Translink Governance