come forward.

What I note here is that local government is probably in the best position to recognize the regional transportation challenges. I'm glad to see that members on the other side of the House recognize that. Local government has an intimate relationship with the land, with land use and with what their communities' transportation needs are. Recognizing that the TransLink model that has been operating these last ten years hasn't been working and recognizing that it's time for a change is a good thing.

What I've been able to pull out from this bill is that the Mayors Council right now will have an increased role in governance, and that's a good step in that direction.

[1540]

The mayors represent their electorates quite well, and they certainly have regional transportation challenges. Right now we know that getting tied up in traffic has huge implications not only for the economy but for those of us living in the suburbs.

Certainly, the members that I represent in Coquitlam-
[ Page 2961 ]
Maillardville feel the traffic challenges as they try to make their way around — through New West, through Port Moody, through Port Coquitlam on the other side and getting through Vancouver and Burnaby. It's always a challenge, and you're always trying to find ways around the bottleneck.

Making sure that we have a transportation system that's properly funded, that's properly resourced, is what we need to do. Our communities are growing, and if we're going to be absorbing all those people, we need to find a way to help them get around our communities.

One of the things that I want to highlight about why it's important that local governments have as strong a say as possible in managing regional transportation has to do with how they make land use decisions. I want to talk about Burke Mountain for a second. Burke Mountain is a brand-new community of about 25,000 or 27,000 people that's going up in the northeast sector — north side of Coquitlam.

Being a city councillor for a number of years, I was quite familiar with the challenges that were presenting themselves around the fact that TransLink wasn't being properly resourced to meet the needs that it said it would. Back in the early 2000s when the decision was made by that council to develop Burke Mountain and put over 20,000 people up on the side of a mountain, it was decided that it would be a transit-oriented community.

My understanding and, certainly, the community's understanding at the time was that "transit-oriented" meant there would be transit. Transit would be the focus point of this community. There would be a transit hub. There would be buses coming in and out. People wouldn't need cars.

Suburbia — as those of my colleagues here in this House who live in suburbia can appreciate — was built around the car. Our model for land use planning in those communities is changing. We recognize that we need to change our ways, and having a transit-oriented community is the way to go.

Lo and behold, as land use changes came on side, decisions were made not to have two-car garages, to use the land wisely and a little bit more intensely — to have a little bit more density. The decision was made not to have huge parking pads for cars that people wouldn't need to get around because, of course, they were going to have buses.

The 20,000-plus people were going to have buses that were going to ferry them in — up the mountain and down into the community. There were going to be buses everywhere that would take them to the Evergreen line so that they could head downtown and buses that would take them home at the end of the day.

Well, about half of the mountain is developed. Most of the houses along that mountain have one-car garages. They don't have parking pads. In fact, in order to use the land more intensely, they parcelled the lots so that you didn't even have spaces to park on the street. So that letdown and letdown were close together because, of course, it was going to be a transit-oriented community.

Ten years ago that was the plan — transit-oriented. Did it materialize? No, it didn't materialize. In fact, I spent my five years on council begging TransLink to get a tiny little bus to a tiny little corner at the bottom of the mountain so that people could at least get to the bottom of the mountain and hike up if they needed to. Complaints came into council because the transit-oriented development that was supposed to be their community never materialized.

The fact that we had to beg for a little bus that finally came this year — just this year…. I got elected in 2008. It came about the end of 2013. That's how long it took for us to get a tiny little bus for this transit-oriented community.

I know I'm not alone. I know that Coquitlam is not alone. I see it in Langley, see it in Surrey. I certainly hear from my colleagues about the challenges that come when you have complete, distinct governance around land use and transportation planning and a completely separate board.

[1545]

We also see in my own community…. I've spoken to the Minister of Transportation from, again, a land use planning model. The Evergreen line is finally coming, and I have asked for park-and-ride spots in Coquitlam-Maillardville. Everyone keeps saying that the Evergreen line is coming to Coquitlam, and it is — to parts of Coquitlam. It's completely bypassing Coquitlam-Maillardville.

I'm pleased that TransLink, in its wisdom, decided that they would actually include park-and-ride. I do park-and-ride wherever I can because I prefer to use the existing infrastructure that we have. It makes my ride comfortable, it means that I can actually do some work on the way, and I get there safe and sound and in a timely manner.

But in Coquitlam-Maillardville we won't be able to access those 500 parking stalls that TransLink is bringing on side with the Evergreen line. All of those parking stalls are going to be over in Coquitlam–Port Moody and in Coquitlam-Burke. Isn't that very interesting? I won't see a single stall; neither will my residents. In fact, they're going to have to drive backward along the Evergreen line to park their car to go forward along the Evergreen line.

It certainly doesn't serve those constituents well, and I've been asking the Transportation Minister if there's any possibility of considering some stalls at, perhaps, Braid station or Lougheed station so that those people on the south side of Coquitlam can be well served by this infrastructure. But that's not going to happen. I do hope that with some change in governance, the Mayors Council will have some familiarity with what the needs are of the people who are making use of this transportation infrastructure and they will be able to respond to those needs.
[ Page 2962 ]

What else have we been seeing in my community? Well, we've been seeing service cuts, just like other members have spoken to from this side of the House. We saw service cuts that have resulted in almost no bus service going through our major employment area along United Boulevard. That was a real doozy.

I had phone calls from businesses that run 24-7 operations. Because they're 24-7 operations and in our communities we don't have 24-7 transit service, they actually staggered their shift work. They've staggered their hours to accommodate their employees so that they can have access and use the transit. People want to use transit. They've been very accommodating.

Well, now that they've eliminated parts of that route, it's thrown into a tizzy. And what's really interesting is that these employers don't have enough parking for all of their employees. Again, it's going to come back to land use planning and the challenges at the local level that they're going to have when there isn't enough parking.

What I want to, I guess, point out is that those who are closest to the people, those who deal every day with the complaints and with the issues related to transportation infrastructure and transportation management, are the folks who ought to have the most say about how decisions are made, about how this program is funded. They know what the needs are.

I'm going to bet that when you have a Mayors Council given the authority and the responsibility to make these decisions, you're not going to get these one-off announcements: "Oh, by the way, that tunnel? We're going to replace that." Like, where did that come from? Whose plan was that part of? It's something I'd never heard of. I hadn't heard it spoken of by any of the colleagues while I sat around a council table. It was certainly not part of the conversation.

That, I think — I hope — will take care of some of that grandstanding and promise-making, because I think this is really important. This will speak to our capacity to grow as a region and our capacity to meet the needs of our current citizens. They want good transportation. They want accessible transportation. They want regular transportation. They want well-funded transportation. This is what we need. This bill sort of moves us in that direction, but I'm not convinced that it will actually get us there.

One of the things that I guess I want to speak to is an experience that I had. After I read some of this bill, it got me to reflect on a job that I once had.

[1550]

I was the associate executive director of a family service agency. It was a great job, and I was given authority to do a whole lot of visioning and planning. It was a job that I loved. I organized work groups with my staff, and I organized work groups with our clients and our volunteers. We created some plans, some really great plans, for how to take care of some of the needs that we were identifying. I presented it to the executive director and to the management team about the direction we were going, and they were thrilled and coming on board, and it was lovely.

Then we got to the board of directors, who had a different idea and a different vision. I have to tell you, it was crazy-making. To be told on the one hand that you have this responsibility and this authority to go and do something, and then this other body says: "You know what? No, you don't get to do that." So that was six months of work down the drain, with disappointed volunteers, disappointed staff and poorly served clients of an organization that really could have done a great job.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

As I read through this and I see some of the limits, I worry. I worry for the future. Is this going to be another bit of a boondoggle where you give some authority with a little bit of responsibility, but not enough to actually make a difference? And it begs the question of: how much of a difference is enough of a difference? I don't think that we see that here. I don't think that there's enough of a difference that will actually change for our communities.

What's missing from the bill is the ability of the Mayors Council to actually get in the muck of preparing budgets and making sure that, operationally, they can deliver. You can vision all you want. I mean, I spent six months visioning. It was great. It was a great exercise. It was fabulous. But until the board actually said to run with it, that's all it was. It was a vision. So what?

It's not going to bring buses up Burke Mountain. It's not going to bring parking stalls to Coquitlam-Maillardville. It's certainly not going to bring buses along United corridor so that the employment generation that happens down there can be properly served.

In fact, what's very interesting is that I've been having a bit of a challenge in my community. They're shutting down Burquitlam Care Centre. Most of the people who work in that centre use transit because it's by Lougheed SkyTrain station, and it's really easy for people to move back and forth from their homes and their communities to work. Well, it's being shut down because the contract has been given to a private operator in the hinterlands of Port Coquitlam.

I'm sure the member for Port Coquitlam won't be too upset if I call it the hinterlands, because it's just getting developed. It's where the Walmart is. It's way out there, almost by Pitt Meadows where there's no transit. There is no transit.

When I spoke to Fraser Health, they said: "Oh no, but there will be transit." It's: "Oh yeah, I've heard that. I been hearing that for five years at Burke Mountain." There will be transit. But in the meantime, people need to move around. Well, you know what? "You just go and get a car, and then when transit comes, you can sell the
[ Page 2963 ]
car." It doesn't work that way. That's not how people live their lives.

The Mayors Council needs to have some tools in order to make transit work, and I don't see that here in this bill. I find that we need to make sure that the Mayors Council has enough authority, enough responsibility to make it work. I just don't have the confidence that at this point that's the case.

My colleague over here just handed me a couple of…. He's busy doing some research to speak about transportation in Sydney, Australia. The member opposite was talking about how fabulous it is. If I'm reading his notes right…. They are too difficult to read, actually, as I read. Yeah, we need to send him to some literacy program. Those got cut, so never mind that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the mayors need to have real authority and real responsibility. That means making sure that they can take a look at the operations and make the decisions. They're elected officials. They're elected, and if people are unhappy with how they do it, then maybe they won't get elected again. But they need to have some real opportunity to make real change. How much of a change is enough of a change? This just doesn't cut it.

[1555]

I'm going to end with just a couple of quotes from some of the mayors, because I think they say it best. Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie: "It seems fairly consistent with the letter written by the minister to the Mayors Council, and it's a good thing for the vision to be turned back to the mayors, who will adopt an overall strategy…. But if we're not overseeing the budget, how can we ensure the vision is being carried out?"

It's a good question. My own mayor, Coquitlam mayor Richard Stewart — who, I recall, sat in this House back in the 2000s; he sat on the other side — says: "At this point the legislation doesn't look like we run it. It does look like we run the long-term planning of it, but TransLink doesn't necessarily have to follow what we decide on the long-term strategies. It hasn't always followed what we decided, even on the core budget and the supplementary budgets that are presented to the Mayors Council." The mayor of Coquitlam, who sat in this chamber on that side of the House, recognizes that it's just not enough.

Finally, Port Coquitlam mayor Greg Moore says: "It's not what we wanted, because we wanted to have complete control, as it was before. Will it be enough for us to proceed forward? We will have to see, because not having the budget and operational oversight is a real challenge. If we develop a ten-year plan, for example, and in year 2 the board decides to not implement pieces of our plan, there are no repercussions for us."

It sounds like the risks of failure are great, and we cannot risk failing. There's too much at stake. So many people are coming into our communities, and so many people are tired of clogged roads. Certainly, in the suburbs I hear people — parents, seniors — saying that they are stuck in traffic, that they want to have more time to spend with their families, with their children. They want to spend time celebrating their grandson's hockey game or being at a birthday party, but they are stuck in traffic.

It's only going to get worse. This isn't a problem that's going to go away. We need to get it right. We need to see this Liberal government do the right thing: give the power to the mayors where it belongs. Let them struggle with these operational budgets. Let them make those decisions. At the end of the day, we all need to be moving around our communities with ease. We need to grow the economy together. We can't grow the economy if we're stuck in traffic. That just doesn't cut it.

If this government really thinks that they're ready to grow the economy, then put your words where your mouth is. Change the words here to make sure that the Mayors Council can act on our best behalf.

R. Sultan: I am pleased to rise in support of Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014. Some months ago in this House I offered my opinions on the future governance structure of TransLink, and I referred rather facetiously to the province and the TransLink Mayors Council as resembling two individuals pirouetting on the stage, each hoping the other would pick up responsibility for some tough funding decisions. But my laboured attempt at simile here was wrong.

The provincial government and the Mayors Council of TransLink have been engaged and will continue to be engaged, as I've advanced my knowledge of ballet, in what in ballet terms could be better described as a pas de deux — that is, literally, a dance for two — the key point being that each partner takes positions they could never maintain on their own. They're completely interdependent on the stage. Such is the interdependent nature of the province interacting with the Mayors Council.

With this legislation, it appears to me that the provincial government is substantially releasing the Mayors Council from its embrace, and we all look forward to watching the rest of the performance. I believe Bill 22 is a healthy step forward to a more balanced and conventional governance system for TransLink, which should receive broad support.

[1600]

Now, in this regard, I listened with great interest on my television monitor in the office to the remarks of the member for Vancouver-Fairview, quoting a consulting report, which it soon became apparent to me, has just been released on Bill 22, and which the Mayors Council had commissioned.

Over lunch I got my hands on a copy of it, and it is a very helpful document. Now, the member for Vancouver-Fairview read portions of the consultant's report which were quite critical of the proposed approach and cited
[ Page 2964 ]
certain governance arrangements which weren't working very well. I read the report, and what struck me was the positive enthusiasm for Bill 22's new governance arrangements that it embodied. I realized….

I hate to be unfair, Member, but it seemed to me that you were quoting the portions of the report referring to the status quo and the arrangements that had been put in place by the former Minister of Transportation, Mr. Falcon. They were not referring to the proposed modification and reform, if I could use that word, of TransLink governance. I think you, perhaps, are a bit guilty of not necessarily reading the whole consultant's report.

But as we are all aware, in 2007 for various good reasons, driven by the looming imperative of the 2010 Olympic Games, TransLink's governance structure was modified very drastically by the Minister of Transportation of the day. Kevin's solution had three components, rather oddly: a board of directors, a Mayors Council and a regional transportation commissioner, who was more or less supposed to keep the other two honest, I suppose.

Well, did it work? The Canada Line was built, and the Olympic Games were a great success. On that measure alone, I think one could say that it did the job.

Furthermore, despite grumbling and friction among the parties — some of it quite public and for which, we've been reminded, there's a long history, not just commencing in 2007 — TransLink itself has become a great success, giving those of us who live in Metro Vancouver a modern, efficient, expanding and quite affordable mass transit system. At the same time it provides us with a major road network — another component of TransLink, which seldom gets mentioned — a road system positioned one notch below the provincial highway system, one notch above the municipal road systems in Metro Vancouver.

In short, TransLink is a success story, and it's admired, as has already been pointed out by the Education Minister and others. People come from around the world to say: "Wow. How do you do it? How does it work? What's the governance system?" Well, sometimes we soft-pedal the governance side.

More specifically, the Mayors Council, with Bill 22, is now being given a huge whack of new authority and responsibility. Mayors Council, be careful what you wish for. Number one, it will take over the functions and staff of the TransLink Commissioner, which position shall probably cease to exist unless the Mayors Council, in its independent wisdom, decides some such function should survive, reporting exclusively to them.

Certainly, the Mayors Council is now being given a huge, larger tranche of work and responsibility to perform. They are thinly staffed or hardly staffed at all to carry on those functions. We should sympathize with that and understand it. It seems the staff, to do what is now expected of them, may come from the commissioner's staff. I have no idea how good they are, how big it is and whether they can do the job.

Maybe that particular assumption may need some tweaking in the immediate future, or perhaps the mayors will decide they rather like the commissioner's set-up functioning as it does, perhaps under a different title. I assume that judgment is up to the mayors, and they're being given considerable latitude. In fact, I would say that it sounds to me like total control.

[1605]

Point 2. The Mayors Council will assume new responsibilities with respect to the composition of the TransLink board of directors. They will continue to have two automatic appointments of the 11 members of the TransLink board of directors, two seats always held open for the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council. It seems to me an expression of pique more than responsibility for those positions not to have been filled in the past.

As for the other appointees to the board, while the statute is not entirely clear — and I fault legislative counsel and our own legislative review, perhaps, for not entirely being as thorough as we should have been — it appears the mayors will also have a say in the appointment of the seven other directors, drawn from a list of qualified candidates identified by a screening panel and as nominated by various stakeholder groups, in a manner very reminiscent of the governance of YVR and the board of directors of that institution, which has brought our Vancouver Airport to international fame and recognition as one of the truly great airports in the entire world. Something is working well at YVR.

It seems to me we're trying to graft some of that governance philosophy onto TransLink because it works exceedingly well. Further clarity of the nomination process, however, would probably be helpful at this time. It's inconceivable to me that the Mayors Council would not seize the opportunity to have a significant personal presence on the TransLink board.

Finally, two persons will be appointed directly to the board by the provincial government. If the board was ever considered to be controlled by the province in the past, and maybe some persons thought so, the province is certainly cutting TransLink loose on its own today.

Third point. Similar to boards of directors one encounters in the corporate world — and I have seen more than a few in my day — this TransLink board will be responsible for the recruitment and performance of the CEO of TransLink as well as its operating of financial affairs — the TransLink board, I repeat.

On capital funding matters, it will — at least that's my interpretation — defer to the Mayors Council. Since "following the money" is so fundamental to the role of the Mayors Council, it seems to me this gives the Mayors Council a huge policy role and the responsibility for accepting or rejecting the plans and strategies laid before them. It's just not going to work if they don't work together and get along and agree on the way ahead.
[ Page 2965 ]

As I would interpret it, the Mayors Council should tend to function as a group of shareholders who meet from time to time to see how their company is being run and whether or not they will approve a new share issue or a new bond issue to raise capital — more often than annually meeting but hardly day to day. After all, the mayors have other heavy responsibilities running their own communities as well.

Fourth point. As Bill 22 makes clear, the board of directors of TransLink will continue to be responsible for preparing the long-term strategy and the plan for TransLink but also, under that bill, are obligated to present those plans and strategies to the Mayors Council for approval. It's the Mayors Council, after all, who are the capital market representatives who must figure out whether the strategy makes sense for the shareholders — i.e. the citizens they are voted to represent — whether it's politically marketable, whether it's affordable, whether it's a castle in the air or whether it's something that, in fact, can actually work.

They are in a very strong, tightly gripped, controlled position. It's up to them to figure out and approve or deny how the whole enterprise is going to be funded in the long run. The Mayors Council will be acting as if it holds the proxy votes for the thousands of shareholders of this large complex organization, as indeed they do.

[1610]

Fifth point. As the de facto shareholder representatives, as I am inclined to view them, the Mayors Council must also approve all fare increases, pass judgment on major asset restructuring and oversee TransLink's performance in terms of customer satisfaction. That's all spelled out clearly in the legislation.

Clearly, if the board is not up to the job, the representatives of the shareholders have every right to say their piece, and I'm sure they will. Immense power and authority is being lodged in this group — contrary, I think, to some of the laments we've heard here today.

Sixth point. Finally, its most fundamental source of authority is the fact that under the legislation the Mayors Council must approve the long-term funding and taxation strategy of TransLink. This is their hammer.

In this regard, my personal interpretation is that all taxation options are on the table: farebox, gasoline tax, automobile tax, carbon tax, real estate tax, road pricing — just like my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour described, in Australia, that flashing light as you drive by it on the highway — bridge tolls, highway tolls, poll tax, parking tax or any other scheme the planners may dream up. There's only one caveat. It's a tough one; let's not kid ourselves. The funding plan must be endorsed via a referendum.

We shouldn't minimize the difficulty of that challenge. Any new funding sources that require provincial approval — because maybe it's a brand-new tax system that doesn't exist — must be discussed with the province before going to referendum. The nature of that referendum is defined in a separate statute, Bill 23.

Effectively, then, as I called for in my speech last summer, the provincial government is cutting the apron strings, as I see it, over this vast enterprise and is setting up the Mayors Council as the representative and elected body representing the ultimate shareholders of this enterprise, representing the citizens of Metro Vancouver, and giving the Mayors Council most of the powers they have been asking for.

Is the province abandoning TransLink to its own devices? Hardly. It would be irresponsible for them to do so. No doubt any long-term funding plan brought forward will anticipate large and ongoing provincial grants to TransLink, just like the province helps pay for B.C. Transit and helps pay for B.C. Ferries. The scale of that ongoing provincial subsidy is a matter which will be determined by negotiation in the future. The province will of course have its own priorities to put on the table for consideration.

Finally, I would like to note that the most thoughtful and sophisticated organization chart, the wisest and most competent managers and directors in the world, the smartest strategies for moving people around this Metro area that we can devise will all come to naught if the participants view this structure as a cockpit for contention and the playing out of political manoeuvring and disputes.

Folks, the transportation system of Metro Vancouver is too fundamentally important to our economic success to tolerate that silliness. We've had more than we really need up until now. I plead with all the parties: let's cut out the nonsense and get down to work.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join in debate on Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

This is an interesting piece of legislation. What we know, of course, is that this piece of legislation is to fix a problem that was created by the Liberal government in 2007 when the minister of the day, Mr. Falcon, had a bit of a hissy fit and decided to basically tear apart the governance system that was in place at TransLink. It's been a downhill slide pretty much ever since that conduct by Mr. Falcon of the day.

There's now some recognition that this was a mistake and some attempt to begin to put the pieces back together. That's a good thing. It's always good when people recognize their mistakes and try to correct them.

[1615]

The Liberal government, I'm assuming, is doing that here, though I'd love to have somebody stand up and say: "We sure made a mess of that, didn't we? But we're going to try to fix it now."

What is the situation that brings us to Bill 22 and the debate that's going on here today? TransLink was created
[ Page 2966 ]
in 1998, and it was established there when the provincial government of the day transferred a significant amount of the authority to local government for transit and transportation decision-making in Metro Vancouver.

When they did that, they created a structure that essentially put mayors and councillors in charge of this system. They were elected people who were then appointed to oversee TransLink, much in the same way that there are elected people who are appointed to oversee Metro Vancouver and the regional district and the way that that works.

That system functioned. It's a challenge, and nobody will deny the challenge that we face with transportation. It's a very expensive exercise and enterprise to create the kind of transit system that an urban metropolitan area like Vancouver and its suburbs require in order to be successful. It's not cheap, and we've seen that with the projects that have proceeded and gone ahead.

So we have this situation where it's operating and, as the member for West Vancouver–Capilano points out, a change happens heading into 2007. The government of the day, the minister of the day, made the decision that the priority was to be the Canada Line, and it was. As the member for West Vancouver–Capilano said, it was driven by the Olympics to get that line in place.

That meant that the Canada Line queue-jumped at least two or three other projects to become the priority. It queue-jumped, probably, the Evergreen line, development of light rail in Surrey and maybe the Broadway corridor — probably at least those three — and became the priority.

TransLink — the leadership of TransLink of the day, the mayors and the councillors — raised concern about that and about how that was occurring and about how those decisions were happening. The minister essentially took decision-making out of their hands, I presume, as the member from across the way said, in order to get this accomplished for the Olympics.

Regardless, the project goes ahead. There are all kinds of complications with it, but it gets built. All you have to do is to talk to all those merchants on Cambie Street to see how they feel about that period of time when half of them got…. Some got put out of business, and a lot of others were seriously hurt financially because of the construction and the way it proceeded and that.

Regardless of that, that's what happened there. The mayors and the board of TransLink challenged the minister about how those decisions happened. We know the minister of the day…. Certainly, those of us in this House who have sat here with Kevin Falcon, when he was here as a senior minister of the Crown, and know Kevin…. Kevin always tended to like to get his way. That's kind of the nature of who Kevin was. When he didn't get his way, he would try to…. Retribution was not above him.

So he trashes the board and the governance structure of TransLink. Not with much thought, but he says: "Out, out with you. I'm going to put my own handpicked people in place." He creates this "professional board" of his handpicked people. They don't meet in public, unlike the TransLink board. They meet in private. There's little known about their decisions until they roll out. There's really no ability for anybody to engage this board in a discussion.

As a consequence…. What we know is that organizations like TransLink, organizations that bring together a lot of diverse interests, that kind of are right on the razor's edge in terms of how they finance things, who need to build consensus in order to be successful…. Well, that doesn't work very well if you don't engage people and if you don't engage communities and engage legitimate stakeholders.

When Mr. Falcon created this structure, he said, "But I'm not ignoring the mayors, so I'm going to create a mayors council that has absolutely no authority to do pretty much anything." But they're there in some vague advisory capacity that nobody ever figured out.

[1620]

The mayors, quite rightly, understood that their authority had been gutted and that they had no role anymore, essentially, in the administration and management of the transit system in the Lower Mainland, so they said: "It's yours, not ours."

What happens is that the system kind of flounders along for a number of years, and we now have this situation we're in today where we spend years talking about funding formulas without having any responsible structure to make this thing work. What underlies that was Mr. Falcon, the B.C. Liberal government and the decision of 2007 to throw out the local, elected leadership and create a professional board, which is pretty well paid, to run this system. It didn't work, and today we have Bill 22, which is an acknowledgement that this didn't work. Good on the Minister of Transportation for bringing this forward and trying to correct a problem.

That's the failure of the model that we had. It's a model and a system. We now have this situation that we're in today. We'll be talking a little bit more about some of those consequences, which will come up in the discussion of Bill 23. That will happen after we're done with Bill 22, presumably. We'll be talking about that because that talks about the money side of this. This bill talks about how you govern the system. That one talks about the pending referendum and what the money side looks like, and that will be an interesting debate as well.

We have this situation here. What Bill 22 does is it creates a situation where there are a number of things that do get addressed in some fashion here. It talks about changing the current three-year base plans and seven-year outlook, which are prepared and approved by the board. That's going to now become a ten-year investment plan which will be approved by the Mayors Council, and that's a good thing. There's nothing wrong with that.
[ Page 2967 ]

It will be reviewed every three years, apparently, but there's not an indication here about whether an annual review is possible, and it may well be that an annual review is more appropriate. That should actually be a decision for the Mayors Council to make as to whether they think it's appropriate to review annually or every three years. If they're going to be responsible for it, they should have the ability to probably decide whether adjustment is due on an annual basis rather than having to wait three years. Hopefully, common sense will prevail and they'll be told to administer the system and do what's right there.

The approval of the 30-year regional transportation strategy now goes to the Mayors Council from this professional board — again, long-term planning. It's a long-term planning issue. I think my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville talked about the importance of planning, but you've got to be able to do something with the plan after you make it. We'll talk a little bit about that, because that's probably one of the shortcomings of this legislation.

It deals with the responsibility for executive compensation. It now goes over to the Mayors Council, and the Mayors Council essentially takes over the responsibilities of the commissioner, along with the $1 million of budget that's there, to approve fare increases, deal with the sale or disposal of assets, oversight of TransLink customer satisfaction and some of those things. All good things, all fine.

The problem, though, is that there are things that aren't in this bill, and that's probably the biggest challenge here — the pieces that aren't in the bill. There are two that kind of jump out at me.

The first one is budget preparation. The ability to plan is important, and it's important that that rests with the elected officials, I believe, because I think that accountability comes with planning. The reality is that as there's more authority invested in the Mayors Council, you can presume that the public and people who are concerned about the transit and transportation systems in the Lower Mainland will find the opportunities to make representation to the Mayors Council, to talk with their elected officials about what's important.

[1625]

The mayors will presumably, with their own councils and their own communities, bring forward to the planning process the discussion that happens in their local jurisdictions to make sure that that's part of the broader conversation as you try to meld and put together this more complex system that tries to meet the needs of a whole range of municipalities and jurisdictions that all have some different requirements and obligations. How do you meld that package together when you have a finite amount of resources to play with?

The planning piece becomes very important there. The problem, though, is that if you don't do the budgeting, if the budget preparation is not part of your responsibility, the ability to deliver the plan is questionable at best.

At the end of the day, you can make all the plans…. I can make plans for my home and for the trips I'd like to take and for all that, but if I don't have the control over the money to decide where money goes for this and for that, I'm not going to be able to do anything with those plans. The government, with this legislation, has omitted that control over the budget preparation.

The other thing that doesn't exist here is to have real oversight over the operations of the system on a more ongoing and immediate basis. Again, there is — no question — improved capacity for planning and authority there with the Mayors Council, but it isn't reflected in having oversight over the operation, and that's important. That's important because for a lot of what happens here, that oversight is a key piece. That's a key piece of the accountability, having that oversight. It's a key piece of ensuring as much transparency….

As the members have said — members on both sides — the success and the success of referendum, should it come forward, or the success…. Whatever the financial decision-making is about investment — where the investment will come from and what taxes or fees will be dealt with in order to raise the dollars to build the infrastructure that's required — the public is going to want the transparency and the accountability before they're going to give up that money and say: "This is a good place for my tax dollars to go."

That becomes a real challenge. Transportation systems are very complicated. They're very expensive to do. And I don't think that people always see the priorities as theirs. That's certainly true when you're building large pieces.

You have the debate that goes on today — probably the two biggest projects that are in play for what comes next. There's building a light rail system in Surrey that meets the needs of the fastest-growing part of this province or dealing with Broadway corridor and moving people through one of the most congested areas in this province. Probably $3 billion, $4 billion to do Broadway; $2 billion, $2½ billion to do Surrey — not cheap by anybody's standards. That's going to be a challenge. How do we deal with those things?

Just as an aside here, I think it was the member for North Vancouver–Seymour who talked about Sydney and about how successful Sydney is and what they do. I believe that that's true. I know a little bit but not very much about it, but that's true. I guess the observation that I would make, of course, is that there — and they have a population roughly about twice the size of Metro Vancouver, give or take — a $9½ billion commitment was paid by the state of New South Wales. No federal dollars, no local dollars; $9½ billion paid by the province, essentially, the state — that's what's building that system up.

I suspect that if the province here found $5 billion and said, "We're putting another $5 billion on the table to build transit," we'd find a couple of mighty fine projects to build here too. So I don't disagree with the member's
[ Page 2968 ]
comments, but it is about major investment. It's about a major investment made by the state, the counterpart to British Columbia in that case.

They chose to make that investment, and they did it without federal or local help in that case. That's a bit of a different dynamic, because the folks who had the cash came up and delivered. I don't question the value of what goes on there, but it is quite a different circumstance because of who's prepared to pay the bill.

[1630]

Getting back to the situation we have here. We know that the minister in a letter on February 6 talked about the need for an amendment to specify that the board must prepare budgets and oversee operations and implement plans consistent with Mayors Council–approved strategies and plans.

Well, it would seem to me that if you're going to do that, what the minister said in a letter on February 6, it might make more sense to simply say that the Mayors Council is going to have some authority, direct authority, over the preparation of those budgets.

They may do it in consultation, and they may be obliged to do some consulting. There's nothing wrong with obliging them to do that when they spend money. We send a Finance Committee around the province here before we do a budget. Maybe they need to do that. But at the end of the day, I would argue that the mayors are best placed to deal with this.

The reality is this, and it's been pointed out by people on both sides, I believe, that accountability comes with elected representation. At the end of the day, we need to create a system and a structure where the organization is accountable, and accountable in ways that people understand. That clearly was the case at one time with TransLink. Anybody who doesn't think it works can talk to George Puil, who was a long-sitting member of the Vancouver city council, one of the most senior members of the Vancouver city council.

He was the chair of TransLink and took positions that were very contrary to what a lot of people in Vancouver were interested in, and he lost his seat after sitting for 20-odd years as a councillor. Most people would attribute that loss not to his conduct on Vancouver city council but to his conduct on TransLink. They would say that's what he lost his seat over, because he did things that the people did not agree with in terms of transportation decisions. There was an accountability there. And I've heard the talk since that if you want to get into trouble as a local politician, discuss transportation.

I think, though, that it's a good thing that can happen, and it's a good thing to have that accountability. I want to give that authority and power to the mayors and to the elected representatives, to say: "We're going to give you the authority, but you have the political accountability. You should get to make decisions about where the local portion or share of funding comes from, and you should be accountable for those decisions at the end of the day."

That means being able to prepare budgets, and at the end of the day, the preparation of budgets is both how I am going to spend the money and how I am going to raise the money. If they had some of that authority that they don't have today, we would be in a better place. The conversation that is going on around funding would be a better conversation, because it would be a more equal conversation, and everybody would have skin in the game. That's not necessarily the case today, because of the structure of governance. So I think that's a problem. I think that's a significant problem.

Now, part of the challenge, of course, is: what do these mayors think? It's a diverse group. The mayors that make up the Mayors Council are politically a pretty diverse group. You couldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, put them all in one political camp, one place or the other, and they all are saying similar things.

They all are saying that there are things about this legislation that are positive, in terms of where it takes us to steps in the right direction, but the other thing they say is that it simply does not go far enough. It does not meet the obligations necessary in order to accomplish the things we need to accomplish in the Lower Mainland when it comes to transportation planning, budgeting and implementation.

A couple of examples of that. The chair of the Mayors Council, Richard Walton, the mayor for the district of North Vancouver, said: "I can't represent the fact that we're all happy, because I think still the large issues we want addressed have not been addressed." That's the comment of Mayor Walton, when he talked about this legislation. He understands — and he probably understands as well as anybody, as the chair of the Mayors Council — how big those challenges are. He understands primarily how it's about the money. That's the key piece that is a challenge.

Mayor Brodie from Richmond said: "If we're not overseeing the budget, how can we ensure the vision is being carried out?" That comes back to this issue of planning and the question about planning.

[1635]

As Mayor Brodie says, and Mayor Brodie is correct: if you don't have control of the money, the vision and the plan become somewhat theoretical. If you don't set the budget priorities, then it becomes somewhat questionable what that plan is really worth.

Mayor Stewart, who my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville spoke about, who sat in this House as a member of the B.C. Liberal caucus, said: "At this point, the legislation doesn't look like we run it. It does look like we run the long-term planning of it, but TransLink doesn't necessarily have to follow what we decide on the long-term strategy."

Well, how frustrating is that going to be for mayors who have many demands on their time, many great pres-
[ Page 2969 ]
sures to deal with? How invested are they prepared to be if they don't have confidence that there is any obligation for the decisions they make around planning, around strategic thinking to be carried out?

What Mayor Brodie is saying is that he doesn't have confidence and that his colleagues on the Mayors Council don't have the confidence to feel that that will in fact be the case, and that's a problem.

Mayor Moore from Port Coquitlam said: "It's not what we wanted, because we wanted to have complete control, as it was before. Will it be enough for us to proceed forward? We will have to see, because not having the budget and operational oversight is a real challenge."

Again, all of these mayors are focusing in on the key omissions of this bill, which are around budget and operational oversight — the two pieces that really needed to be here to complete the work that the minister started with Bill 22. They're not here. It will continue to be a problem, and it will continue to be a frustration. It's not something that I think can be easily corrected without giving that authority, through legislation, to the Mayors Council and, with that authority, the responsibility and the political accountability for the budget.

They need to be accountable. When they make decisions, they need to be accountable for those decisions. But you can't hold them accountable for things that they don't have some control over, and that's the circumstance you create with Bill 22. It's a problem. I believe it's a significant problem.

Bill 22 does some good things. It corrects some of the problems that were created in 2007 by Mr. Falcon and by the Liberal government of the day when they basically tossed out the whole system. Instead of trying to fix it, they just threw it out and created the board of the making of the minister of the day. He appointed some people that he thought were appropriate people, and they met in secret and made decisions.

We have seen the system unravelling since 2007 because of that fundamental governance decision, which was just a mistake. There is no other way to characterize it. It was just a mistake. It was a mistake that's been costly, and it's a mistake that I will acknowledge the minister today is trying to correct. But he didn't go far enough. He didn't deal with the issues that he talked about in his letter of February 6. He didn't deal with the core questions around money.

Until you deal with the money questions, you've got a problem. You have to deal with them both in the context of where the money comes from and how you collect that but also on the governance side in terms of how you manage it. The mayors are not a whole lot closer to governing the money side than they were before Bill 22. That's a problem.

I know the critic is looking forward to committee stage and looking forward to the opportunity of getting into a number of these issues in some depth with the minister — beginning to try to understand what the minister's thinking was in deciding to not include these key components in Bill 22; what the minister's thinking is about how these critical questions that are left unanswered will be resolved; about how the importance of the governance system will drive, at the end of the day, a whole lot of the success of this system and of TransLink in the future; and about how that will work.

[1640]

I look forward…. Those are critical questions from my constituents in Vancouver-Hastings. Those are critical questions for a couple of million people in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia who increasingly are dependent upon a transit system to be successful.

That doesn't even begin to deal with the questions of the broader transportation system, of the movement of goods, of all of those issues that TransLink and the transportation authority have responsibility for. All of those questions are critical, and they will need to be addressed.

The one that obviously jumps out in people's minds, probably, is the transit system in most cases, but it's not alone. There are a whole lot of questions here on the other side. I know the critic is looking forward to talking about some of those issues in the context of governance when he gets an opportunity in committee stage to engage with the minister on these questions.

I'm pleased to have participated in this debate. I want to acknowledge that Bill 22 takes some steps in the right direction but, really, to express some disappointment that it doesn't deal with those core questions that really need to be addressed in a pretty fundamental way if we are going to rebuild confidence in that system and if we're going to be successful moving forward to have a vibrant and dynamic authority over transportation in the Lower Mainland — an authority that has the capacity to make decisions in a politically accountable way and move forward to build the network that we all need, both in terms of the ability to get people around and to begin to deal with some of those critical questions around climate and issues.

We know that changing the way we move in our highly populated areas will go an awfully long way to begin to address that.

That's what's on the table here. That's what we're debating. Really, governance is such a fundamental piece of that. I do hope the minister will give some thought to whether some adjustment here on these critical questions is warranted, and maybe we get to move forward with a better piece of legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the minister to close debate.

Hon. T. Stone: I do want to acknowledge and thank all of the members of this assembly for what I think have been, for the most part, very thoughtful comments
[ Page 2970 ]
— particularly my critic, the member for Vancouver-Fairview. We've had the opportunity through a couple of rounds of estimates and now this first piece of legislation, and I do very much appreciate the thoughtfulness and the commitment on the part of the member for Vancouver-Fairview to work with us. As I know he doesn't call into question my motivations, I certainly don't call into question his as well.

That being said, I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank the Education Minister and, in particular, the member for Surrey-Panorama for his remarks earlier. These are two gentlemen with a tremendous amount of local government experience, who were at the table within Metro Vancouver, within the Mayors Council, and have seen this issue ebb and flow over a good number of years.

Now, Bill 22 follows up on a commitment that government made to improve TransLink governance so that the priorities and decisions would be made by, and the related accountabilities would be in place for, those closest to the challenges. Those individuals are locally elected officials.

To that extent, I want to also take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the efforts of the Mayors Council — in particular, the chair of the Mayors Council, Richard Walton and the vice-chair, Wayne Wright. I certainly want to acknowledge the contributions of each and every member of the Mayors Council.

We have been working together for the past ten months, and as everyone in this House knows, one very clear commitment that government made in the last election was to improve TransLink governance. I certainly acknowledge comments that have been made on both sides of the House about the fact that the governance, as it currently is constituted at TransLink, is not working well. It is not serving the needs of TransLink and the needs of the region.

That is why we made the commitment to improve the governance. This is hard work. This is very hard work. This requires courage. It requires vision. It requires commitment, and at times it's going to be messy.

[1645]

I'm not going to rattle off any number of quotes from mayors today who have said positive things about the process thus far, who have said positive things about the proposed legislation here, with Bill 22. But I will say this: I do not question the motivations of any of the mayors who sit around that Mayors Council table. I know that they are working as hard for their constituents as I work for mine.

We have a tremendous amount of hard work to do together, moving forward, with respect to both the improvements to governance contained here in Bill 22 as well as the companion legislation which will be up next, Bill 23. It would appear that my critic, the member for Vancouver-Fairview, and I also…. I think we agree on more than we disagree on with respect to this legislation, certainly, in the comments that I heard back from him earlier this afternoon.

One point of agreement, I think it's safe to say, is that the foundation for the changes that we are moving forward with, these improvements to governance today, are really based in the Ken Cameron report. The report that the member for Vancouver-Fairview mentioned — which the Mayors Council commissioned in 2012 and that released its recommendations in 2013 — really, indeed, is the blueprint for the governance changes that we are moving forward with.

Specifically, the report refers to the London model. The London model is one that certainly is worth emulating from a best-practices perspective, and it is what we have drawn from — not perfectly, not in every way, shape or form, but substantially. Again, from within the Mayors Council's own report.

That report provides for what it refers to as "an optimal 'division of labour' between the various elements of a governance system." Those three levels are as follows. There's a policy level. That's the level that's all about strategic decision-making on policies, plans, funding and relationships to broader plans and public purposes. The responsibility of this level should be elected officials, and that's what this legislation accomplishes.

The second level is the management level. That's the translation of policy decisions into operational plans and programs. That should be the responsibility of persons and/or bodies skilled in management, administration, service provision and financial control, including the selection of service delivery modes and structures. That is why we have retained the TransLink board, and that is what the TransLink board will be responsible for.

Last but not least, the third level of good governance is an implementation level. This is where decisions relating to the responsibility of staff or contractors hired and paid to actually run the buses, do the day-to-day operations of the operation…. Again, this is the level that will be carried out by the TransLink executive and management and the rest of the staff and contractors at TransLink.

We really believe that we've substantially emulated the recommended model, the London model, as detailed within the Mayors Council–commissioned Ken Cameron report.

Now, I also want to say before I close my closing remarks here that we are very proud of the investments that this government has made in TransLink and transit generally. Since 2001 we've invested $2 billion in TransLink. That's out of $17 billion of transit- and transportation-related investments provincewide.

Specific to TransLink, Canada Line comes to mind, the Highway 99 and Highway 7 rapid bus projects, the Langley 202nd Street park-and-ride and transit exchange. There's been bus expansion. There are fare gates; the Compass card program; SkyTrain improvements, includ-
[ Page 2971 ]
ing station upgrades and 48 new SkyTrain cars; seven new West Coast Express cars and a new SeaBus; transit on the Port Mann Bridge for the first time in 25 years, moving 50,000 people per month.

When the $1.4 billion Evergreen line is completed in the summer of 2016, Metro Vancouver will have Canada's longest rapid transit network, bar none.

Now the results of these investments speak louder than words. The transit service is up 45 percent since 2002. Ridership is up 84 percent since 2002. TransLink moves 233 million people per year, and that works out to 1.2 million people per workday. Again, 50,000 riders per month now use the rapid transit bus over the Port Mann to Langley. I had the privilege of travelling that a couple of months ago. It's a fantastic service. The Canada Line moves over 100,000 passengers daily.

[1650]

Now, moving forward, the reasons to continue investing in TransLink, both on the transit and the major road network transportation sides, are very clear. First and foremost, congestion is estimated to be costing our economy $1.5 billion today. Secondly, I think we all can agree that whether it's one million or a bit more or a bit less, there are a lot more people coming to the Lower Mainland region of the province over the next 20 years.

Transit expansion will be critical to managing congestion and growth. People, at the end of the day, are simply trying to get to work. They're trying to get their kids to school. They're trying to get to doctor appointments.

Now, Bill 22, combined with companion legislation, Bill 23, does provide mayors with the tools to create their transportation vision, to develop a ten-year investment plan, to prioritize projects with costs and to propose funding sources to fund any expansion. This is exactly what the mayors have asked for.

Over the past ten months — as I have spent countless hours meeting with the mayors individually, meeting with the mayors as a group, talking with all kinds of other stakeholders — this is what everyone has been suggesting. This is what everyone is asking for. The mayors have been asking for the authority to come up with the plan, to prioritize the projects and to move forward with transit and transportation expansion as a result.

What we're saying, and I think the mayors agree with this, is that with the authority must come the accountability. Specific to this bill, Bill 22, the Mayors Council will have input and authority over a 30-year vision. They will have input and authority over a ten-year investment plan.

I acknowledge the concerns that I've heard this afternoon from members opposite about what degree of input the mayors will have in the operational budget. We'll talk about that in a lot of detail, I'm certain, in the committee stage, but I want to assure the members, and I want to assure the mayors, that the TransLink board, as a result of these changes, will not be able to move forward with an annual budget that is out of alignment with the Mayors Council's ten-year investment plan.

Furthermore, the ten-year investment plan can be updated by the mayors at any time, but no less than every three years. It is that tie together, the alignment that will be required between the annual plan and the ten-year investment plan, that is so critical to success moving forward.

The Mayors Council will assume responsibility for the TransLink Commissioner's office. Again, this relates to all issues related to the fare box, this relates to the customer service policies, it relates to customer complaints, and it relates to all issues related to disposal of assets and facilities.

The Mayors Council will approve executive and board compensation and, quite importantly, the Mayors Council will also receive the resources that the Mayors Council needs in order to assume these added responsibilities.

Again, despite some suggestions that have been made today by some members of the opposition, the Mayors Council are actually very hard at work. They're very hard at work on a plan that they will be presenting to the people of the Lower Mainland in the coming months, and they're building that plan on the basis of the authority that they see, that they know is contained in this Bill 22.

Now, again, we believe that locally elected officials are best placed to establish the vision and set the priorities for transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland, certainly within the TransLink service area. That is why, on behalf of government, I am so very, very proud to have presented Bill 22 to this House.

I move second reading of Bill 22.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that Bill 22 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 22, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 23, intituled South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

BILL 23 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FUNDING REFERENDA ACT

Hon. T. Stone: I move that Bill 23 now be read a second time.
[ Page 2972 ]

Swiftly moving on the heels of the previous bill, Bill 22, I am pleased to kick off second reading of Bill 23.

[1655]

Efficient and affordable transportation is indeed the backbone of a livable region and a growing economy. TransLink delivers a world-class transportation network for Metro Vancouver, one that we can all be very proud of, but, as we are all aware, significant decisions about how to improve this network lie ahead. Over onde million more people are expected to be in the Lower Mainland region by 2030, so we really need to start planning for that future now.

Within Metro Vancouver, the transportation system is paid for through a combination of fares, taxes and tolls. Local leaders have told us that expansions of the transportation system are needed and that this expansion will require access to new sources of funding.

Government has been very clear, however, and has made a very strong commitment to the people of the Lower Mainland. That commitment is this: if the mayors of Metro Vancouver are asking the people of the region to pay new taxes or fees for transit and transportation expansion, then the electors must have a say in that decision. This is a commitment that government made in the last election. It is a commitment that citizens supported. I am proud to be able to deliver on that promise today.

Now, I believe that locally elected officials, as I've said several times in the last number of hours, are in the best position to advocate for regional transit and transportation priorities. They are those closest to those challenges. That is why government has challenged the Mayors Council to develop a regional transportation vision before June 30, 2014. I'm pleased that over the past couple of months the mayors have indeed risen to this challenge and have accepted this responsibility. They are working on a vision to clarify regional transportation priorities, associated costs and potential funding sources.

The mayors' vision will provide the foundation for a referendum vote. The South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act is a critical element in this process, as it provides the authority for local and First Nations members of the Mayors Council to hold a transit funding referendum in conjunction with local elections up to 2022.

This bill also provides members of the Mayors Council with the authority to make recommendations to government on any question that is to be put to the electors. This will also ensure that the question will accurately reflect the hard work the mayors have undertaken in developing their vision, complete with priorities and preferred funding sources.

Now, a referendum held under this act will apply to all residents within TransLink's transportation service region — essentially, all of the residents of Metro Vancouver, including individuals living on Tsawwassen First Nation treaty lands — and, as I have promised, this bill also provides for the government to reimburse local and First Nation governments for the costs of administering a referendum.

Looking ahead, the regulations drafted under this legislation will provide further detail in several key areas, including the following: first, the format and wording of the referendum question; second, the amount or formula that will be used to calculate the reimbursement to local governments; and third, the rules that will apply to referendum administration, which will draw from existing local government elections regulations.

This legislation also makes amendments to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act that underscore government's commitment to the citizens of Metro Vancouver by requiring that any future requests from the Mayors Council for new funding be accompanied by evidence that a majority of the region's electors support their proposal.

I would also like to note that as part of my discussions with the Mayors Council, I have provided them with the option of holding a referendum outside of the local election cycle before June 2015. This legislation allows for a referendum to be held prior to this date as a stand-alone vote.

This legislation delivers on government's commitment to the taxpayers of Metro Vancouver and provides the Mayors Council with a tool that can be used as part of their efforts to expand the regional transportation system.

With that, I look forward to the comments from the member for Vancouver-Fairview, as well as other members of the House, and a more detailed discussion during committee stage.

[1700]

G. Heyman: I will have a lot to say about this bill, as I have had in previous sessions of this parliament. It in some ways defies belief that we're continuing on in this path with a referendum that appears arbitrary, that appears to be a one-off, that appears to hold Metro Vancouver mayors to a standard in terms of enhancing and increasing service even just to meet the needs of population growth — in other words, steady state. It's a standard that no other capital project in British Columbia is being held to.

When I asked the minister in estimates if there were plans to apply this referendum criterion to any other capital project, any other highway project, any other transit project within British Columbia now or in the future, he said: "No, this was an election promise. We're keeping this promise." This reaffirms to me — and I thank the minister for reaffirming what I and many others have always suspected — that this is, in fact, an arbitrary decision, a one-off decision to hold a referendum on Metro Vancouver transit in isolation from all other decisions being made on transportation, including a rather sudden announcement by the Premier at the last Union of B.C.
[ Page 2973 ]
Municipalities convention.

Following a very quick consultation — a consultation which, I hasten to add, was not a referendum at all and was limited and had criteria that were perhaps not as expansive as others would have designed — she announced that the province would proceed with a bridge to replace the tunnel, currently called the Massey Tunnel, to cross the river at that point. It's a major project, but the Premier was unable to say whether it would be tolled.

The Premier was unable to say whether the design for the bridge had been completed. The Premier was unable to say what the bridge would cost. All of these standards are standards that Metro mayors, the Mayors Council, are being held to but which this government won't even apply to its own initiatives or the initiatives of the Premier.

So while I spoke some time ago about Bill 22, the changes to governance — and many of my colleagues spoke to the bill, as well, and very thoughtful closing comments from my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings as well as other colleagues from Burnaby–Deer Lake and Coquitlam-Maillardville and Surrey-Whalley and others — the fact remains that we see some good in that bill, although we certainly see some aspects that are seriously lacking and without which we question whether the bill can function effectively.

In this bill we see no merit whatsoever. We have said so from day one. Commentators have said so from day one. The mayors have said so from day one.

If that was all, if we simply disagreed with the premise, we'd simply be agreeing to disagree. But the consequences of not just the delay this year or last year in finding some way to carry forward with funding for TransLink and allowing the Mayors Council to actually propose meaningful funding options for expanding bus service, for expanding rapid transit, for investing in infrastructure, for carrying out, in fact, the provincial government's own 2008 transit plan as it applies to Metro Vancouver….

The ability to move forward in a reasonable manner to prevent congestion, to prevent the cost to the economy of congestion, to prevent the serious impacts on family life and livability in the region…. By not actually moving ahead now and approving funding sources now to move on with enhancing transit services in the Lower Mainland — even to the point of keeping up with the level of customized transit for people with mobility issues known as handyDART, even to the point of keeping up with plans that were part of the base plan to enhance bus service and increase bus service, to increase SeaBus service — none of this is possible.

[1705]

We're not just talking about infrastructure or capital plans or light rail or subways. We're talking about simply keeping up with population growth in the Lower Mainland region. This continual delay in approving methods of funding simply has become intolerable for people of the Lower Mainland.

With that, let me talk a little bit about some of the history of this government with respect to TransLink and funding of transit in the Metro Vancouver region. First of all, I mentioned the 2008 provincial transit plan. That plan had very ambitious ridership. It was talking about doubling transit ridership and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 4.7 million tonnes by 2020. A significant part of this was by investing in transit in Metro Vancouver. That was the plan in 2008.

What have we seen since then? With minister after minister, with Premier after Premier, with delay after delay…. We have seen, for starters, a three-year delay in the Evergreen line and massive service cuts to bus routes, especially south of the Fraser. Those service cuts, my friends at TransLink say: "We haven't cut service. We just haven't expanded the way we planned to."

I think we all know that if the population is going up, if congestion is going up and we actually don't expand bus service to meet that growing demand, that's effectively a cut to the availability of transportation for people who rely on it. When another mechanism relied on by TransLink called service optimization — that's moving buses from lesser-used routes to more heavily used routes — is implemented, that's also experienced as a cut by many of the people who use the lesser-used routes.

Now, it is true that the demand may be higher in the other places, but it's also true that it is an impact and perhaps an unnecessary impact on those people on the lesser-used routes.

So we have the 2008 provincial transit plan, and then in 2010, to much fanfare, the province and the mayors signed a regional transportation agreement. There was a news release dated September 23, 2010, and let me just read some quotes from various people who were involved in that initiative and from what the Premier of the day, Gordon Campbell said.

"Today we are reaffirming our commitment to the people of Metro Vancouver that their mayors and the provincial government will collaborate closely to keep people, goods and services moving quickly and efficiently, with minimal impact on our environment.

The release goes on to say:

"The province and the Mayors Council commit to the development of a long-term, sustainable funding strategy that makes the most of TransLink's available revenue sources as well as finding innovative ways to generate revenue, such as using the increase in property values along rapid transit corridors to support future projects."

The current Minister of Jobs and then Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure said:

"Together we're creating a transportation system that encourages people to take transit, rather than drive their cars, leading to less traffic congestion and fewer greenhouse gas emissions…. An efficient, affordable and reliable public transportation system is an essential component of a livable region."

That's the statement of the then Transportation and Infrastructure Minister, the current Jobs Minister.

The current Minister of Education and then mayor of
[ Page 2974 ]
the city of Langley said:

"This agreement forms the foundation of a new dialogue to sustainably plan, fund and deliver a world-class transportation system to the region."

As I've said, the news release said:

"This MOU will help support the region and TransLink to expand services and infrastructure to meet provincial transit plan goals" — which had been developed two years earlier — "a strategy to double transit ridership and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4.7 million tonnes, all by 2020."

[1710]

Well, that announcement was worthy of some kudos and some congratulations. The only problem is that it's now almost four years after that announcement, almost six years after the provincial transit plan, and we're still in gridlock on funding.

The result of the gridlock on funding…. There are a lot of causes of that gridlock. It's been repeated over time, and I'll detail some of this. The most recent one was a surprise thrown to all of us by the Premier of British Columbia that any increase in funding for TransLink to enhance service, to build new infrastructure, even to keep up with a growing population or even to provide the current level of service would have to go to a referendum. This caused loggerheads to develop between the government, the new minister, the Premier and the Mayors Council on TransLink.

TransLink immediately suspended parts of a planned expansion in their base plan and supplemental plan. So 306,000 hours of additional bus service that were planned just to keep up with current demand and a growing population were put on the scrap heap because TransLink believed that it would be irresponsible to go forward with that plan without the funding to pay for it — even as they were continuing to provide service by eating into their reserves at a rate that many people believed was completely unsustainable.

This is not the way to do transit planning. Yes, there are hard decisions to make about priorities. Yes, the public never holds up their hand and voluntarily says, "We're ready to give you more money," unless it's clearly explained to them what that additional money is for.

I believe, I know — and certainly, my constituents in Vancouver-Fairview, the constituents of my colleagues on this side of the House for constituencies of Metro Vancouver and the constituents represented by members opposite know — that congestion is a problem. They want to see it solved. Not everybody will be able to take transit, but certainly, people who are able to take convenient, accessible and affordable transit are likely to do so if it gets them to where they need to be on a timely basis.

That in turn will free up the highways and roadways for other commuters who have no choice but to take a car. It will free up highways and roadways for service people. Most importantly — well, I won't say most importantly, but very importantly — it will free up the roads to allow the transport of goods much more quickly throughout the region and to port, and those goods come from all over the province.

I was at a conference where the mayor of Surrey put forward a figure that the cost of congestion to the economy of the entire province of B.C. is estimated to be up to $1.5 billion annually. That's a lot of lost productivity. That's a lot of lost economic activity. We don't want to see that on this side of the House. I'm sure the members opposite don't want to see it. I know that people in resource communities and people who are operating resource industries around the province don't want to see that. There has to be a better way.

We are stuck, I guess, with this system because the members opposite have a majority, and they're certainly committed to carrying out this proposal. The minister said that the mayors appear to be taking up the challenge in good faith to work on a question and to work on a system of priorities. Of course they are. If you took any of us, locked us in a box and said, "The only way out is through that door. Here's the saw. Cut your way out," we'd be sawing away even if it was a very thick wall, because it's the only way out.

So yes, the mayors are working hard, and they're working in good faith. But the mayors, frankly, have put forward numerous funding options over many years, most of which have been rejected by successive ministers, successive Premiers, successive governments across the aisle. It's just not good enough.

[1715]

It's not good enough in 2008 to create a transit plan and say that you're committed to it and you're committed to its goals — committed to doubling the ridership and committed to a very significant reduction in greenhouse gases.

It's not good enough to say in 2010, in a joint release with mayors that they entered into in good faith, that you're going to sit down and work out a funding formula with them and consider in good faith how to fund the system, and then not do it. Not only not do it, but every time a suggestion is brought forward, dump cold water on it while at the same time having removed them from an important oversight role and a governance role and a policy-making role.

It's not good enough to undercut successive Transportation Ministers who negotiate agreements with mayors and then have the leader of the government turn around, turn her back on them and undercut the Transportation Minister of the day — or as some of us and some media wags like to call it, throw another Transportation Minister under the bus.

It's not good enough because there are real impacts on people, there are real impacts on family, and there are real impacts on the economy. It's not good enough.

What we have is a 2008 transit plan with lofty ambitions. We have a 2010 agreement to work with mayors to expedite funding the system and find new ways of
[ Page 2975 ]
funding the needed transit expansion. The memorandum talks about it as needed transit expansion and an efficient, affordable and reliable public transportation system, which was understood to be an essential component of a livable region.

So what do we have? Back then it had a $14 billion price tag. We called it an unfunded wish list at that time on this side of the House because it wasn't funded, and unfunded it remains. But it's an honourable wish list. It's the right wish list.

It's the right aspirations and goals for both the province and the mayors and TransLink. It meshes with the residents of Metro Vancouver and their vision of a livable region, their vision of being able to move around in a livable region. It meshes with the desire of people engaged in the movement of goods and services around the province and around the region to do that in an efficient, cost-effective and productive way. Yet unfunded it remains.

Let's take a look at some of the timeline of events to do with funding. In 2009 the government ordered the comptroller general to conduct a review of TransLink, which faced a $130 million funding shortfall and could not afford its share of the Evergreen line. The review recommended cost containment before any new funding sources. TransLink followed the recommendations and passed the 2009 funding stabilization plan.

To maximize its existing revenue resources, it increased tax on parking, was looking at property taxes, transit fares. But this only closed the operating funding shortfall and provided no new services, and at that time TransLink still didn't have enough for its share of the Evergreen line.

In 2010, as I mentioned, the province and the TransLink mayors signed the regional transportation agreement to find sustainable funding sources. A great document, lots of agreement. People were hopeful. People thought they could go forward and solve the problem, because we all know it takes a considerable amount of time to order and construct rapid transit, whether it's SkyTrain or light rail. It takes not as much time, but a significant amount of time, to order and have produced new buses and to train the mechanics and drivers for those buses.

All of this takes time. If you don't start, if you don't have an assurance of funding, the time frame just stretches out and you start falling further and further behind, which is exactly what's happening to us today.

On July 6, 2011, then Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom announced that a deal had been struck with regional mayors to increase the fuel tax in Metro Vancouver to pay for the long-delayed Evergreen line. What happened five days later? The Premier of the province announced, in one of her patented surprise announcements for Transportation Ministers, that she did not support the minister's deal with the mayors because it was unaffordable.

[1720]

Now, the minister had spent a significant amount of time and political capital in making this deal with the mayors. God knows what was actually said when they met in a room finally, but two days later the Premier recanted and agreed to support the deal that had been made between the mayors and the Transportation Minister. She even wrote a letter to the Mayors Council chair, Richard Walton, to seal the deal. My colleague the then Transportation critic called it at the time "policy on the go."

At least she reversed herself at that time and allowed the significant agreement that had been reached between the minister and the mayors to go forward.

Somewhat later in the fall of 2011 the mayors passed what's known as the Moving Forward 2012 supplemental plan to fund various transportation projects in the Metro Vancouver region, including the Evergreen line. Funding would be provided in part by a two-cents-per-litre increase in the Metro fuel tax.

In March 2012 the mayors then sent a letter — I've referenced this — to Minister Lekstrom with additional funding proposals. These included a graduated vehicle registration fee otherwise known as a vehicle levy, a regional carbon tax, road pricing and an additional fuel tax.

At that point a by-election was being kicked off in Port Moody. The Premier simply rejected the idea of a vehicle levy and called for TransLink's $30 million shortfall to be made up by an audit. Now, it's fair enough to have an audit. It's fair enough to have audits periodically, but unfortunately, the Premier's rejection of the mayors' proposal triggered a temporary $28 million regionwide property tax.

Further, the audit that the Premier was promoting for TransLink…. While she said that there had been an audit at B.C. Hydro and that it had resulted in significant savings and, therefore, would be a good model for TransLink, the fact remains that it was the third such audit in as many years.

Now, there are only so many times you can keep going back and doing an audit and assuming that, magically, whoever did the last audit 12 months ago missed a whole big pot of money that we're now going to find and that somehow, magically, we'll be able to enhance TransLink services with it.

Let's talk about what was found by that audit. We know the Premier had ruled out the vehicle levy, and then Minister Lekstrom admitted that he and the Premier, as he said, had not collaborated on a talk. But he did say, "She is my Premier. I serve in the cabinet at her discretion," which, of course, is true of all ministers. This was in the Globe and Mail.

It is perhaps noteworthy — the now Minister of Education may want to remember what then Minister Lekstrom said — that at the time, the Minister of Education was the mayor of Langley and vice-chair of
[ Page 2976 ]
the TransLink Mayors Council, and he said: "The Premier seems to be drawing a line in the sand."

Clearly, I've heard the Minister of Education speak to the earlier bill today and praise it, and I have praised parts of it as well. But I'd ask the minister to remember that there was a time when, as a local government elected official, he believed that the actions of the Premier were not conducive to reaching agreement and cooperation between the mayors and the provincial government on the necessary funding.

He went on to say: "She has never talked to me or Mayor Walton" — Mayor Walton, the chair of the Mayors Council — "nor does she seem to have talked to her own cabinet members. I'm never surprised at things the Premier says. I think she makes decisions in isolation."

Well, a long list of Transportation Ministers have in fact had to deal with a Premier who, when faced with a microphone, seems to say whatever she thinks is appropriate at the time, which has the effect, of course, of undermining the legitimate undertakings and actions of her ministers in trying to, in good faith, reach agreement with other levels of government.

[1725]

On April 17, 2012, TransLink's CEO, Ian Jarvis, announced that all future expansion projects are on hold until the financing issue is resolved. The Evergreen line was the exception, because a 2 percent gas tax had been allocated to that.

On September 5 Blair Lekstrom was replaced as Transportation Minister — I guess he had disagreed with the Premier one too many times — by the current Minister of Environment. In September, again, TransLink released their 2013 base plan, and despite aggressive cost-cutting, TransLink then faced a $472 million shortfall between 2013 and 2015 and had to cancel the following plans.

There was a planned increase of 306,000 annual service hours, as I've mentioned earlier, that was necessary to reduce overcrowding on key routes to accommodate population growth and to meet the U-Pass demand.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

They cancelled, until funding could be found and assured, the full Highway 1 rapid bus project. They cancelled the full King George Boulevard B-line to White Rock. They cancelled a third SeaBus that was planned to extend SeaBus service to every 15 minutes, with an upgrade to the Lonsdale Quay. They cancelled, in addition, full funding for major road network and cycling upgrades.

Now, all of this was supposed to have been dealt with by an audit, if only an audit could find enough funding for TransLink to go forward with the identified service enhancements — enhancements, I will add again, that were necessary to keep up with population growth.

In October the TransLink audit was released, and the Premier claimed it found $41 million in savings. However, if you dug a little deeper, only $11 million was actually identified as savings. Now, I don't want to pretend that $11 million isn't a very significant amount of money.

Let me restate this. Only $11 million was identified as real savings, and $11 million is a lot of money, but in the context of what TransLink needs in order to simply meet existing service levels — whether it's for customized transit for people with mobility challenges; whether it's for people in suburbs; whether it's planning for the needed expansion of transit south of the Fraser; rapid transit; rapid bus; dealing with the most congested corridor in North America on Broadway, which the city of Vancouver is desperately trying to address in some form or other — all of these things take considerably more than $11 million.

Now, $30 million of the $41 million in savings that was identified by the Premier as a result of the audit was not actually savings at all. They resulted from applying a less conservative budgeting method and eating into TransLink's reserves — something that then TransLink chair Nancy Olewiler termed irresponsible.

There is, in fact, a level below which the reserves should never go. Simply eating into reserves to cover operating costs because TransLink is not being adequately funded is a deep mistake. It puts the future of the organization at some risk, and to call it an audit-found saving or efficiency is simply incorrect, misleading and should never have been said.

March 1: TransLink makes up the temporary repealing of the $30 million property tax by changing 34 bus routes, which it termed service optimization. I've acknowledged that some routes are more heavily used and they certainly shouldn't suffer.

[1730]

But if the funding level was appropriate, then it would be easier to determine which service optimization suggestions and methods actually made sense and did not significantly lessen service to people unfortunate enough to live somewhere with a slightly lesser-served route in order to enhance and optimize service for the more heavily travelled routes. This is the kind of measure that TransLink will call service optimization but the people who are impacted will call a service cut.

March 22. The governance review we talked about, which the member opposite — in goodwill, I think, but incorrectly — identified as a governance review that was commissioned in support of Bill 22, was actually commissioned quite some time ago, at the end of 2012. It was commissioned by the Mayors Council to review the governance.

I won't go over it in too much detail, but as I noted in the debate on Bill 22, the report found that the governance structure at TransLink, introduced by this minister's
[ Page 2977 ]
predecessor several ministers removed, was "unique in the world and not in a good way" and that "accountability to the population being served…is almost completely missing from the present arrangement."

On April 8 the government announced it would create a working group with regional mayors to look at sustainable funding sources for Metro Vancouver transit. Now, this is nearly three years after the party signed a deal to do so in September 2010, when Gordon Campbell was the Premier of the province — three years of no action on a widely announced initiative between this provincial government and the mayors in order to put into effect the province's own 2008 transit plan and to meet the needs of the people in Metro Vancouver.

The working group is set up and is scheduled to come up with recommendations to allow the province to introduce legislative changes by spring 2014. It was supposed to make recommendations by the end of September.

Well, it is spring 2014, and we're debating legislation on a referendum that may not happen for another year. At that point, if it passes, TransLink will then be waiting for this government to call the House to session and pass whatever enabling legislation is necessary in order to find new funding sources to make up for the shortfall in service to a growing population in Metro Vancouver and to invest and plan for infrastructure — whether it's new buses, light rail or subways — to meet the demands of the future.

In the meantime, TransLink's own figures show that at this current rate of funding, if you consider service on a per-capita basis, because of the growing population in Metro Vancouver, by the year 2020 service levels will have regressed to where they were in 2004.

How on earth does that meet the 2008 transit plan of this government or the livable regions strategy put together by the democratically elected mayors and councillors of the Metro Vancouver region? The answer is that it does not.

We're in policy gridlock here. Nothing has happened. Promises were made that were not kept. Nothing continues to happen. And why? Because every time the mayors suggest a funding solution, a Premier says no. Every time a Transportation Minister enters into good faith to try to solve the funding problem or makes a deal with the mayors, a Premier says no, and in the worst-case scenario the minister is thrown under the bus.

Here we are with an off-the-cuff election promise to have a referendum that is holding up progress on meeting the transportation needs of the people of the Lower Mainland and the economic needs of the entire province of British Columbia. The number of times of years that nothing has happened, multiplied by 1.5 billion, could pay for much of the improvements that are needed in service, in infrastructure — in buses, trains, subway cars, SkyTrain cars.

[1735]

All of this could have been happening if there was some leadership from the government on the transportation issue instead of ducking and looking for cover under a so-called democratic initiative like a referendum that may happen sometime in the future and where, in fact, it is a measure and a requirement that the minister himself has said will be applied to no other transportation infrastructure or highway or project in British Columbia.

In other words, the Premier wrote it on the back of a napkin. She promised it in an election. She stuck it in the platform, and they're single-mindedly proceeding to disadvantage the entire Metro Vancouver region on a plan to hold a referendum that nobody wanted, nobody supports and we on this side of the House will not support.

It defies the imagination that a Premier can promise a referendum on TransLink funding while throwing out an unplanned, unfunded, undesigned promise for a new bridge that is questionable and that will likely cause gridlock at either end because it is not integrated into an overall regional transportation strategy. It's not good enough.

Let me continue with the chronology. September 2013. Premier Clark comments on the referendum, and she says: "The TransLink referendum is something that needs to be resolved by mayors. They need to come together with a proposal. They need to agree on it, and then we can put that forward to the public." That's an incredible statement from a Premier who forces a referendum on mayors that they never asked for in the first place and that they don't support. All of a sudden, the delay is the fault of the mayors because they haven't crafted the question.

If we look at Bill 23 closely, does it say that the mayors get to craft the question? No. It says they get to make recommendations on the question. It's still the government that will decide the question. So what is it? Is it the mayors' fault and their responsibility, or is it the government's fault and the government's responsibility? I think the answer is in the legislation, and it's not a very good or very satisfactory answer.

In response to the Premier, the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, said — and he, I believe, reflected the sentiment of mayors across the region: "The Premier came up with the idea of a referendum. It's her idea. It's up to the government to formulate the questions. From my point of view, it is up to the government to stage the referendum, and they are responsible for the results."

On the one hand, you have the government, the minister and the Premier saying that it is the responsibility of the mayors to design the question, that they're the holdup, that they need to come up with the priorities. They need to find the wording of the question, notwithstanding the fact that there has been plenty of back-and-forth between the Transportation Minister and the Premier about whether it'll be a multiple-choice question, whether it'll be a yes-or-no question, whether the government will support the referendum, whether the government will keep hands off the referendum.
[ Page 2978 ]

There's not widespread agreement, even on that side of the House, about exactly what this looks like. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the mayors to read the collective minds of the government and come up with a question which the legislation tells us can only be in the form of a recommendation. So they'd better guess right.

November 23. We're getting close to today. On November 23 the Transportation Minister tells Vaughn Palmer: "With respect to the referendum question, it cannot be a convoluted question with a whole bunch of boxes to tick off, and so forth. The successful referendums tend to be yes-no, one single question at the bottom…. In terms of timing, we want to maximize voter participation, we want to minimize the cost of the referendum, and we want to set the referendum up for the maximum chance of success."

[1740]

While it may not always be apparent when I speak, I have a fair amount of respect for the Transportation Minister, and I believe he meant exactly what he said.

I've said — and he obviously won't agree with me in this House or in public — that he's making the best of a bad idea that wasn't his. Nonetheless, he understands the need for transit. He's done his research. He's looked at referenda around North America. I've listened to him. I've read his comments. He understands what was successful and what wasn't. He stated that in the interview with Mr. Palmer, and he also made his own commitment to try his best to ensure the success of the referendum.

I think his implication was: "We're having a referendum. We made the commitment to have a referendum. It was in the platform. It's a promise, so we're going to keep it. I may not have thought of it, but we're going to keep it." But he does understand the necessity of the referendum passing, so he said that.

What happens after that? Well, the minister committed to fighting for a successful result. He said: "The Premier did not make this commitment to just run through a process — maybe it'll work; maybe it won't — whatever — and we'll move on. We're committed to success." The minister said: "We are committed to success. I, as the minister, am committed to success on this referendum. It's a steep hill to climb to get there — no question about it." Now, I commend the minister for showing his commitment at that time.

This particular interview was printed in the Vancouver Sun on November 23. What happens December 13? The Premier has an interview with the Globe and Mail. And does she back up the Transportation Minister? Does she show the commitment to success in the referendum that the Transportation Minister had referenced in his interview with Vaughn Palmer? Well, let's see what the Premier said, and I'll let you judge for yourself.

While the Transportation Minister said, following significant research — research that, I'm sure, the Premier did not have time to do herself, personally — that the most successful referenda tended to be yes-no, the Premier said: "It needs to be a multiple-choice question. A simple yes or no doesn't do justice to the questions that are there. We really want to ask people: 'How much transit do you want? How much do you want to pay for it? How much change do you want, or do you want no change to the system at all?'"

Well, hon. Speaker, I'll let you, I'll let members on this side of the House, I'll let members opposite and I'll let the public themselves decide whether there is congruency between the comments of the Minister of Transportation, the commitment of the Minister of Transportation to a successful referendum, and the comments of the Premier following his comments — of which I would hope she would be aware — that effectively contradicted him and effectively threw him under one of the dwindling number of buses in the Lower Mainland.

The other thing the Premier didn't mention was, as I have said, the significant impact on the economy of continued congestion in the Lower Mainland. This isn't about people simply: "Oh, it'd be nice to have a few more buses. We really like those SkyTrains, and we'd like to see more of them. We'd really like a faster way to get out to UBC."

It's about the incredible congestion south of the Fraser, the incredible congestion that's been caused by people choosing the Pattullo Bridge and streaming into New Westminster, the incredible congestion along the Broadway corridor and the incredible congestion other places where the provision of new technologies, rapid transit — whether it's rapid bus, light rail, subways, SkyTrain or simply adding more buses to existing routes or adding more SeaBuses to cross from the North Shore to the downtown of Vancouver — actually gets cars off the road and allows goods and services to move.

No, the Premier didn't reference that. I would hope the Premier would know about it. Members opposite continually remind us that they know about the economy and we don't. They know about the economy, and we don't understand it. They're committed to growing the economy, and we're not. I reject that assertion absolutely. It's not true.

[1745]

We do understand the economy. We are committed to growing it in a responsible and sustainable way, and part of that is ensuring that there is necessary transit in Metro Vancouver to get cars off the road, to get people to where they're going, to allow goods and services to move and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the Premier doesn't get it, we get it on this side of the House.

The Premier went on to say, just in case she thought the bus should back up over the Transportation Minister: "The people will decide. People need to do their homework to make sure they get the answer that is right for them." I'm not sure if the Premier thought, when she said that, that as they are driving, stuck in traffic because
[ Page 2979 ]
there isn't accessible and affordable rapid transit they can take…. They're in their car, not using their cell phones, because that's now illegal. They are actually reading the details of the cost of enhanced transit with one hand, driving with the other, hoping to get home in time for dinner while they plan how they are going to vote on the referendum.

"People will need to do their homework to make sure they get the answer that is right for them, but I'm not going to try to decide for people what their answers should be." Unlike, I might add, the new bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel, the Premier said: "I am not going to try to decide for people what their answers should be."

Well, of course, she won't be deciding in a referendum, but a little bit of leadership would be nice, a little bit of honesty. The Transportation Minister at least, notwithstanding the fact that I disagree on Bill 23, intends to show some leadership on this particular issue, because he does understand that TransLink is underfunded.

It is difficult to understand what sort of conversations must happen between the Premier and Transportation Minister. The Transportation Minister has, in fact, made it clear on a number of occasions that he believes that this referendum should succeed. He is prepared to put his own political capital on the table for it, and I will commend him for that. He understands that it's important for government to show leadership.

If and when we ever end up with a referendum, if the people of Metro Vancouver are given a chance to finally take some action, whether it's in 2014 or 2015, to approve a funding model that's now four years overdue and by then will be five years overdue and some would argue is actually seven years overdue, the government will understand that leadership is needed to talk about all of the real choices.

It's not a zero-sum game. It's not just a question of spending money for nothing. It's a question of spending money to enhance transportation, to enhance livability and to support the economy. We know that. I believe the Transportation Minister knows that. It's important that people understand that if they don't pay for transit, they will be paying in a myriad of other ways and likely be paying far more long term.

Finally, January 27 of this year — I knew I'd eventually get into 2014 — the Premier once again said that the responsibility was the mayors' responsibility. "They are the ones that will have to lead the debate. We are enabling it as a province. We're enabling the people of the province, the citizens of the Lower Mainland, to vote on it. But it's ultimately the mayors that are going to have to lead it."

If the Premier meant those words, the Premier would not have said no, on numerous occasions, to funding solutions put forward in good faith so many times over the past several years by the mayors. She simply would not have done that, because the end result of doing that has been a delay.

The end result for people with mobility challenges has been an unbelievably high increase in the number of service denials by handyDART — an incredible increase over the last seven years, a huge percentage increase. These are people who are effectively being kept hostage in their own house because the funding to increase handyDART service has not been available from TransLink.

[1750]

TransLink doesn't have enough funding for handyDART. It didn't have enough funding to put 306,000 more service hours in place to meet the demand of a growing population. It couldn't keep the promise of a previous transportation minister to add a third SeaBus to the route so there would be three SeaBuses, a SeaBus every ten minutes at peak times. There's any number of things that haven't been done, and this is all a problem.

To begin to sum up, despite aggressively cutting costs, TransLink faces a $472 million shortfall between 2013 and 2015, and 2015 looks like it may be the date that a referendum will be held under this legislation. That's a long time.

Following the passage of a referendum, assuming it passes, it will take a considerable amount of time for buses to be ordered. It takes a little over a year for a bus to be ordered and delivered. It takes five to seven years for a SkyTrain to be ordered, produced and delivered and the infrastructure built. I believe it's somewhat less for light rail. I think it's something like three to five years. This all takes time.

If the government had met its commitment under the memorandum of agreement that was signed on September 23, 2010, we'd be approaching a time when much of this infrastructure would be about to be delivered. People would have been hired. People would have been trained. More buses would already be on the road. TransLink would have the funding necessary to not only keep up with population but to keep up with the growing demand.

People with mobility challenges would not be forced into a situation where, even with a week's notice, they can't get the ride they need to see their doctor, or they're told that after their doctor's appointment, they will have to wait for up to three hours to get a ride home. Translink would not be forced to offer taxis, which are okay in suitable situations but are not okay in so many others, when taxi drivers have nowhere near the level of training or expertise in understanding the needs of the many people who are served by handyDART.

All of these things could have been avoided — all of these things — if the government had met the terms of its memorandum and met with the mayors in good faith and accepted some of their proposals for funding. The government's own 2008 transportation plan could be taking life today instead of gathering dust on a shelf while Metro Vancouver commuters gather dust as they wait at
[ Page 2980 ]
bus stops while buses pass them by. We could have done better. We should have done better.

The 306,000 annual service hours that were needed to reduce overcrowding, that were needed to keep up with the U-Pass program — cut, because TransLink had no assurance of funding. The Highway 1 rapid bus project — on the shelf. The King George Boulevard B-line to White Rock — out the window. The extension of SeaBus service — nowhere to be seen. The minister talks about a third bus, but it's not going to be an additional bus. That's what's not being said in this House. And full funding for the major road network and cycling upgrades — nowhere to be seen.

At this rate, as I've said previously, by 2020 service levels on a per-capita basis will be back to 2004 levels. How is that meeting the government's own 2008 transit plan, which wanted to double transit ridership and reduce GHG emissions by 4.7 million tonnes? The answer is that it does not.

South of the Fraser in Surrey people are completely frustrated. The mayor of Surrey went to the federal government on her own to seek funding to increase transit and rapid transit in Surrey. Steve Burke, the president of the Surrey Citizens Transportation Initiative, said that route adjustments will mean fewer buses on many routes and longer wait times. "Route adjustments" — another word for service optimization, which the people of Surrey experience as cuts.

[1755]

Steve Burke went on to say: "We have about one bus for about 4,000 Surrey residents when the Metro average is about 1 for 1,700 and Vancouver is probably closer to 1 for 1,500." Why should the people south of the Fraser continue to be disadvantaged when even in Vancouver and the rest of the region we know that service is not keeping up with the growth of the population?

There seems to be no end to this. I mean, I guess a bill to introduce a referendum that's been talked about for the last year is some form of…. I hesitate to use the word "progress." I hesitate to use the words "moving forward," because those were the words used for the Metro Mayors Council transportation plan. Clearly, this referendum idea doesn't support that, nor does the lack of funding support it. I guess it's better than talking about it.

But the fact remains that it doesn't fund even the current needs, let alone the future needs. It doesn't get people into transit and out of cars. It doesn't allow goods and services to move more quickly through the region. It doesn't allow any of that. Instead, it just puts off the inevitable for political expediency, and that's not, in my view, what we were elected to do.

We were elected to understand the needs of the people we serve. We were elected to support locally elected officials who are completely accountable for that. We were elected to address congestion on the roads; the effect on the economy; livability in the region; the needs of working people to cut a precious few half-hours off their commutes every day or every week in order to spend more time with their family; the needs of people who work shift work — food service workers, people who work in hotels, people who work in the health industry who travel at odd times of the day — to not have to sit around in potentially dangerous SkyTrain stations or bus stops waiting for buses that may never come or may not come for another hour or to wait when SkyTrain service is far more sparse than when it is at the normally considered rush hour peak times.

We were elected to serve everyone. This government is government to serve the needs of everyone. Hiding behind a referendum because it was politically expedient in an election campaign is not good enough. It's not good enough for British Columbians. It's not good enough for the economy. It's not good enough for the people of Metro Vancouver, and it's disrespectful.

It's disrespectful to the elected officials who, in good faith, signed a memorandum of agreement in 2010 with this government, where the government committed to sit down and talk about new funding sources that were needed to expand transportation options. Instead, the government cut and run, and it did not matter what any transportation minister said or did or what deal they worked out with the mayors or however hard they tried to make a difference. The Premier threw them under the bus.

What did the Premier say, previous to this referendum idea, were her ideas about referendums on tax issues? Well, in 2011 she said: "I never thought that tax issues are best outside of the Legislature." Again in 2011 she said, and this was a press release: "I think you have to be upfront with people. You have to explain the circumstances. You have to have a debate, and then you introduce your tax policy. I will lead a government that consults, listens and then acts with the best interest of all British Columbians at heart. When you do that, people are willing to accept changes to the tax system."

[1800]

That must have been a different Premier than the one who has proposed this referendum and the one who is forcing this referendum on the people of Metro Vancouver. As the minister himself confirmed in estimates, there are no other plans for future referenda, except for TransLink — not for the bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel, not for highway projects, not for transit elsewhere in the province, not for road improvements, not for anything else.

The minister confirmed that this was an election promise and that it was going to be kept. In other words, it's an arbitrary, one-off move.

Let me quote the then Transportation Minister and the current Environment Minister one more time. Even after the Liberal platform was released, the then Transportation Minister said that voters will not be able
[ Page 2981 ]
to reject any and all new taxes or fees for TransLink in a referendum. She said that "none of the above" will not be an option. She said that because she understood that "none of the above" is not a practical option for solving the transportation needs of the Lower Mainland.

What did the Premier do two days after that? She contradicted her Transportation Minister by saying: "If voters don't want it, we're not going to impose it on them."

After the election the Minister of Environment once again said that there would be choices, not simply a yes or no. She said that she thought that voters would choose the best means of going forward and of funding their transit future, and the referendum is to take place related to the choice of funding, not whether there needs to be funding, recognizing that there needs to be expansion and maintenance of service.

Now, one might wonder why the Environment Minister was speaking on the referendum when she was no longer the minister. Of course, the availability of transit, getting cars off the road — even by the government's own transportation plan — and the goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4.7 million tonnes is of important and critical concern to the Environment Minister.

What did the Premier do? Once again, she said that it's up to the mayors. It's up to the mayors to come together, step up to the table and come up with the question. This was in response to many people questioning why we continue to have delay and confusion and disagreement between ministers and the Premier over what the referendum would look like, how it would take place, when it would take place, who would pay for it, whether or not the government would be involved in supporting it.

This prompted Gary Mason of the Globe and Mail to say that the Premier and her Transportation Minister need to get on the same page.

I would say that the government needs to get on the same page with its own commitments, its own signed memorandum of agreement with the Metro Vancouver Mayors Council, and meet the promise that they made almost four years ago to agree on funding options for TransLink. Scrap this referendum idea and get on with it, because everybody knows that it needs to be done.

Let me simply read some other comments from commentators. Kim Emerson on News 1130, December 14, 2013, said: "Here's the kick I get out of it. She's looking more and acting more like Bill Vander Zalm when he was Premier these days than the leader who is actually in charge and directing what's happening." This was in response to the continual disagreement between the Minister of Transportation and the Premier on the form of the question, whether the government would get involved, whether it would be a yes or no question or whether it would be a list of options.

I've gone on at considerable length, as the designated speaker, about what the problems are with the delay in reaching agreement with the mayors on funding transit. TransLink is trying to maintain service levels, and clearly, TransLink will not be able to do that until it's assured of funding.

[1805]

We will see a continuing decrease of per-capita service levels, projected to reach 2004 levels by 2020. This will force more people to buy cars, and once people buy cars, they're committed to driving them. This is not how we are going to get more people into transit. It is not how we are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Buses may have to be cut in growing areas.

I spoke earlier today on Bill 22 about the mayor of Coquitlam speaking about the problem in new developments that were planned around the expansion of transit that never happened, and how the people who bought in those new developments are turning away from a transit-oriented community and turning it into a car-oriented community. More and more of this will happen the longer and longer we wait to make a commitment to increasing transit in the region.

We know what the problems in the Broadway corridor are. It is the most stressed route in North America. The buses are full. People stand and are passed up by the 99 B-line constantly. It will take a long time before any infrastructure can be built, and it will take a longer time if we don't start now.

People south of the Fraser currently don't have the same level of transit service as people throughout the region, particularly in Vancouver. This should be of concern to all of us. Yet the people south of the Fraser are being told they will have to wait longer and longer and longer before their needed and promised projects…. The projects were scheduled to go ahead until TransLink was forced to scale them back because they were already in deficit, they were eating into the reserves and there was no funding for them.

All future expansion is on hold. It takes 18 months from tender to buy a bus and to train operators. Light rail takes five years; a subway takes six years. There are federal funds available for matching that are dependent on commitments from TransLink to put funds forward.

All of this is at risk while we wait for a decision in a referendum that no one asked for other than the Premier. All of this is at risk while the government refuses to exercise leadership and a policy mandate and meet with the mayors and agree on funding the expansion of rapid transit and provision of the needed expansion of existing services to meet up with the population.

Let me close by simply saying what the reaction of some of the mayors was to the announcement of a referendum — the reaction of mayors who are now working in good faith to try to deal with the hand that was dealt them, to come up with priorities, to come up with a plan, to come up with a referendum question so that given this government's majority and the intransigence of the Premier and her government about holding this referen-
[ Page 2982 ]
dum, despite widespread opposition, they are working in good faith to try to make that a success.

The mayor of Surrey: "We just really need to stop playing politics and get the job done." The mayor of Richmond, referring to the referendum: "A recipe for disaster. It will divide the whole region, and if it fails, we'll be further behind than we ever were. A referendum is simply a way to avoid responsibility." The mayor of White Rock: "An absolute utter and total mistake and a total abrogation of responsibility."

The mayor of Port Coquitlam, who in 2005 was a B.C. Liberal candidate, Greg Moore: "The hypocrisy of this policy platform proposal is unbelievable." The mayor of Coquitlam, a former member on the other side of the House, "We need a solution. We don't need political posturing" — this from a former Liberal MLA. The mayor of Vancouver called it ridiculous, and the chair of the Mayors Council, the mayor of North Vancouver district, said: "It's clearly a deflection of the province's responsibility."

[1810]

This was not requested by the mayors. A referendum is not a condition that is being placed on other infrastructure or transit planning or highway planning or road planning. This is a one-off. This is an ill-thought-out and arbitrary decision and condition being placed on Metro Vancouver only.

Metro Vancouver is important. It's critical to the economy of British Columbia. It's not just the people of Metro who deserve to be able to move around the region. It's not just the livability of the region, by getting cars off the road, that's at stake; it's the economy of the whole province, whose goods pass through the ports of Metro Vancouver and which pass through more slowly as a result of congestion.

We have opposed this referendum from day one. Metro Vancouver deserves better. The people of the region deserve better. The mayors and councillors in the region deserve more respect, and they deserve a government that will live up to its signed agreements. The province deserves better because the provincial economy depends on it.

Finally, let me simply say that it's not enough to have this one referendum, which we have opposed from day one and will continue to oppose. This legislation, this bill, Bill 23…. I've already mentioned that the minister confirmed that a referendum on improvements to TransLink was arbitrary. It was a one-off. It's imposed only on this region.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

This bill not only calls for a referendum now; it calls for perpetual referenda for any increase in funding for transit services. New infrastructure, increased number of buses on existing routes — any increase in service that isn't funded by the first referendum will have to go to a future referendum under this legislation.

Why on earth the Transportation Minister would take a bad idea and write it into legislation in perpetuity is beyond me, but that, among other reasons, is why this side of the House will stand with the mayors and councillors of the Metro Vancouver region and oppose this legislation, oppose this referendum and oppose future referenda. It is a bad idea. It's an unfair idea, and it will hurt the region and the economy of British Columbia as well as the people who depend on this government for leadership, leadership that we are not seeing.

Hon. P. Fassbender: In the short time that I have, I have so many thoughts I would like to share. Let me start with the first, most important one. That is that this piece of legislation is probably the most democratic process for the people of Metro Vancouver that we could have.

I am somewhat amazed that members opposite don't want to give voters a chance to have a specific voice on both shaping the future of the region and how that is going to be funded. In the time that I served in local government, I clearly heard from people in Metro Vancouver on many occasions that they wanted a say, and a more specific say, in how transportation was going to be developed and also how it was going to be funded.

I come from an area and am elected as an MLA for Surrey-Fleetwood, and I will agree with my colleague from Surrey-Newton that Surrey has many needs. Even when I wasn't an elected MLA from Surrey and I was an elected official for another community south of the Fraser, I clearly stood up on many occasions and talked about the importance of an integrated, well-funded, sustainable transportation system, not only for south of the Fraser but for the entire region.

[1815]

I stood up in support of the Broadway corridor and the pressures on the Broadway corridor. I stood up in support of the North Shore and a third SeaBus. I stood up — one of the few people, as an elected official, who stood up in the early days — in support of funding the Evergreen line. I did that because I believed that it was important to understand the needs of the entire region — not my own community but to see the big picture.

But my experience around the table at the Mayors Council was not that of some of my colleagues. It was clearly about pitting one community against another. That's one of the reasons that the governance structure is being revised, where every community will have a voice and be able to go out to their communities and say: "This is the big picture for the region. This is how we fit into it as a community and how we believe we need to fund the sustainable future of transportation in Metro Vancouver."

The bottom line to all of this is…. A lot of the members opposite don't want to talk about this, but Metro Vancouver taxpayers have been given a break for many
[ Page 2983 ]
years by not having to pay the hospital capital tax which other parts of this province pay. In reality, that particular tax in other parts of the province has gone up higher proportionately than what transportation tax has in Metro Vancouver.

The funding formula that currently exists in transportation in Metro Vancouver has certain funding tools, and there are a number of debates that have gone back and forth over the years about whether or not property tax is sustainable, how that fits with other needs of the region, how that fits into the long-term vision for the region.

I sat at that table for 12 years. Anybody that suggests in this House that the mayors were all unified and were all singing from the same song sheet and all agreed on where the priorities were and how it was going to be funded…. Those people, I clearly know, weren't sitting at the table. Or they're getting notes from people who were and who may have a different agenda than the interests of the region.

As I said in the debate on Bill 22, it is very clear to me that this government is committed to saying to the people of Metro Vancouver: "You have a right to have a voice on one of the single most important funding initiatives that you will face coming forward." There are many others. There is waste disposal, there is water, and there are all of those other things.

But if the mayors continue to say that property tax cannot be used as additional funding, then the mayors also have to work with the people in the region to communicate clearly what it is they believe are appropriate sources — and not just one-offs. The sustainable funding for the region is going to be critical in how it is integrated and how it moves forward over the next five, ten and 15 years.

The people of Metro Vancouver have a right to hear the vision, to hear what the mayors believe are the funding sources and then to be able to express their support for that. Again, at the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer. They pay for their services, they pay for all of the infrastructure, and they pay for all of the things that are coming forward.

Transportation — because of its significant impact on every sector of our society, the people of Metro Vancouver have a right, as we move forward, to lay it out.

[1820]

There were a lot of comments about comments that I made and what the Premier said and how there seemed to be a disconnect.

Well, one of the things I admire about our Premier is that after I, as the vice-chair of the Mayors Council, said that I felt there was a disconnect, I got a telephone call from the Premier. She said, "I've heard your comments." She did not say to me that she didn't appreciate my comments. She said: "Can you tell me what I need to know as I reflect on where we need to go?"

I admired the fact that she would do that, because I was concerned that there was a disconnect. But I was not concerned to the point that I wasn't prepared to work with the Premier and the then Transportation Minister to chart a new course based on a vision that I believed in for the entire region.

The Premier and I did speak. We talked at length about the future of the region as I saw it, in my role and on behalf of every single community in the region. It was not a partisan political discussion. It clearly was a discussion about the vision for the region and what I knew needed to be done in my perspective and based on the input from the other mayors.

The Premier listened, and the Premier shortly thereafter came out and said: "This is a very complicated and complex issue. We need to review all of the elements, and we need to look at what it's going to take to come up with a long-term plan, a sustainable plan and a vision that the people of the region will clearly understand and clearly know where we're going and why we need to go there."

The Premier also recognized that to have a simple question will only work…. She saw the research that was put in front of her. In the rest of the world, if you do a good job on communicating the vision and the options, the simpler you keep the question, the better.

The challenge now leading up to the referendum is to absolutely, clearly identify and recommunicate the vision that was developed. It was called the 2040 vision.

That vision has been refined. There have been changes made to it, but the fundamental principles….

Interjection.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has notes from someone close to her, and I appreciate that she might want to share those in her comments. I have had lots of opportunity to debate with various mayors from various communities, and the mayor of Burnaby is one of the ones who has worked consistently to defeat any initiative to move ahead. I make no apology for saying that. I said that when I sat at the table. I'll continue to say it.

That said, the rest of the mayors, the subcommittee that they've now formed, are working very hard, and I applaud them for it. I applaud them for the fact that they are willing to move ahead in a positive way. I know they are going to come up to this government with a very clear articulation of the vision.

The minister has clearly said that the government will support them and will ensure that that message gets out. It is their responsibility to communicate it. We are going to work with them to ensure that it is very clear, that all of the issues are there and that it clearly articulates how that fits in to the vision of this province on concepts I know the members opposite have trouble understanding called balanced budgets, reducing debt, growing the economy.

[1825]

I clearly understand that the members opposite would
[ Page 2984 ]
like to see the government spend more money, but the reality is that those concepts escape them. I clearly understand that those concepts may escape them when it comes to the funding of transportation, which is significant, and an economy that supports that is critical. A region that looks at those implications is critical.

Noting the hour, I would move that we adjourn debate. I reserve my right to continue my remarks at the next sitting.

Hon. P. Fassbender moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Sullivan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:38 p.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $101,243,000 (continued).

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Chair and neighbour. I wanted to follow up. We started discussions around bears and some issues with conservation officers, but I want to move on to the discussion of species at risk.

Certainly, B.C. is home, from what I'm told by the scientists, to the vast majority of species. Seventy-five percent, I'm told, of the species at risk are here in British Columbia. We have got a massive biodiversity in this province, but we're only one of two provinces that do not have species-at-risk legislation. The government has argued that we don't need one. I would argue, and certainly the NDP has argued, that we do.

The federal court ruling in February 2014 forcing the federal government to actually develop species-at-risk recovery plans for a number of species showed me, anyways, that the federal government may have a law on the books, but they certainly don't have the muscle behind the law to ensure we're actually following the law. That's really what the judge ruled.

I guess the question is…. The government has argued we don't need a species-at-risk law, as they think the strategy can do the work. Where are we at in terms of the implementation, and what funds have been dedicated to the implementation of the species-at-risk in a British Columbia draft plan or five-year plan?

[1340-1345]

Hon. M. Polak: I'm going to attempt to answer this in a little bit of a different way just because, in terms of trying to pull out the funding from different places, it became apparent that it was probably going to be simpler to tell you the number of FTEs that are devoted to it. In addition to our amounts that are spread over all sorts of different departments in our ministry and FLNRO, we also then receive and distribute money from the federal government, from industry, and from local government as well. We partner with them. So the financial part of it gets convoluted, to say what's directly there.

In terms of the Ministry of Environment, we have 232 FTEs that are working on species at risk, and in FLNRO, 315. Now, for the numbers in MOE, if you, for the sake of argument, want to consider that probably about 75 percent of the work that's done in B.C. Parks and by conservation officers has a relationship to…. Depending how you want to look at that, if you included those folks as well, then you'd be looking at about 287 FTEs, but purely in the Ministry of Environment it would be 232.

S. Chandra Herbert: My question is specifically: what are the next steps in the invasive…? Sorry, not invasive — I'm going back to this morning — but endangered. These are species we want more of, not less of. What are the next steps in the plan to better protect our endangered species?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, the largest part of the next steps is the five-year plan and the finalization of it. We expect to have that out before the spring is gone, and then, of course, also significantly, is the renegotiation or the renewing of our Canada–B.C. agreement on species at risk, which will expire in 2015.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the issue that we've got to grapple with is that the federal government, at least according to the courts, has not been doing their due diligence in terms of protecting species at risk. Is the government comfortable that continued reliance on the federal government's Species at Risk Act and follow-through from the federal Ministry of Environment, when they
[ Page 2985 ]
have seen their budget slashed and many people laid off, is a good strategy to protect B.C. species at risk?

We're home to 76 percent of Canada's bird species, 70 percent freshwater fish species and 60 percent of conifer species. We're the most biodiverse province.

[1350]

I think I misstated earlier that 75 percent of the species were at risk. That was not my intention, but certainly we also have, probably, about 1,900 at least identified as at risk. Would the minister continue to rely on the federal government, or are we looking to take more leadership at the provincial level?

Hon. M. Polak: The member and anybody else could be forgiven for thinking that because the Species at Risk Act is federal legislation, we therefore work in such a way as to be relying on them to take responsibility for it. In fact, it's quite the opposite. If anything, the federal government relies on the work that we do. I'll outline some of that. In fact, just as an overarching piece, approximately 37 percent of our land base is managed in some form of conservation or protection.

Now, when it comes to the specific areas we govern, those would be guided by the Wildlife Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Oil and Gas Activities Act. We have authored or co-authored recovery strategies for approximately 150 species. We have established 1,654 wildlife habitat areas under the Forest and Range Practices Act, and those are aimed at protecting 56 different species and ecosystems that are currently at risk.

In actual fact, we're comfortable with relying on the current arrangement, because it really is work that we undertake largely in British Columbia, obviously in cooperation with the federal government. But we certainly want to renew our agreement with them. We hope they will continue to rely on the recovery strategies that we have continued to put in place.

S. Chandra Herbert: So we've got — I think the number is, and maybe the minister could correct me — approximately 1,900 B.C. species listed as endangered or at risk. According to the minister, we have 150 species — maybe plus the 56; I'm not sure — in her last answer that have recovery strategies or plans of some kind. That seems to me to be a rather large gap between the number that are threatened or endangered versus the number that have recovery strategies.

How many recovery strategies does the government plan on signing off on in this year's budget term?

[1355]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll begin just by giving some context to the various lists that are out there, and there are quite a few different lists. The one I would recommend to the member, firstly, would be the provincial list that is on the B.C. conservation data centre. It keeps track of red- and blue-list species in B.C.

That's a different list from the SARA list. Of the 1,597 species listed in the red and blue lists under the B.C. CDC, 210 are listed under SARA. They are required to have recovery strategies in place for them. We have the 150, and then some of the 210 will have federal strategies, not British Columbia ones.

We are making significant progress in meeting that requirement, and I'm told that we usually land five to 15 plans a year, depending on the year and on the complexity of the plan.

S. Chandra Herbert: Could the minister tell us: are the recovery strategies so far…? I guess recovery would be growing the population back so that it leaves being endangered to threatened then to stable as the ideal. Out of all the recovery strategies, what's the global success-fail rate? Are we seeing increases in success of breeding, etc., for these endangered or threatened species, or are more of them continuing to fall further behind? How do we know if this is even working as opposed to just being a bunch of paperwork?

[1400]

Hon. M. Polak: The Species at Risk Act is only 12 years old so we would not be able to provide any conclusive evidence with respect to success or failure in any of the strategies.

I can tell the member that that is precisely what gets tracked through the B.C. CDC, and we will be looking at the population numbers, based on that data, as we evaluate the performance and the effectiveness of the various recovery strategies.

The short answer is that it is just too early to tell whether or not these recovery strategies are going to meet the objectives, in terms of either retaining species or growing populations.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, yes, 12 years, I guess, on the geological scale of things is pretty short. However, in the life cycle of an endangered species, it could be the difference between disappearing forever or having continued growth and expansion of the species that was supposed to decline.

I appreciate the ministry provided me with some information, as I asked about the conservation data centre earlier. They provided a list of the number of animals assessed, total red-listed and total blue-listed, but with a proviso that the main reason for changes in species status is improved information, as opposed to actual changes in the status.

I hope that's true. We don't know that, I guess, because maybe one day you happen to find a whole bunch of a certain critter, and then in the next couple years they've moved from that location, and you can't see them anymore. I guess you could say that they were becoming
[ Page 2986 ]
more and more threatened.

I think the public would feel a lot more secure that we were getting it right, as opposed to just playing a guessing game, if we were able to say conclusively that, let's say, the Vancouver Island marmot…. Maybe that's a success story. We've added more of them. They're on the way up. Of course, you could have a couple of eagle attacks and various other things, and they could decline again.

Still, there's a reality that in the caribou situation around Wells Gray Park we've seen a continued decline in the population numbers. They have a recovery strategy, and it clearly doesn't seem to be working. We've had no good response so far, at least in my estimation, about what's going to be done to change that.

I'll ask the minister if she's able to try once more and maybe list out a few of the strategies which are working and list out a few of the strategies which staff think need more work, because that would help me understand this better.

[1405]

Hon. M. Polak: I want to assure the member that I'm not trying to be coy with the answer, but I don't want to oversell what it is that I am describing as success.

One of the examples of success that I would point the member to would be marine mammals. Sea otters, for example, were just about gone, and they're now back in very robust numbers. That is an example of an animal that has a recovery plan. Where I have to depart, in order to remain honest about it, is that it's one thing for a layperson like myself to look at perhaps the caribou plan and say that it's not working, or a sea otter plan and say: "Oh wow, look; it worked."

The science, the evidence is not yet there for me to be able to tell you conclusively that it was our great plan that was a success with the sea otters or that the caribou recovery strategy is not a good strategy and isn't working. Not an attempt to try to get around the answer but just wanting to be clear that there is a difference between being able to talk about what we're witnessing in terms of experience and what we can actually provide to the member in terms of evidence.

If there is a comfort that British Columbians can take, I do think it is in the extensive protection that we have provided to habitat areas — 1,654 wildlife habitat areas established under the Forest and Range Practices Act, a total of 3.8 million hectares involving the protection of 56 different species and ecosystems. That is substantial work. We know that the most important thing that we can do with respect to species at risk is to deal with protecting habitat.

The actions are there. The tracking will continue to take place. We certainly are hopeful that over time we will see success of our strategies and that we'll be able to eventually see that reflected in the data we receive back.

S. Chandra Herbert: What would be a success — I guess that would be my question for the government — in terms of this data? Scientists will form opinions and form arguments and may disagree. Certainly, we see that right now around the question of how many grizzly bears exist in British Columbia and whether or not a hunt should even be allowed because of concerns that there are just far too few, with real disagreements and peer-reviewed studies.

I guess my concern is siding on the side of caution, in terms of making sure that we have the analysis, that we have the work. Out of the 232, I believe it was, staff members working on species at risk, how many are scientists? How many make those arguments around if one is doing better or not?

[1410]

Hon. M. Polak: The defining of success, actually, would be impossible to do on a global basis, because part of what you'll see in the recovery strategies is that success in terms of the mountain caribou might look very different than success for the Oregon spotted frog. It really depends on the species, and it depends on their circumstances — what objectives we're trying to meet. Overall, of course, you're looking for some type of stabilization or recovery of the animal, but to try to give a general answer across the piece, I think, would be impossible.

I'm going to give you some numbers with respect to scientists involved. These will not add up to the 232 because we don't have them split out — these folks, anyway — in terms of species at risk. I should clarify — my fault — that the 232 number…. Those folks work on species at risk and biodiversity, which is fairly well linked, just to be clear. This will not add up to 232, but it'll give you a sense of how we're organized, because it's probably the largest segment of what we've got here.

We have 219 scientific technical officers, we have 80 licensed science officers, and then we have 87 biologists of various kinds.

S. Chandra Herbert: Before moving on to further questions, I'll just do one more on the species at risk. I think it's important that we acknowledge those that are most at risk. What would the ministry feel would be the top three, top five if it's easier to have more to pick, that are most at risk at this time?

[1415]

Hon. M. Polak: Just with the caveat that this is also subject to change as conditions change, currently the top three priorities…. I'll back up. The way we arrive at setting priority actions is based on two things, at least, and that is not only how endangered the species might be but then also what level of priority it ought to be given.

This goes back a little bit to our jumping slug conversation with respect to how much attention you pay to a
[ Page 2987 ]
species that is really on the outer edge of its range, naturally, or one where you're dealing with their central and ordinary expected habitat. Hence, I will talk about what our priorities are as opposed to which ones are top endangered.

The Vancouver Island marmot, the caribou that we've spoken about and the northern goshawk would be the top three on our priority list at this stage. I would encourage the member and anybody else who's interested to take a look at our conservation framework on the website. It goes into greater detail about plans for various species.

S. Chandra Herbert: Something locals in the Wells Gray area, one of the planning units within the B.C. mountain caribou recovery plan…. They've raised real concerns about snowmobiles providing, basically, predator highways into caribou wintering range. People are coming in, breaking the rules and riding in places they're not supposed to ride in.

Certainly with the ability to go up steeper and steeper embankments as the machines become stronger and stronger, we have seen them get to areas and allow access for wolves and other predators into areas that they never would have gone before. Just curious: what kind of enforcement action has been taken in this unit? How many tickets have been issued? How much time has been dedicated to stopping this kind of unlawful access?

[1420]

Hon. M. Polak: There are a number of habitat concerns with respect to caribou. In terms of the forest sector, we have protected 2.2 million hectares of habitat; heli-skiing tenure holders, another two million. Specifically with respect to B.C. snowmobilers, we have actually closed one million hectares of habitat.

In terms of enforcement, we don't have the discrete breakdown of the numbers. I can tell you the actions we've taken. With respect to the areas that have been closed to snowmobiling, we have targeted them for enforcement and monitoring — things like having a conservation officer located at the trailheads. We're cooperating and utilizing B.C. Parks staff as well as Natural Resource Operations staff so that we can ensure the protection of those closed areas. So they are active projects of ours.

S. Chandra Herbert: I don't need it today, but it would be helpful if the ministry could go back and take a look at, specifically, the Wells Grey area around tickets issued, I guess over the winter period, for that. Hopefully, the off-road vehicle legislation will allow us to have an easier time to ticket and track down those that are breaking the rules.

I understand that the one million hectares of high-suitability winter habitat, which was closed to recreational snowmobile use…. Those management areas expire this winter for the Thompson region. I may be incorrect there, so if I am, then please let me know.

I understand that they will be reviewed and might result in changes, given that the population of the caribou seemingly continues to drop in that area. Is the minister confident that that's enough work? Or are we going to see further work to better protect that species?

[1425]

Hon. M. Polak: In terms of expiration, to our knowledge there is no expiry of that protection. Staff are checking on it, but that's not our understanding of the situation.

Having said that, though, it is an adaptively managed plan. One can anticipate that as the plan unfolds, we could adapt very many parts of the plan as we observe things taking place on the land base.

It's also important to remember that this is a three-generation plan, and we're less than one generation into it. One of the very important things we must do is continue to actively research what factors are playing a role in the decline of the caribou populations. We certainly do know that snowmobiling has a significant impact, but there are many other factors. We need to be closely monitoring what other factors are impacting on the caribou survival.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand, in my meetings with freshwater fisheries folks, who have been working to improve our lakes and improve our freshwater fisheries, that they've been asking for a while now to ensure that all revenues from fishing licences are provided to them for conservation purposes no later than 2015-2016. Is it still in the minister's plan to make sure that change happens?

Hon. M. Polak: The member will also know that it's a part of my mandate letter from the Premier. We, of course, take those things very seriously, as do we take the requests from the stakeholders as well.

I am advised that we are on track to accomplish that for '15-16.

S. Chandra Herbert: There have been many that argue that the old-growth rainforests of Vancouver Island are deserving of protection, their concern being that there is such a small percentage now of old-growth rainforests left that we need to pay attention to them as just incredible places of biodiversity but also in terms of places — whether it's for carbon sequestration, whether or not it's for improving water quality — for scientific research, and so on.

I'm curious if the minister has any response to those that argue that we should be protecting our old-growth rainforests, particularly on Vancouver Island, where there are very few of them left.

[1430]

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, protecting old growth is
[ Page 2988 ]
something that we all strive for. Obviously, as Ministry of Environment, it's something fairly close to our hearts.

The challenge, of course — and the member will know this — on Vancouver Island is the significant percentage of land that is in private hands. That means that, unlike other parts of the province where we have Crown ownership and therefore have all the power we need to declare something a protected area, a park or what have you, in the case of Vancouver Island we are very often limited by the fact that we have no authority over the particular lands with respect to protection unless we were to acquire them in some way. The member will be aware of our very recent acquisition with respect to Quadra Island.

That is the challenge that faces us on Vancouver Island. Of course, there is management of those lands through the Private Managed Forest Land Act. Nevertheless, the challenge one is confronted with on Vancouver Island is the very significant percentage that is privately owned land.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: A slightly different voice, a different person. Amazing. Thank you, hon. Chair.

In terms of the old growth — and I understand the challenge with private lands — is the ministry making any efforts to try and find ways to protect certain key stands of trees as representative of biodiversity?

[1435]

I noticed the other day they discovered a giant, I think, Douglas fir tree that they've nicknamed Old Doug. Everywhere around it was clearcut except for that one tree, so there was real concern that should a strong wind come up or something like that, now that it's not protected, Old Doug could be lying down on the ground.

Some have argued we should have legislation in terms of an old tree act or something, where trees over a certain size or a certain age are protected, as senior citizens of our province — things that can no longer be cut down, and so on. Any thoughts around that? Certainly, we don't want to see more of these iconic trees lost.

Hon. M. Polak: We certainly do have an ongoing interest in pursuing greater protections. We do that together with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. To give the member an example…. I'm sorry I can't break it down to the level of Vancouver Island specifically, but in the coast region of B.C. there are currently about 150 wildlife habitat area proposals, and most of those involve old-growth forests.

G. Holman: Regarding private managed lands — two questions, I guess. In principle, why can't the provincial government make the rules on private managed forest lands more stringent? Without making specific suggestions, it doesn't seem to me that there is any reason technically why the provincial government couldn't make those rules more stringent with respect to management of old-growth forests.

The second question on private managed lands is…. My understanding is that the designation precludes local governments from passing any regulation whatsoever that affects timber harvesting on private managed forest lands. For example, local governments are not allowed to pass rules that would affect timber harvesting in drinking watersheds.

I'm sure you're aware that the Islands Trust, which is in my constituency — a number of Gulf Islands — has been raising this issue for years. Why in principle couldn't the provincial government allow local governments to have some more authority? Yes, there would have to be a balancing of interests, but consider, for example, the agricultural land reserve. It's a provincial designation. Local governments are allowed to pass bylaws there as long as they have the approval of the Agricultural Land Commission. So it would be possible to balance those interests.

[1440]

I know, for example, Saltspring Island has in the ALR development permit areas protecting streams, riparian areas, that had to be approved by the Agricultural Land Commission. I see no reason why that balance couldn't be struck. It's been a longstanding request from Islands Trust.

Two questions there: stronger rules by the province, in terms of old growth, and allowing local governments to protect the values that are important to them, including things like drinking water and fish streams.

Hon. M. Polak: I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint the member terribly here. We've been sort of walking this line between FLNRO and Environment because there's so much crossover. In terms of this particular area, it really is specifically FLNRO, in their legislative world and also in their operational world.

G. Holman: Thanks, Minister. Yeah, I was kind of expecting that one.

But specifically, say, with respect to protection of old growth, that is clearly a ministry objective, as you've stated clearly before. Yes, I understand that maybe the regulatory authority rests with FLNRO, but surely the Ministry of Environment could work with them to try and accomplish protection of old growth on private land, just as you do on Crown land.

It's the same issue. Crown timber-harvesting land is not a Ministry of Environment direct regulatory authority, but you certainly work with FLNRO to try and achieve those objectives. I guess my question is: why can't you do the same thing on private managed forest land?

Hon. M. Polak: It certainly isn't that Ministry of
[ Page 2989 ]
Environment has no influence with respect to what occurs on the land base, whether it's Crown land or private land, but our role is one of setting the policy for species at risk, biodiversity, recovery planning. We've talked a little bit about the habitat area proposals that we're working on. FLNRO's role, though, is then to manage, informed by that policy. That means that they make decisions around how they will conduct that management and balance the competing interests involved.

[1445]

It is where we part ways, in terms of our authorities and also in terms of our policy creation. I think that's about as far as we can go, in terms of Environment.

The Chair: Recognizing the minister of Vancouver…. Sorry. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

S. Chandra Herbert: I don't mind being the minister of Vancouver–West End, but I'll be the MLA for Vancouver–West End. So that's all right. Motion to change the title? No. [Laughter.]

Anyways, we've talked about the delicate first course of jumping slugs. We can move on to the second course now of zebra and quagga mussels, very tasty for those who are into such things. Thankfully, I'm not.

To get serious for a moment, zebra and quagga mussels are an incredible risk to the economy, particularly in the Okanagan but also to infrastructure. The ministry knows that, so I don't need to go into a big dissertation on why we should be afraid of zebra and quagga mussels. I know the ministry has a briefing note, and has had one for some time, arguing that legislative gaps persist as there is no comprehensive provincial legislation to address the risk of them.

The risk rating is high. The risks are understood, but resources to implement prevention and management programs for species other than weeds and plant pests are grossly inadequate. Another recommendation is prevention of new invasive species through a combination of clear legislation, public outreach and a coordinated approach to early detection and rapid response programs.

I know about "Clean, clear, dry" — I'm sure I've messed that up — the program to get in there. I also know that there had been an earlier issue where a boat was brought in. Somebody was alerted, but somebody had been on a maternity leave, so the boat got in the water. Thankfully, the mussels or whatever had been there were dead, so there wasn't — we hope; still, knock on wood — any sort of contamination.

Are we going to see actual roadside stations to do this? Is that what the ministry's next step is, beyond just having the border notice them? Is there going to be provincial legislation brought forward to deal with this very real risk? And is the province working with the federal government to bring in legislation there as well? I hope that we can get action on this, this year, before it's too late.

[1450]

Hon. M. Polak: First, I just always want to make it clear to people who may be watching us here today that thankfully, to date there have been no viable quagga mussels detected in Shuswap Lake. We're very thankful for that, but we realize we can't rest on our laurels. We can't just be thankful to have escaped thus far.

Since the incident that the member described, just to give you the update, we have added provincial staff to ensure that they are available 24-7 to respond to reports of mussel-infected boats. We've also adjusted our RAPP line so that it's now set up to receive and distribute calls regarding mussel-infested boats.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

You're not going to see sort of roadside inspections in the near future. However, we have a B.C. dreissenid mussels early detection and rapid response plan that's in the works. We will be developing those, piloting them and watching to see what the results are. It should be completed this spring and ready for rollout in the summer.

S. Chandra Herbert: Are we going to see legislation?

Hon. M. Polak: Sorry, I meant to respond to that as well. Since December 2012 we also have had in place our controlled alien species regulation, so you won't be seeing new legislation. We believe we can operate with respect to that regulation. Timing-wise, to give you a sense of it, as one of my staffers described it, that came in after the snakehead but before the quagga mussels. So there you go.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it may be fitting to move from snakeheads and zebra and quagga mussels on to the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline conversation around the risks of oil spills in the north. So there we go.

Now, the B.C. government in its submission to the joint review panel…. The provincial government waived their own environmental assessment process and said they would stand for whatever the federal government process decided. The B.C. government at the time argued no way, at least from what I could read. The Enbridge pipeline should not proceed, as we did not have any certainty that any really effective spill response would be able to happen, whether on the coast or particularly on the pipeline route.

I know there have been studies released from the provincial government side. We've had the discussion around kind of the look at what the risks are. Certainly, the government has identified some very real risks and some very real lack of capacity to respond.

Has the province seen any change in the ability to respond — not just the understanding of the lack of ability
[ Page 2990 ]
to respond but in the real ability to respond — should there be an oil spill today or in the future?

[1455]

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: I can say with certainty to the member that in our view, the third condition of our five conditions has not been met. We are seeing, certainly, improved cooperation on the part of the federal government. I think that initially when the five conditions were outlined, there really wasn't that much attention being paid.

We've seen that turn around as we've proceeded with our Nuka Research report and, encouragingly, the federal government put in place its expert panel on tankers. That report has come out.

We're encouraged by the increased cooperation we're seeing, the increased attention to the issue. But certainly, we have not reached a place where we would say that condition 3 has been met.

S. Chandra Herbert: I can't recall whether it was the Nuka or the federal government report that suggested that as little as 3 percent of the oil, should there be a spill — this was crude oil, not diluted bitumen — could be recovered in a spill on the north coast.

At what point does the government say: "Well, maybe we've reached 20 percent; that's enough oil to be recovered that we feel comfortable"? Where is the line? How do we draw that?

Of course, folks along the north coast who rely on the fish there would say that any oil spilled and not recovered could be a real threat to their livelihoods and would not be acceptable for them. What is the government trying to land on here when studies suggest that the oil recovered is so incredibly low?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, where we're trying to land is precisely the second condition, which is world-leading practices. In terms of our second condition, it's world-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for British Columbia. The member is correct. It was the Nuka Research report that pointed out the volumes that they project would be perhaps attainable in terms of recovery.

Here's where we are proceeding. The Nuka Research report identified the gaps, identified where work needs to take place.

[1500]

Now we are undertaking that cooperative work with the federal government and with industry to fill in those gaps, to be able to put in place a world-leading response. I repeat that phrase because it is key to the work we're undertaking.

In our research we have yet to come across, and I don't think we will come across, one single jurisdiction that has every element right. What we are finding is that there are elements of preparedness, response, recovery that are evidenced in places around the world, but not all in one place.

That leads me to comment, with respect to our work going forward, that we will not be, I don't think, arriving at a number or at a percentage. What we want to be able to assure the public of is that the capacities we have on British Columbia's coast are a higher bar than what they would see anywhere else in the world — that we truly are world-leading in our capacity to respond and recover, and also in terms of preparedness.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the federal government could make a decision whether to proceed with the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline any day now. They had six months from when the decision was made. Of course, there are some legal challenges to the recommendation by the panel which may delay things a bit further. If the federal government determined tomorrow that yes, they want to proceed, what would the provincial government do?

[1505]

Hon. M. Polak: I'm not going to speculate as to what decision the federal government may arrive at. Any kind of decision like that, of course, has conditions attached to it, and a federal cabinet can even decide to place more conditions if they see fit. So I'm not going to speculate about what decision they might ultimately arrive at.

Nevertheless, I think that speaks to the importance of working together with the federal government to achieve world-leading marine spill response, preparedness, recovery. The best option for achieving protection of our coast is by ensuring that we are working hand in hand with them to develop that. Certainly, we've already spoken of the success we've had in not only drawing the federal government's awareness to the challenge but also now having their cooperation as we work through the results of the Nuka Research report.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think many in the north and across B.C. would say that the best option for protecting our coast would be to say no to the Enbridge pipeline on the north coast, and the tankers. If you're not transporting diluted bitumen across the north, you're not going to have oil spills of diluted bitumen.

I disagree with the minister that the best way to protect the coast is to have good spill response guidelines. The best way to protect the north coast is not to allow the ships and pipelines that could lead to the spill. That's, I guess, the difference of opinion on this side and that side.

What would be world-leading in terms of an oil spill response? What percentage of oil would have to be captured to be world-leading?
[ Page 2991 ]

Hon. M. Polak: Let me reiterate that our government has taken a very strong position with respect to Enbridge, and that is: as the project is proposed, we don't support it, and we don't think the federal government should support it. We made that very, very clear, but I want to reiterate it here.

With respect to what is defined as world-leading, we have not arrived at that yet. We do have information that we have gathered through the Nuka Research report, but nevertheless, the work is still underway to arrive at how we would define world-leading.

[1510]

In any event, I would be surprised if it had one number in all circumstances or even if that was the means of defining it. There will be all number of factors that we want to see represented.

Of course, what we have been pushing very hard for is to have a very solid preventative plan, because we know that that is where our greatest strength can lie, not just with respect to the potential for increased tanker traffic but even with existing traffic on our marine corridor. We want to ensure that prevention is top of mind for the federal government, and we're pushing them very hard in that direction.

S. Chandra Herbert: Certainly, preventative approaches like preventing the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline and tanker project that is currently proposed would be a good way to do that.

The ministry, as well as the Premier, spoke about ways they could prevent the pipeline at one point, should the federal government try and push it through, and talked about withholding permits and a variety of other means. Can the minister tell us what kind of work was done to look into those issues and what permits they would propose to withhold should this decision come during this budget year?

Hon. M. Polak: For any project like this there are a range of permits that would be required after an environmental certificate was received. Those permits are evaluated by professionals. They use their expert opinion, and they are experts in their field, to determine whether or not a permit application represents something that will have an adverse impact on the environment.

Now, if the professional, in their expert opinion, observed that in their judgment there was going to be an adverse impact, then they would not be granting the permit.

S. Chandra Herbert: If those professionals had to make those decisions, is there a complete firewall between political leadership, ministerial accountability and those professionals? Or is there a legal possibility that the minister could say: "This project has been approved at the federal level. However, these permits would be required, and we would urge you to consider not approving them because it risks environmental degradation"?

[1515]

Hon. M. Polak: It is when a statutory decision-maker is engaged in that adjudication that there may not be any influence from the political sphere. We certainly rely on our statutory decision-makers to adjudicate those applications, based on the best available science, and, in their judgment, to arrive at a decision independent from political influence.

S. Chandra Herbert: What permits have been issued for the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline so far, in terms of exploration and what have you?

Hon. M. Polak: None have been issued from the Ministry of Environment.

S. Chandra Herbert: Has the government received any legal opinion around its ability to stop the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline should they want to?

I know the Premier said that we could not issue permits, but the minister is saying that the staff are firewalled off from political influence, that they have the ability to make these decisions themselves.

My concern is that should the federal government want to push this through and the province not want to, we might not be able to say anything. If all the statutory decision-makers said, "Okay, well, the federal government says this is a go," and they say, "This is the law," and they say, "Yes, there are no permits that we're going to withhold," what would the government do?

[1520]

Hon. M. Polak: For a statutory decision-maker adjudicating an application, they do not have the capacity to arbitrarily withhold the granting of a permit. They do have the authority, though, to adjudicate it based on whether or not, in their expert opinion, there is going to be an adverse impact on the environment.

I would argue that if that is the basis of their decision-making, then we can be confident that they will arrive at a decision that is appropriate to the given project. In this case the member is asking about northern gateway, but if there are adverse impacts that are determined, in the judgment of that expert, to be at play, then a permit would not be granted.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would have argued that we should have done our own environmental assessment process so the B.C. government would have the ability to stand up for British Columbia and say no rather than relying on a statutory decision-maker to hopefully be able to see the writing on the wall and say no, but that's what the government decided to do.

My question regards the land-based spill prepared-
[ Page 2992 ]
ness and response report. I understand that there was supposed to be a second intentions paper released in February. When will we see that?

Hon. M. Polak: We have now completed the consultations, which were quite extensive, with First Nations communities and industry. We're finalizing the report based on that input and information. We don't have a hard target for the date of release, but we anticipate having it out soon.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Premier has argued that B.C. should get a share of the economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project. I'm curious. I understand there's some concern in the wider community around this. "Selling the coast" has been how some people have termed it.

Has there been consultation, a discussion, between the Minister of Environment or to her knowledge, around a fair deal with either Enbridge or Kinder Morgan?

Hon. M. Polak: I haven't been involved in any discussions of that nature.

S. Chandra Herbert: Diluted bitumen is travelling through the harbour of Vancouver. I'm curious, given that we know the real risk of diluted bitumen sinking in turbulent waters or waters that have a fair bit of sediment….

[1525]

What is the government doing right now to ensure that Metro Vancouver and British Columbia are ready to act — and, of course, southern Vancouver Island — should there be a spill even with the existing level of traffic? The government has said that we're woefully inadequate in terms of our ability to respond, and that hits us today, not just in the future, should these projects be approved.

Hon. M. Polak: There is much work being undertaken right now. I'm sure the member won't be surprised to hear that. One of the positives that has grown out of the focus and attention on the northern gateway pipeline and the increase in tanker traffic in the north is that it has drawn the attention of the federal government and other agencies to the need to advance our preparedness on the south coast as well.

I can say that in general the Nuka Research report indicated that while we certainly still have work to do, we are much better prepared on the south coast than we would be on the north coast in the event of a spill.

Nevertheless, we're encouraged by things like Port Metro Vancouver's advancement of a centre of excellence, and again, continue to work with our federal counterparts to encourage them to increase the level of support that there is in place now for response, not just waiting for expansion but leading to improvements in capacity right now. They seem to be receptive to that message from us, and we'll continue to push that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the federal government may have mouthed some words and put out reports and paperwork. I'm curious what the very real on-the-ground effort looks like in terms of what those improvements the minister mentioned there are. I know there have been reports and some of that.

As one example, the Premier said that we never should proceed with Kinder Morgan until we get our Coast Guard station back. We haven't got that Coast Guard station back, and the government has really dug in its heels, refusing to do anything about it.

[1530]

Just on that one very small point — but of course, not small in terms of marine safety for Metro Vancouver — there's no way that we've improved. Where have we seen actual real improvements?

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: We will continue to push for real tangible progress and real capacity being improved. We have seen some advancement. One very good example is that the Coast Guard has now agreed to adopt our incident command system. They would now be a part of that umbrella when we are responding together to a spill in the marine environment. That is a significant step forward for our work with the Coast Guard, and it's a very real improvement.

S. Chandra Herbert: They've agreed to be part of the incident command centre. That's a good thing, in terms of where we're at now, but of course, there are still incredibly large resource issues, an incredible lack of preparedness. I think the quote was "woefully inadequate" from the provincial government. I don't think that one change really changes that. Certainly, I understand the minister has made similar arguments in the sense that we haven't seen the changes needed in any way to give people some sense of security.

When analyzing these kinds of projects, whether it's Kinder Morgan or Enbridge, does the provincial government believe it's important to also analyze the climate change risks of increased oil exploitation?

[1535]

Hon. M. Polak: As we've discussed, our role would be in terms of permitting. The range of permits that would be required — none of those consider GHG impacts.

S. Chandra Herbert: But in both the Enbridge and northern gateway proposals, the provincial government has to make a statement of concern or support or questions. I understand that the province would be an intervener. Now, the minister has a responsibility to ensure
[ Page 2993 ]
that we are reducing climate change within the province. Certainly, climate change emissions — and the minister has also made this argument — overseas or next door have just as much impact on B.C. as if they happened within B.C. in terms of climate change.

Does the minister think that we should actually consider the climate change impacts of the Kinder Morgan and Enbridge pipelines, and is that going into the thinking that the B.C. government makes?

Hon. M. Polak: Can I just ask the member to clarify if he's referring to the GHG emissions that would result from the portions of the pipeline that enter B.C. or from the tankers, or is he referring to the broader issue of increased GHG emissions as a result of the oil sands?

S. Chandra Herbert: I would just question that based on the oil sands. Obviously, if you're going to increase a pipe size and export more of it, you're going to see greater exploitation, and that's something that we need to consider.

Hon. M. Polak: In British Columbia we take responsibility for our GHG emissions. We've done so for a number of years now with some very aggressive climate action policies, aggressive targets and aggressive work to reduce our emissions. We've been successful on many, many fronts.

[1540]

When it comes to the oil and gas industry, particularly with respect to oil and the oil sands, globally the impacts are not yet well understood in terms of how the movement of that oil, the export increases, decreases GHG emissions; whether or not oil would have come from a different place, if it didn't come from the one proposed. That's not something we would propose that we analyze and contribute to, in terms of a position.

We do certainly recognize that the efficient movement of goods is an important thing to consider in terms of GHG emissions, but that's a very broad statement. It isn't only reflective of this particular issue.

Suffice to say that there are still many questions around how one ought to account for the impact of things like the oil sands. It's not something we are going to try to give any specific determination to in our submissions. That's beyond the work of a province such as British Columbia and goes to much, much bigger questions that people are wrestling with in governments around the world.

S. Chandra Herbert: Would it be fair to say that the B.C. government's position around exports of materials that could either create climate change somewhere else, emissions or not, is that the B.C. government will only be making statements around B.C.'s own climate change reduction targets, its own emissions created locally, and not trying to use offsets elsewhere to justify expansion of emissions within B.C.? Given that, as the minister suggested, we don't have the expertise, if one person takes B.C. oil, they might as well be taking a different product, so we really don't know what the impact is.

Hon. M. Polak: There's an important distinction to be made here. With respect to the export of natural gas, we know that there is a significant role to play for natural gas. When I say "we," I don't mean just British Columbia. I mean that around the world we know that the increase in the use of natural gas displacing other fuels can have a very positive impact on the global amount of GHG emissions. It is, after all, the cleanest-burning fossil fuel.

What we don't know with regard to petroleum production such as the oil sands in Alberta is the impact on amounts that they would draw, amounts they would recover and produce as a result of the export choices that are made in respect of various pipeline construction, how that changes things relative to other oil-producing nations and then what impact that has on the rest of the globe in terms of GHG emissions.

[1545]

We know that producing petroleum like that and the use of it certainly has an impact on global GHG emissions. But on the interaction between what happens when you construct opportunities for shipment, such as the proposed northern gateway pipeline or any others — whether or not that causes the production to increase, what other forces could cause production to stay the same — we don't have those answers. That is not something that we….

We are not the only ones wrestling with the economies around what happens with exports and pipelines and the impact on oil production. So therein would lie the difference between the two positions.

S. Chandra Herbert: We've just taken a sidetrack from where I had hoped to go, and we're going to get into further climate change questions as we go. But I guess just in that regard, what studies have been done, while we're on the question of oil and LNG, to justify the government's argument that B.C. will be doing the world a favour?

Of course, there are many other jurisdictions producing LNG. Why would B.C. be the one doing the world a favour, if that supply to China could also be picked up by Australia, for example? Using the same questions that the minister is using around the oil production, how does that same question not apply to LNG production?

Hon. M. Polak: We know that anytime oil such as what one would produce in the oil sands is utilized, it contributes to GHG emissions. What we don't know is: will constructing a pipeline cause them to produce more? Of course, that's one pipeline; that's one point of export. They are affected by other forces, not just that one pipe-
[ Page 2994 ]
line. It would be very difficult to conclude, one way or another, whether or not a single line of export would have would have the effect of increasing production in the oil sands.

When it comes to natural gas, what we know there is that anywhere natural gas is used in place of other fuels such as coal and oil and anyplace it comes from — whether it's B.C., Australia, Qatar — it is having a positive impact in terms of the GHG emissions that would've potentially resulted from the use of other fuels like coal and oil.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is that thinking extending to all of British Columbia's exports around what creates more emissions or not? The minister just mentioned coal. I understand that thermal coal is said to be one of the worse polluters for climate change in the world. So for making this discussion and this debate around LNG, getting China off of coal, is the government working to…? What, if anything, are they doing around thermal coal exports if the government is arguing that thermal coal should not be used in the sense that LNG should be?

[1550]

Hon. M. Polak: I would observe this. There's a very big difference between an industry that has been a foundational part of our economy for generations and a new industry that is to be established in B.C. — one which, by the way, we have committed will have the cleanest operations of any liquefied natural gas operations in the world.

One cannot turn back the clock. One must adapt with respect to how the world grows and changes. There are still places in the world that rely on coal. There are still places…. Well, our place in the world still relies heavily on oil. I don't think it would be practical to suggest that any of those things can be changed with a flip of a switch.

What we can do is produce liquefied natural gas in the cleanest way possible in the world. We've committed to doing that, and in so doing, we contribute to a transition that is taking place in countries like China. In fact, even to the south we see a transition taking place toward greater use of natural gas to displace other traditional forms of fuel.

I don't think you can compare apples to apples with respect to coal and oil — long-established coal, a long-established industry in our province, and coal exporting, something that segments of our province rely on quite heavily in order to produce the wealth that we enjoy in places of the world where myself and the member live, in the Lower Mainland.

S. Chandra Herbert: No, the reason I bring it up is the minister, the Premier and many government ministers have made this connection between LNG and thermal coal, which is an export through British Columbia's ports and has been for many years. It's not me who has made the comparison. It's the minister and the Premier.

They've argued very strongly that LNG should happen so that we can end the use of thermal coal in China, yet thermal coal continues to travel through the ports — arguing that by doing that, we're doing the world a favour while also, on the other hand, thermal coal continues.

We will talk about that later. I just want to make clear that this is coming from comments the minister and the Premier have made themselves.

[1555]

G. Holman: One last point on this whole issue of accounting for greenhouse gas emissions. We're not necessarily suggesting changing anything. What we're talking about here is getting the accounting consistent across those fuel types in terms of our greenhouse gas inventories and responsibilities — just getting the accounting right and, yes, trying to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

I had a couple of questions about the potential provincial tax liabilities around oil spills. I understand that there have been some fairly recent changes with respect to federal government rules around that. I wondered if the minister could quickly bring us up to date on the state of play about that issue and, in particular, the thresholds at which point provincial and federal taxpayers start to bear the costs of cleanup and the potential economic costs associated with oil spills.

It's fine to talk about world-class oil spill recovery, but even world-class systems only recover a small percentage. Depending on the conditions and the circumstances, that can vary. It's still a minority of the spill that gets recovered, and there are costs associated with recovering whatever you can. Then there are other potential costs, economic costs associated with possible impacts on, for example, fisheries, which result in additional compensation costs.

The question is: what's the state of play in terms of provincial taxpayers? At what point does their liability for these kinds of costs start to kick in?

Hon. M. Polak: This is actually another example of where we're seeing some progress in our work with the federal government. They have announced a $1 billion absolute liability. It's no-fault. They have not yet announced the details. Our staff are working together with their staff to determine what they are going to put in place. We will certainly hear, I'm sure in short order, what the details are.

I don't know if that's sufficient.

The Chair: With that, there's been a request. We're going to take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.
[ Page 2995 ]

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

G. Holman: Just a follow-up on that question. The $1 billion threshold means that if the costs of oil spill recovery and any potential economic compensation costs exceed $1 billion, that would presumably mean that provincial taxpayers and federal taxpayers at that point pick up that responsibility, and the minister could confirm. I wanted to follow through on these questions.

With respect to the sharing of the liability beyond that threshold, what's the provincial and the federal share? I'm sorry. Perhaps I should know this. Is there a formula for sharing those liabilities above that threshold between the province and the federal government?

Then secondly, is the threshold the same? Is the principle the same? Whether we're talking about Kinder Morgan or northern gateway, is it still basically the same framework that's in place that determines the liabilities of shippers versus taxpayers?

Hon. M. Polak: The federal government's new framework is still at the stage where they are developing the details, and so I couldn't give you too much of a breakdown. I can't give you any of a breakdown of that.

What I can say is this, though — some things to remember. If we're talking about a spill from a federally regulated pipeline — so a transprovincial pipeline — and this occurs on a federal right-of-way, then it would be entirely the federal government's responsibility. There would be no splitting of that. In addition, under our legislation, if such a spill should then impact on land that's beyond the federal right-of-way, then our legislation allows us to recover our costs of cleanup from the polluter.

A. Weaver: I only have one question I'd like to ask the minister. I apologize that I haven't given it in advance. It's relatively new. I'm not going to ask the other questions. The opposition have been doing a fine job. In fact, I'm dumbfounded, I must admit, to hear the questions concerning thermal coal exports and the carbon budgeting of thermal coal exports being asked since the minister will recognize that I actually put an amendment in the throne speech, which was voted down unanimously by every member of the opposition. It's just mind-boggling.

Anyway, I stand to ask a single question. The question is with respect to my favourite topic — second-favourite topic, the first being climate change. As I said, the questions are being covered well, many of which I've heard before.

The question is with respect to sewage.

[1610]

As the minister is aware, Esquimalt council voted unanimously last night to reject the capital regional district rezoning request for McLoughlin Point for the sewage plant there. This comes following considerable public engagement — four evenings of public consultation where only one person spoke in favour of the project, and many, many, many others spoke against it. The public consultation demonstrated that there's little, if any, support for the current plan.

My question is this. Considering the CRD currently has no alternative site for the treatment plant and, in fact, Esquimalt has tasked staff with putting together information to rezone McLoughlin Point to not allow a sewage plant there, will the minister reassure residents of the region that the province will not intervene on the zoning unless the CRD proves all other options are exhausted?

Hon. M. Polak: I can assure the member that our position remains the same today as it has in the past. The federal government requires that they treat their sewage by 2020. This is an obligation that falls on the local governments. It's unfortunate that they've reached this kind of an impasse.

I understand that CRD is meeting this week, perhaps even tomorrow, to discuss the implications. I'm not going to speculate on what might result from that, but we have no plans to intervene. We've said from the beginning that this is an issue that the local governments need to grapple with, understanding that they are the ones who are obligated to begin treatment of their sewage. So we have no plans to intervene.

A. Weaver: I just wanted to say, for the record, for those calculations with respect to the credits of LNG and coal that were asked of the minister, please go to my throne speech. They're all done there, and they were made available for all to see. The government need not do those calculations. I did them and presented them in my throne speech.

The Chair: I assume that was not a question.

A. Weaver: No.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that the member who just intervened won't be asking about his support for the Kitimat oil refinery or his support for the Liberal budgets, but there you go.

Anyway, moving back to the questions of ministry estimates, not speeches disguised as questions. The Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal. I understand that the National Energy Board recently rejected one-quarter of those who asked to participate in the process. That included neighbours, business groups, environmental groups, scientists, what have you.

[1615]

Basically, the National Energy Board decided: "Sorry, we don't want your input." The government of B.C. passed over responsibility to the federal government through an agreement giving them a final say. Does the minister think this is acceptable to reject those with ex-
[ Page 2996 ]
pertise that could be really useful in understanding such a proposal?

Hon. M. Polak: The National Energy Board has its own process. They evaluate applications as they come in, and I'm not going to pass judgment on what criteria they used. I know in our case we are interveners. We intend to be strong advocates in favour of British Columbia's five conditions and certainly will make our voices known quite loudly at the hearings.

S. Chandra Herbert: The B.C. government decided to give away B.C.'s ability to do its own environmental assessment and gave away B.C.'s ability, really, to do its own community consultation to make sure that all the residents of Burnaby, Surrey, Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Kamloops — wherever you want to go — would get a chance to have a say. That could happen within a B.C. process. The government gave away that right to the National Energy Board, saying they would provide a fair process.

Does the minister have any concern that in the process, residents were not even adequately informed of what routing Kinder Morgan was considering before being asked to apply?

Hon. M. Polak: The member is correct that the federal government, the federal cabinet, will ultimately make a decision based on the recommendations from the National Energy Board process. In so doing, they will have the authority and the obligation to evaluate, as part of that decision, whether or not the consultation was adequate and whether or not the consultation met any guidelines or expectations that they have.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess I'm trying to read through the minister's answer. Is she effectively saying she has no concerns that the routing was not decided on before the application process was complete and that a quarter of those that applied to participate were rejected?

Hon. M. Polak: The National Energy Board has made its decisions with respect to how it will conduct its evaluation of the project. My main concern is ensuring that we are able to make the best and strongest case for British Columbia's five conditions. That's where I am putting my efforts with respect to this file.

[1620]

S. Chandra Herbert: I would have thought the B.C. government would have wanted most British Columbians who had concerns around this, and ideas and suggestions, to be allowed to be involved. I would have thought the government would have demanded that the routing be decided before closing off the application process.

The B.C. government gave away its right to say yes or to say no to the pipeline project and has put all its eggs in one basket of the NEB's review. To accept a review which has said to one-quarter of those who wanted to be involved, "You're not allowed," that didn't even have appropriate routing for a pipeline — which could impact property values, could impact rivers, streams, etc. — and that the company hasn't even decided on what its routing is, I think is just wrong. It's not good public policy.

I understand I won't get an answer today from the minister on whether or not she accepts this, but I guess that's the answer in itself, that the B.C. Liberal government thinks it's okay to reject people from having their voices heard on a project that could directly impact them and that it's okay to not have a route decided before you shut off the application process, effectively disenfranchising people along the new route from having the chance to have their voice heard.

That is not how these processes should occur, in the NDP's point of view, so we're disappointed that the government has decided to accept that.

The B.C. government, in a joint deputy ministers' discussion around the transportation of oil, describes the transportation of oil by rail as a viable alternative to deliver bitumen to the west coast. What conversations has the ministry had in terms of potential expanded export terminals for oil by rail?

Hon. M. Polak: I believe the member's referring to the B.C./Alberta Deputy Ministers Working Group. With respect to that, the lead for us is the Ministry of Natural Gas Development. I'm advised by my staff that they weren't involved in conversations with respect to the viability of rail as a transport mechanism.

S. Chandra Herbert: Does the minister agree with her deputy minister who told the radio a while ago that oil spills are inevitable?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm sure the member will recognize there's absolutely no activity involving the extraction of resources and the transportation of resources that is without risk — absolutely no activity like that that is without risk. Our job, of course, is first of all to do our utmost to prevent incidents from occurring and, in the event that there is an incident, to be able to respond and recover from that incident and hopefully mitigate any adverse impacts on the environment.

I don't think the deputy said anything that any of us don't recognize. It's a question of putting in place those things that respond to the risk. But there is no activity on the land base or indeed on the water that is without risk.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciated the deputy's candour in the interview, and I appreciate the minister's response here. It is a real challenge, and that's why we need to be moving to greener and cleaner forms of transporta-
[ Page 2997 ]
tion and energy, of course.

[1625]

I wonder if the minister could share when we will see the government's plans to meet our next climate change reduction target in 2016. When will those plans be made public? When will we get a chance to see what the next steps are?

Hon. M. Polak: I know the member is well familiar with our 2008 climate action plan. We have implemented the actions outlined. We've been reporting out on our progress.

As the member will note, the items that are outlined in there, the actions, are ongoing, and we continue to progress. We know that we will need to be undertaking continued reductions in emissions if we are going to meet the targets out in front of us. We've known, even in the original document, that we would need to continue to press for new innovations and new initiatives as we go forward.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that the report — I believe it's on 2012 — will be filed this summer, I think. If the minister could provide a date or a rough timeline of when that report will be made available, that would be appreciated.

Also, as we're now only two years away from 2016, the next reporting goal or the next period we have to have reductions by, it would be good to know what specific new actions are being taken this year and next year before 2016.

[1630]

Hon. M. Polak: The provincial inventory report usually comes out June/July, so we can anticipate that. With respect to moving forward and looking into the future, I know the member attended GLOBE and, hopefully, stopped by the B.C. pavilion. I hope he picked up a copy.

A very important document, Growing Green Jobs, connects not only with the jobs plan but also with ongoing work in terms of climate action. Some of the important priorities are set out in the broad areas of strengthening our leadership and reducing our own emissions.

We know also that it's very important for us to be promoting our policies internationally, like the carbon tax, something that I have been working on directly, as it's part of my mandate letter, and where we've seen success in terms of the accord signed at the Pacific Coast Collaborative, and then, of course, pursuing our LNG operations as the cleanest in the world.

The member will see in the document an outline that is guiding the development of new initiatives. We are always, through our work with the climate action secretariat, looking for new opportunities to engage in areas like transportation conversion. We know that, for example, the transportation sector is one that impacts on GHG emissions tremendously.

The member may have noticed an opinion editorial piece about clean energy vehicles. When one starts to think of the potential application of that in terms of fleet purchases, you can quickly see that that is an area where there is great potential. We continue to look for those opportunities as we're guided by the strategies that we've outlined in this document and in others.

S. Chandra Herbert: It's interesting that the minister mentioned the fleet vehicles and electric vehicles, because I've been getting quite a few e-mails from people upset that the government has cancelled or ended its program of supporting people to purchase electric vehicles themselves. If we're talking about one in ten fleet vehicles, both within the government and in the private sector, what other strategy will the government use, if they've decided to cancel that program, to get us to that level?

Hon. M. Polak: First, just a brief history on the clean energy vehicle program. It was part of an overarching clean transportation initiative that involved an investment of $15.8 million. That went to not only the clean energy vehicle program but also to SCRAP-IT, to Carbon Offset Aggregation Cooperative and the installing of charging infrastructure.

[1635]

The charging infrastructure still continues. We haven't completed that project yet. But with respect to the clean energy vehicle program, initially the program was only supposed to run for a certain amount of time. At the end of that period, there was still funding available, so we extended the program until such time as either the funding was exhausted or the March 31 deadline was hit. We certainly did see the program as very successful, but of course, in a post-2008 world it's much more difficult to find the resources.

We continue to look for other opportunities to re-establish incentives for the purchase of clean energy vehicles. We certainly saw the program as very successful. In a balanced-budget environment, that means it becomes more difficult to find that new funding, but we're hopeful that we will find new initiatives, new ways, to continue that incentive.

S. Chandra Herbert: The government signed an agreement with Washington State, California and Oregon suggesting that 10 percent of fleet purchases, both in government and outside, would be electric. What percentage are we at today within B.C. for provincial and corporate in terms of fleet purchases? What specifically are those opportunities that the government is going to embrace to make sure we get there?

Hon. M. Polak: That was, of course, a very important part of the accord that was signed. The member will know
[ Page 2998 ]
that the accord is actually quite comprehensive, covers a number of different areas. The baseline numbers, in terms of where the fleets are at with respect to the different jurisdictions, are currently being developed. We don't have that number here to offer you today.

S. Chandra Herbert: And the opportunities that the minister had discussed to get there?

[1640]

Hon. M. Polak: I'm advised that staff are currently working together with staff in the other jurisdictions to develop their plan with respect to what initiatives would be behind achieving that target.

S. Chandra Herbert: Would it be fair to say that from, I guess, when the government signed the agreement with the other jurisdictions, staff have been heavily involved with the other jurisdictions to come up with solutions or some communications, or are we just starting now?

Hon. M. Polak: The amount of collaboration varies somewhat by topic or the amount of time that they are spending together and working on it, but we have had — and continue to have — a very active relationship at the staff level between those jurisdictions. It's very well developed. Again, it depends on the topic how much time they have been spending working on it. It depends on the interest from the various jurisdictions as well. But a very active relationship at the staff level and one that's been ongoing for some time.

S. Chandra Herbert: If I were to file a freedom-of-information request from the time that the document was signed to three or four months afterwards, I would expect to find communications back and forth between staff?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes and, likely, results on a variety of different working groups on a whole range of topics as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: We're going to have to follow this up, because I did file such a request and was told there were no documents. I don't know who decided that there were no documents. Maybe I can follow up with the minister's assistant to figure out what's going on, or I'll have to make a complaint. It was very specific what documents we were looking for — and were told by the freedom-of-information office that there wasn't anything to find.

I had a similar problem with asking for documents around the Kitimat Clean refinery and then being told that there were no communications with Mr. Black about that as well. It seems like there is a problem in that office.

Some of the arguments that the government made when bringing in a carbon tax were that we would follow with a cap-and-trade system afterwards for big business so that they were also captured — those that were not captured under the carbon tax — arguing that we would be able to cooperate, then, with California and a number of other jurisdictions. Has there been any more movement on the question of cap-and-trade, or are we decided that that's not a government priority any longer?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, the world has unfolded in a different way than we would have anticipated when we first envisioned a cap-and-trade system following on the revenue-neutral carbon tax. Nevertheless, we remain involved with the Western Climate Initiative, and we're hopeful that at some point the jurisdictions will come together and will be able to implement an effective cap-and-trade system in the end — but impossible at this point to say when they might get there.

[1645]

S. Chandra Herbert: How are we doing in terms of climate change reduction goals? Does the minister believe we're on target to meet our requirements for 2016? I understand that last summer when we had this discussion, the minister felt fairly confident that we would meet the 2012 GHG reduction targets.

I'm just curious. We're two years out. How are we doing in terms of 2016?

Hon. M. Polak: We don't actually forecast where we think we will be. What we do is track the numbers as we go. The best and most accurate answer I can give to the member is that the information we have in front of us, and that he's aware of, with respect to the interim target in 2012 shows us that we are on track with where we would have hoped to be.

S. Chandra Herbert: In addition to transit — or transportation, I guess I should say — our homes are often large greenhouse gas emitters, as well, when we burn gas for cooking or for heating. B.C. has been criticized by some for not having the highest energy code standards for building and also for insulation and those kinds of things.

I know that some countries have gone as far as deciding that passive house construction, for example, should be the requirement so that 90 percent of energy use will be eliminated — fossil fuel use in many countries, in particular, that don't have hydro.

What kind of conversation is the ministry involved in around building codes and making sure we have the greenest building code in Canada, if not the world?

Hon. M. Polak: We certainly work with the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, the Minister Responsible for Housing. Ultimately, that is their project, and they're the lead.
[ Page 2999 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: The ministry of housing and natural gas is the lead. I can understand that. But I would hope that the minister is putting forward a view in terms of where we need to be at with regard to the building code, because I don't think we've got it right yet.

Certainly, from the environmental point of view, meeting the minister's legally required reduction targets — we're going to need to do a lot better on how we build our homes.

The minister has talked about green jobs, and that's part of her mandate. What are we doing to ensure we get more green jobs, whether it's building retrofits or in new construction, through ensuring better building materials and better building construction standards under the rubric, I guess, of the Minister of Environment?

[1650]

Hon. M. Polak: I agree with the member. I think there are many opportunities in the built environment. That's another area where I think there's much that can be achieved in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions. Whether it's in the building code area or whether it's in the development of green job opportunities, the climate action secretariat's role is one of providing strategic advice and information, data, research.

Ultimately, though, this is the cross-government work that we do. The ministries themselves, though, that have primary responsibility — whether it's the Jobs Ministry or Housing through Natural Gas Development — are the ones who set their policies and determine their implementation plans. Our role through climate action secretariat is to provide that strategic advice and information support.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that the climate action charter is applied to large municipalities, small municipalities, districts, towns, etc. In one case, a small town of 200 people, they were quite concerned that the costs of all the implementation, of the reporting and everything were quite onerous for them on a small tax base. They said that they didn't feel it was really useful.

I'm just trying to figure out what the ministry is doing currently, now, to ensure that climate action policies are relevant and supported for smaller municipalities in rural B.C., so they, too, can reduce their climate change emissions and do so in an effective and economic manner.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

[1655]

Hon. M. Polak: We currently have 182 of 190 communities signed on to the climate action charter. It is, of course, voluntary. We'd certainly like to see every community benefit from it.

What we have done as we've seen the challenges for small communities is streamlined the reporting requirements. We're also looking for a way in which we might allow the smallest emitters, the communities with the smallest emissions, to use just a single number instead of having to do the range of reporting.

We're also in the final stage of discussions with the utilities — like Fortis, B.C. Hydro — so that they would have the capacity to download their utility data directly for those communities, and that would make it easier as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: Hello, hon. Chair. My goodness. Every time I look up, there's a new Chair.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: And we stay the same, Minister. We stay the same.

I'm curious what studies have been done to analyze the effects on the natural gas industry of extending the carbon tax to include planned venting of natural gas into the atmosphere. I understand that Alberta does this; B.C. so far has decided not to. Folks in the oil and gas sector said to me: "Well, we don't understand why. We do it across the border in Alberta." Why don't we have a carbon tax or a cost on venting or flaring of excess gases to try and incentivize people to do it better and to do it less?

Hon. M. Polak: While things like the carbon tax certainly have tremendous impact on our ability to reach our emissions targets — we know it has a very positive environmental benefit — nevertheless, it is a tax, and it's therefore the purview of the Minister of Finance. It would be the Minister of Finance who could respond with respect to any plans or any rationale for the approach, just as it was the Minister of Finance who would decide whether or not the carbon tax is frozen, which it is at this time.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, there goes a line of questioning for another date. But certainly, I think many have questioned why, in crowing about the leadership of the carbon tax….

In saying that it didn't hurt jobs, didn't hurt the community and was great for reducing climate emissions but then in the next sentence saying that we can't do anything with it now because it will threaten jobs — when just having said it didn't threaten jobs…. People question how that works, particularly when it comes to something like venting — something that really is something we need to drive down, not continue to allow to go unchallenged. It's polluting the environment without a cost.

[1700]

When we get to the Pacific Carbon Trust, another aspect…. I'm curious. What happened to the surplus? There was approximately a $30 million surplus in the Pacific Carbon Trust. Where is it going? Is the government going to use that to support our schools in jump-
[ Page 3000 ]
ing forward in reducing climate emissions in our schools? Certainly, I think that would be a good place to put it, since it came from our schools and our health care facilities to begin with.

Hon. M. Polak: I'll separate two different things, one being the mechanics of it. Technically, the surplus is still with PCT, so it won't move out of there until we have finally completed the dissolution of it. That's the mechanical end of it.

In terms of whether or not the money will be directed at a specific program area, that would be determined by the Minister of Finance. On the mechanics of it, it would go back to the CRF.

Now, it's important to understand that out of the approximately $30 million — we don't have a final number yet because of where we're at in the process — $21 million of that was provided by government initially. The rest, in terms of deciding what happens going forward, would be in the purview of the Minister of Finance.

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to jump back just quickly. When I asked about venting and flaring, I asked specifically about any studies done to analyze the effects of extending the carbon tax to drive down venting emissions. Surely the ministry has considered a range of options, of ways, to continue to lower greenhouse gas emissions within the province. Have they done any on the natural gas industry, particularly also looking at flaring?

Hon. M. Polak: I am advised that we have not conducted any studies with respect to the impact of a tax on venting or flaring.

S. Chandra Herbert: All right, so back to Pacific Carbon Trust. I understand that $21 million, the government said, was provided and that the total $30 million would go back to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister considering advocating for use of that money to reduce climate change emissions?

[1705]

Hon. M. Polak: The member will not be surprised to hear me say that as Minister of Environment I'm always advocating for as much money as possible to be attached to initiatives that will improve the results we have, not only on the climate action front but on many other areas of the environment. I think the evidence of that is clear in that we've seen the expansion of the carbon-neutral capital program. We certainly have other initiatives in mind. Every ministry does.

I always will be advocating with the Minister of Finance to put greater emphasis, and of course, that's the great balancing act he has between all of our ministries. But rest assured, that's always what the Minister of Environment does.

S. Chandra Herbert: We're moving quickly through a bunch of things, and I've got a number of colleagues waiting here who are going to take us down many other different paths very shortly.

In terms of the proposed Surrey-Fraser docks, I'm curious. A number of MLAs, municipalities and others have raised concerns and requested that the minister step in and ensure Port Metro Vancouver has a fully independent health impact assessment process. They've raised concerns that if they don't get one, they don't know what they're going to do, and have raised suggestions of things that could occur on Texada Island regarding environmental impact assessments.

Certainly, I'm supportive of the idea of doing a full comprehensive independent health assessment in collaboration with the chief medical health officers. I'm curious if the minister has a point of view on this issue.

[1710]

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, it is located on federal land, and it's overseen by Port Metro Vancouver. Therefore, the process is entirely theirs and outside of our jurisdiction.

In terms of Texada, where we do have some jurisdiction, that would be managed primarily through their mining permit. Where we would come into play is if there was any waste discharge. But there is no waste discharge. Therefore, our jurisdiction wouldn't be triggered under the Environmental Management Act either.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I will wrap up with one more question on this section, and then I'll hand it over to some colleagues for their questions. We'll see how long they go. I may come back with even more. We're not here quite all week. We're having so much fun.

Anyways, the question is in terms of the Pacific Coast Collaborative. There are a range of things that the government has agreed to do — some of them very easy to understand, some of them I'm not sure what actions are going to be taken. There are, I guess, a range of points from whether or not it is supporting high-speed rail to leading the way to net zero buildings.

I'm curious if maybe the minister, rather than taking half an hour to go through each point here and tell me exactly what the ministry is doing on each point, would commit to providing a document just with a background on what each point will mean for British Columbia.

Certainly, pushing for high-speed rail is exciting. We've got some real challenges with the infrastructure we currently have, to do that. Those of us who like to travel south now and then could certainly see that as an option instead of flying or busing.

If she could go through each section and give us an answer around what we're going to do. Some have criticized this, saying: "B.C. can sign on to it because it doesn't have any binding targets and really not much that B.C.
[ Page 3001 ]
has to do out of it." It would be helpful to get that information. If the minister could confirm that her staff will do that for me.

Hon. M. Polak: Happy to confirm that. Upon receiving that, if the member would like, we can certainly have staff sit down for a briefing and maybe talk about some of the next steps that they're undertaking and update with respect to the development. But no, absolutely happy to share on that.

L. Popham: My topic is going to be MMBC. I'm just wondering if any other staff needs to be there, or are we good to go?

Interjection.

L. Popham: Good to go? Great.

I'm going to start with the, kind of, big-picture financial questions and how it fits into the budget. How many equivalent FTEs work on matters related to MMBC in the ministry?

[1715]

Hon. M. Polak: We're estimating it's about three FTEs. Now, it won't remain so. As we've implemented other recycling programs, for example, you have more staff working on a project initially. Then, as implementation takes place, they would move around to support other recycling initiatives.

L. Popham: How much money is budgeted for MMBC compliance and review?

Hon. M. Polak: There's no specific line item for MMBC. We would manage compliance and enforcement there along with all the other extended producer responsibility programs that we have.

L. Popham: Next I'd like to examine briefly the oversight provisions of MMBC. This is an organization that the minister has empowered to run residential recycling in B.C. as per MMBC's approved packaging and printed paper stewardship plan.

My question: is the minister concerned that the non-profit society MMBC is controlled by just three directors, two of whom do not reside in B.C. and are in fact vice-presidents of large corporations centred outside the province?

[1720]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll try not to be too lengthy in the answer and hit on all of the items.

MMBC does not and will not run recycling in B.C. They are responsible for their members' products. They are, thus far, the only organization of industry that has stepped forward with a plan for their members' products. However, the door remains open. If there was another organization, a like-minded industry sector, they would also have the opportunity to do that.

With respect to the oversight of MMBC, the board that is in place now is an interim board. They have just now announced the advisory council that will be working with them. It has representation from the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the waste industry, food processors, the Landscape and Nursery Association, B.C. Dairy Council and the Recycling Council.

They will transition, then, into a 15-member board, which will be selected across industry groups. In terms of who is involved in operating the organization, the large players are the ones with the largest financial contribution to the operations of MMBC, and therefore it stands to reason that they would have a role to play in operating the organization.

Again, this is an organization that came together voluntarily. They produced a plan as per the regulations and put it forward for to us review, and eventually we approved it. They are by no means the only ones with an opportunity to do that.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer.

Around the advisory group, these advisers, as far as I understand, actually don't hold any power, so the board itself that's in place, the three-person board, is actually in charge of the advisory board.

Now, the ministry's own Recycling Regulation Guide, 2012, recommends on page 5 that multi-stakeholder representation on the board of directors of the agency — such as consumer groups, environmental non-government organizations, local governments, etc. — should be part of the board that's in place.

This program is going in on May 19. If this is an interim board, I don't think anybody understood that at this point. My question to the minister is: at what point will the permanent board be put in place? We'll start there.

[1725]

Hon. M. Polak: I should just go back to the previous question, because I neglected one additional piece of information. We actually have another plan that has been submitted to us from the brewers. It hasn't been approved yet, but that is another plan that we will be looking at.

I should say that with respect to stakeholders who met with us to express concerns around this, the chamber and CFIB were both well aware that this is an interim board and that the transition will be made to a 15-member board. That board will have representation from a broad range of sectors, understanding that the packaging and printed paper area is quite a diverse one. It will also have members representing a variety of skill sets.

It's a large program. It will need to integrate with what
[ Page 3002 ]
will happen nationwide as part of the national planning that environment ministers are doing, leading to extended producer responsibility for packaging and printed paper across all of the provinces. They will need a fairly good variety of skill sets there.

I anticipate that the 15-member board will be formed up not long after the May 19 implementation date.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me where it states, for the record, that this is an interim board?

Hon. M. Polak: It has been in MMBC's published materials. It's obviously part of their plan, so it's not in our documentation.

L. Popham: There's also a requirement for a government rep to be on the board of MMBC. Is this going to be happening?

Hon. M. Polak: Notwithstanding the guidelines, when we look at the other 25 extended producer responsibility programs, I am advised that we don't have representation on those.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

When we get to the MMBC 15-member permanent board, we'll consider whether or not it would be appropriate and effective for us to be on that board — recognizing, of course, that this is not an agency of government and that, in fact, we end up being the regulator of MMBC, as we do of other stewardship programs. Therefore, we want to maintain an appropriate role.

[1730]

I think it's safe to say that as our policies and programs around EPR have evolved, it's likely that in terms of the development of the guidelines, much has evolved that was not anticipated, including the success of EPR programs, to the extent that we have 25 of them operating in B.C. right now.

G. Holman: Mr. Chair, I'd like to take this opportunity to withdraw an earlier comment that I had made in a private conversation which was apparently picked up on the mikes. It was unparliamentary language, and I apologize for that.

L. Popham: I'm going to move to MMBC's stewardship plan. My question: is the April 8, 2013, update the most recent version?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes.

L. Popham: Do the requirements of the April 15, 2013, approval letter for this plan from David Lawes of the environmental stewardship branch remain in effect?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, although, not having the letter in front of me, the one caveat I would put to that is that I'm not immediately aware of anything that may have changed as a result of our agreement, for example, between MMBC and small business and government with respect to the reg changes around requirements for the exemption for small business and low-volume producers. Just not having the letter in front of me, I wouldn't want to swear up and down that that isn't in there somewhere.

L. Popham: Well, the letter includes a third-party assurance implementation schedule, and the first item on that schedule is an audit report due for July 2013. I'm wondering if this was done.

Hon. M. Polak: My staff have advised that they're not certain, so they will go back and will come back with an answer for you. In terms of going forward, they are required to annually produce audited financial statements as their operations ramp up. We certainly expect that all of that will be done accordingly.

L. Popham: MMBC was incorporated on May 4, 2011, as an agency under the recycling regulations. My question is: were independent third-party audits done for the first year of operation, 2011-2012?

[1735]

Hon. M. Polak: Up until the point that their plan was approved and they were an approved steward, their reporting requirement would have been the same as any other not-for-profit under the Society Act. But in terms of operationally, they would be responsible under the regulation to us once their plan was approved.

L. Popham: I'm not quite sure if that means it was done or it wasn't or the minister might be looking into it.

Interjection.

L. Popham: Thank you. So MMBC wouldn't have reported to the minister at that point.

It's very difficult to find if there was an audit done at all. I'm actually wondering if one was done in the second year, 2012-2013. And are they being required to do one in their third year, from 2013 to 2014?

This is the reason why I'm asking if MMBC will even be obligated to provide third-party audited financial statements at all. On page 29 of the PPP stewardship plan it states that MMBC will not be obligated to provide third-party audited financial statements. Is this correct?

Hon. M. Polak: In terms of requirements, if they were charging an eco-fee to the public, for example, which some stewards do, then they would be required to provide third-party audited financial statements. So they are
[ Page 3003 ]
not required to. They have said that they will voluntarily be providing audited financial statements once they are in operation.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer.

Just as a comment. It seems that we're changing our provincial recycling program completely on May 19 — residential recycling program. I would think that the minister would be interested in an audit process just to see how things are going, since there are a lot of changes that are going to be happening and a lot of businesses that are going to be in turmoil. It would be nice to see how things are looking financially for MMBC.

We'll move on to consumers and how they'll be affected by MMBC. How many municipalities have provided written assurances to the minister that they will no longer be collecting taxes for recycling costs from residents once MMBC begins to pay for those services?

[1740]

Hon. M. Polak: First, back to the previous question. MMBC is required to report on the program performance. It's the financials that they are voluntarily providing audited statements for. In terms of the program performance and the requirements that are outlined with respect to their plan, they do have to report to us about that.

With respect to the municipalities, it will be their choice as to how they handle the savings that they will receive. In some cases, like Nanaimo, they have already publicly committed to return that money to the taxpayer. In other cases we see municipalities making choices to invest in further efforts around managing their solid waste. I know of one community that has committed to utilizing the funds to develop and expand their organic waste systems in their community to ensure that they're able to pick up green waste, which they currently aren't able to do.

It will be up to local governments to decide what they do with that savings, as it would be with any other savings that a local government accrued.

L. Popham: In setting up the PPP process, did the minister take any steps to ensure that consumers are not gouged and obligated to essentially pay twice, once MMBC goes into effect?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, by providing savings to local governments, which is where those taxpayers currently pay for the system.

L. Popham: Is it not true that the minister could have required MMBC to include such a provision in the contract it signed with municipalities?

Hon. M. Polak: MMBC would have no authority to include something like that in their contract. These are elected officials who are duly elected to make decisions around how they expend their tax money. As with any other initiative of government that saves municipalities money, or any other operation that might impact on their revenues in a positive way, it's up to local governments who are elected by their communities to make the decision as to how they use that money.

L. Popham: If MMBC is not required to disclose a financial audit — if that's voluntary, and they decide they're not going to do that — how do we know, in fact, that it's a non-profit society? How do we know if MMBC is making money off this program?

Hon. M. Polak: As a not-for-profit they are governed by the Society Act, as any other not-for-profit would be. While we have responsibilities to regulate from the standpoint of performance of the program, on the financial side of it, while they have said that they will voluntarily provide those audited statements, nevertheless the requirement for them to meet a not-for-profit standard is not ours. That is under the Society Act. I think the CRA would probably have something to say about it.

L. Popham: What efforts have been taken to stop the development of a monopoly with MMBC in place?

Hon. M. Polak: The regulation requires industry to be responsible for the disposal of their packaging and printed paper. It is up to industry how they would like to organize themselves to do that. Any industry group can form. MMBC, thus far, has been the one that has come forward with a comprehensive plan. I have mentioned, as well, that the brewers have come forward with a plan that they're seeking to have approved.

Any part of the industry could come forward with their own plan. MMBC is the one that we're discussing today, but it certainly is not a monopoly.

L. Popham: MMBC has been given monopoly-like powers, and we're already seeing a significant decrease in sector competition. For example, three major recycling firms have now combined to create one large corporation, and this corporation has won an exclusive contract with MMBC. That's Green by Nature. I think it's actually happening.

[1745]

What we see is that there is going to be some collateral damage within our business community in British Columbia. For example, an article that came out today was around a plastics recycling plant that's going to close down, and 30 employees are going to be gone, because they're now losing their access to the plastics that they depend on to make lawn furniture and plastic-wood products.

They collect nearly 700,000 kilograms of plastic, and
[ Page 3004 ]
that is now going to MMBC, so they're closing down their shop. That's just one around B.C. So it does have an effect. I'm wondering if the minister is taking steps to make sure that these businesses can continue.

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, when different businesses take over different responsibilities, things change, and not all of those are going to be easy changes.

Nevertheless, if we are going to ask industry, businesses, to pay for their packaging and printed paper and, in turn, if municipalities make an agreement with MMBC to deliver the service, of course MMBC is going to go out to tender for people to bid for that contract. That's exactly what they did. Of course, in a bidding process, it is natural that someone will win the bid and someone else will not. That is going to have an impact, no question.

However, there are other changes that come with that. While there will be some who are no longer providing the services they did, there will also be new investment. With the new post-collection system, there will be a $32 million investment in infrastructure that includes two new facilities and will employ almost 600 people.

Yes, it is changing. There are certainly impacts. But one cannot expect to ask industry and businesses to pay for the service and not at the same time allow them to make the choices as to who they would be contracting with.

L. Popham: It seems like the recycling businesses around the province…. Especially in rural B.C. it's basically tough luck for those companies.

I'll move on to extended producer responsibility. What data or research did the minister rely on when concluding that EPR would create meaningful downward pressure on packaging?

Hon. M. Polak: I can't point to any B.C.-specific research. What I can point to is the national approach to extended producer responsibility for packaging and printed paper using the price signal, which is what governs the approach that businesses take to the market. If it is more expensive for you to produce packaging, you have a financial incentive, therefore, to reduce your packaging.

In any case, what we've heard from consumers is that they believe that those who are producing the packaging ought to be the ones paying for disposing of it — not them through their property tax bill. As I've said before, though, this is part of a national approach that will extend to all provinces, and it's something that we have agreed to across all provinces in Ministries of Environment and together with the federal Environment Minister.

L. Popham: I think everybody can agree that the people that are creating the packaging should pay for it, but I think there's also an obvious understanding that that cost will be passed down to the consumer.

[1750]

The impact on businesses that produce PPP for residential — I'd like to know what work has been done to assess the cost of the impact on businesses in B.C. This is a national program. We're trying to align ourselves nationally, but what about the actual businesses in British Columbia? What is the loss that businesses will take because of MMBC? Has there been a study on that?

Hon. M. Polak: Here's where we have to remember what area the ministry has responsible for and what area industry has responsibility for. If we look across the other 25 extended producer responsibility programs, each industry has chosen a different approach. When it comes to packaging and printed paper, our regulation includes packaging and printed paper in the extended producer responsibility framework.

We did not determine how industry would discharge their responsibilities. It was open to them. MMBC has come forward with one plan. Another organization could come forward with a different plan, and MMBC could have come forward with a different plan. The point of extended producer responsibility, and the point of our regulation, is that we don't tell industry how best they should handle their business. Industry decides that, and it was industry that came forward with this plan.

L. Popham: Well, it seems like industry is telling us how to run our province.

I guess my next question in particular is around the newspaper industry. They've calculated that MMBC will cost upwards of $10 million a year, at minimum, leading to job losses of 300 to 500 jobs. What steps were taken to ensure EPR change was brought in gradually and with an eye to the business reality of businesses like small community newspapers? I hope the minister can agree that if we lose small community newspapers, we lose something that's very important in this province.

Hon. M. Polak: First, with respect to small community newspapers, if the newspaper is…. Well, I'm generalizing, but for small community newspapers that are not part of a chain, depending on their size, chances are they would not be captured under the regulation, now that we have in place the small business exemptions as well as the low-volume producer flat rate. That's in terms of small community newspapers.

In terms of those that are part of larger organizations, the Canadian Newspaper Association has been involved in this and aware of this since prior to the development of the regulation in 2011, so they've been well aware of this all the way along.

There is no requirement that they join MMBC. They may, in fact, wish to join together all their colleagues under their newspaper sector and form their own stewardship group. That's open to them to do that, and I've said that publicly as well. There's no requirement for
[ Page 3005 ]
them to join MMBC. They can do their own thing if they wish. This, certainly, was no surprise to them. They've been involved from the very beginning, since before the regulations were brought in place.

L. Popham: Well, it's certainly a fact that the Black Press will be affected. In fact, the Canadian Newspaper Association has said that this policy will bring the newspaper industry to its knees in British Columbia.

Finally, my last question is…. I'd like to know how many municipalities have signed on to MMBC. I believe it's less than half the municipalities in British Columbia that have done so.

[1755]

I'll end on a statement that with only half, less than half, of the municipalities signing on and with businesses with many, many questions, I think that the appropriate thing to do would be to delay the implementation of MMBC. I think that's fair. I think the minister should be able to see that's fair. I think the minister is reasonable. My request today is: will the minister please delay the implementation of MMBC until this is sorted out?

Hon. M. Polak: Currently 86 communities have signed on for MMBC, starting the program on May 19. There are also 170 service providers who have reached an agreement with MMBC to provide recycling services in those 86. The significance of this is that the 86 communities represent 73 percent of B.C. residents. These are communities that have already budgeted for the savings that they are going to experience. Any delay in implementation for those communities would mean a loss of those savings.

In the case of the CRD, that's $4.8 million; Nanaimo, $917,000; Williams Lake, $132,000; Penticton, $330,000; Richmond, $1.5 million. Delay in implementation would certainly have a very negative effect on those municipalities. It would also have a negative effect on municipalities, local governments, where residents are going to receive curbside recycling for the first time, such as Terrace, Smithers, 108 Mile House, Nakusp and Kaslo.

I have to say I think there's a natural contradiction in expressing concern that not all municipalities will be involved right from the beginning and, at the same time, arguing for some kind of a phased-in approach.

Essentially, when municipalities expressed to us the concern about the swiftness with which this was moving, we announced that we would provide for them an extension in the negotiations. The understanding, of course, was that if they weren't in the program before the deadline, they wouldn't be able to meet the May 19 implementation date. Effectively, that results in a phasing in of the program.

So with respect to the desire to delay or take a different approach, we have obligations to the municipalities, not only in cost savings but also in expected services. There are, of course, all the different contractors who are also involved in various ways throughout the province.

K. Conroy: We're going to move now to the Lemon Creek spill that happened last July 26. The minister is well aware of this spill, so I don't need to really go into the gory details. It's nine months later, and residents of the Slocan Valley are still feeling the aftermath of the spill. I just wanted to ask the minister if it is possible that she has any kind of a timeline for when affected residents are going to finally receive some sort of compensation for the losses that they have faced.

Hon. M. Polak: Unfortunately, and I think the member is aware of this, there's a lawsuit now with respect to a potential class action. As a result, it's impossible for me to predict when all of that will be resolved. I think, sadly, it probably will take a significant amount of time, but that is the situation that we're faced with at this point.

K. Conroy: I recognize that there is a lawsuit, and I also recognize that people have waited a long time. Now what's happening is that the company who owned the trucks and the drivers themselves and the different ministries that are involved are all manoeuvring with each other to see who is ultimately responsible.

[1800]

What ends up happening is that the people of the valley are the ones that are suffering. It's not the ministries. It's not the government. It's not the companies that are involved. They're all fighting with each other over who has to pay.

I think it would be appropriate for the ministry to consider some kind of compensation for the victims and then for the ministry, the government, to fight with the company to determine before the courts who actually should be doing the compensation for the people that are affected. It might be a novel concept, but it might be, also, something the minister would like to think on if they're really going to be effective in saying that they can protect the coast of British Columbia from oil spills.

If we can't even deal with compensation for a small area in our province — considerable compensation to the people involved but not a huge amount of compensation if you think what would happen if compensation needed to be given out up and down the coast of British Columbia…. How can we safely say we're going to deal with that if we can't even deal with this in Lemon Creek?

I wonder how the minister feels about this. Is this something that they will even consider? It's been nine months now, and some people lost their livelihoods. People are still affected healthwise, and there's been absolutely not any compensation for any of these residents.

Hon. M. Polak: In terms of the authority of the Ministry of Environment, we actually would not have
[ Page 3006 ]
the authority nor the ability to do anything more than recoup our reasonable response and cleanup costs. We don't have the authority or the ability to collect in terms of compensation or, in fact, to provide compensation. It's not within our authority to do so.

Generally speaking, decisions about compensation would rest with some combination of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. On the specifics, though, I really have to be careful how far I comment just because of the lawsuit. But to the question as to the general idea of compensation, that would not be one that we have either the authority or the ability to respond to.

[1805]

K. Conroy: I believe maybe the minister could make a new rule, because I'm sure the minister does talk to those other ministers. I know they meet at least once a week. There could be some way of endeavouring to ensure that this might happen in the future.

I'm just going to move into something a little more specific. People are still seeing results of the spill. There was always the issue that the Executive Flight Centre, the company involved in the spill, had hired SNC-Lavalin to conduct the environmental assessment, to determine the impact. There was concern that there could potentially be conflict of interest for a company to pay SNC-Lavalin to determine what the environmental impact was. They're evaluating the environmental impact for the company that's paying them — the company that's created the spill, and the company that sat in a public meeting and said that they would guarantee they would clean up the mess.

I'm wondering if the minister believes there is a conflict of interest in this evaluation.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize to the member. Even with respect to items like that, I'm restricted in terms of my comments because of what's before the courts.

K. Conroy: The ministry did approve SNC-Lavalin's environmental monitoring plan. Can the minister tell us if the company plans to compare pre- and post-spill fish populations?

Hon. M. Polak: We don't have the specific information with respect to fish populations. I imagine that would be part of it, but staff will make certain of their information and provide that to the member.

K. Conroy: Then I'm not sure if the staff that are available can answer this either. Does the minister believe that SNC-Lavalin can accurately monitor the fish populations without baseline data?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm advised by my staff, whom I'll mention has a biology background, that what would ordinarily happen in a circumstance where there was no baseline data is that they would compare like habitats. They would compare similar environments and use that as their baseline information.

K. Conroy: In fact, there is baseline data. The Slocan Streamkeepers have been keeping data on the Slocan River and Lemon Creek for, I think, 25 years, 20 years — for years. They offered the relevant data to SNC-Lavalin. It was turned down.

I'm wondering if the ministry would ensure that the baseline data was utilized to be able to determine the true effects of the spill, because it's there. The data's there. It's been offered. I understand it's been offered to the ministry as well as SNC-Lavalin, and that offer hasn't been accepted. It is there, it's available, and I'm asking the ministry to please utilize what's there.

[1810]

Hon. M. Polak: I, of course, can't speak for SNC-Lavalin, but staff would certainly welcome the data from the streamkeepers.

K. Conroy: I think, because the ministry has approved SNC-Lavalin's reports, there should be some input into how those reports are carried out. I'm glad to hear that the ministry will potentially carry through on that.

In the wake of the Lemon Creek spill, I'm wondering if the minister will commit to some kind of enforcement of jet fuel storage and transportation standards in remote rural areas.

Hon. M. Polak: There's a division of jurisdictions and accountabilities here with respect to the storage of hazardous materials. We do have regulations under the Ministry of Environment, and they're fairly extensive. When it comes to the transportation of hazardous materials in trucks, for example, that is solely the responsibility of the federal ministry of transportation. They govern the movement of hazardous goods across the country.

K. Conroy: Then, this ministry would only have jurisdiction over the storage of jet fuel, not the actual transportation. It's my understanding…. We have some fabulous heli-skiing operations in our region, and there's jet fuel that's stored. I'm wondering if there are any guidelines around that. People in the region have raised concerns when they're out in the rural parts of the community and the region, out in the mountains, and they see large containers of jet fuel being stored.

Hon. M. Polak: The storage of hazardous material is governed under the hazardous waste regulation. We can provide you with the regulation and with any guidelines that are attached.
[ Page 3007 ]

K. Conroy: I'm sure that would be monitored by staff in the region. I just need a nod. The storage would be monitored by staff in the region? Okay, that's good.

[1815]

I know that the minister has met with the folks from the regional district. Walter Popoff is the area director for the area and worked really hard on this spill — did a lot of work in making sure that people were working together. One of the things that the spill did, I think, for the people of the Slocan Valley and the entire region was it really accented the need for the province to have some kind of spill response protocol — for rural areas especially.

The delay in how long it took to get help to the region, the need for proper containment and where it should be contained — just letting people know — was a bit of a disaster for the people in the region. The evacuation was a real issue for people, and the minister knows this. She's talked to the folks at the regional district. I know that the regional district director, Walter Popoff, has talked to UBCM about spill protocol.

They're also hoping that the minister, through the ministry, will commit to some kind of spill protocol so that if something like this ever does happen again — and hopefully for people in this province, it doesn't — there is protocol in place so that things can be dealt with in a much more efficient manner. People can get the help they need quickly, the containment can happen quickly, the cleanup can happen quickly, and there's protocol so that people know who's responsible for what.

I think this spill has been a prime example of what hasn't worked. I'm hoping that the ministry has learned from this and will be willing to put protocol in place so that if it ever happens again, there is that protocol there.

Hon. M. Polak: After any incident like this we go through fairly extensive debriefing to determine if there are things that we can improve. At this stage that has had to remain an internal debrief. When the legal wranglings are over, we'll be able to extend that more broadly, involve the community. That is always our intent whenever there's an incident like this — to debrief, learn from it.

We certainly would be happy to be continuing to work more broadly with UBCM in terms of ensuring that all communities have well-established protocols and also that we're able to coordinate response as a best practice throughout the province in the case of any incident.

The Chair: Member for Kootenay West, noting the hour, perhaps this could be your last question.

K. Conroy: I thank the Chair for the indulgence. It will be my last question.

I want to thank the minister for that response. My only concern is that it's been nine months. We know how the courts work and the system, with all due respect to the courts and the lawyers in the room. I worry that it could take a long time.

These responses are being developed. There's protocol for how agencies will communicate with each other. It's been discussed with the regional districts as well as the UBCM. I'm hoping that the ministry, even though there is a court case hanging over their heads, can still take the opportunity to look at these responses and to respect the work that's gone into it.

It has been nine months. I think that the people of the valley have been very patient and will continue to voice their concerns. So I thank the minister for that.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:19 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada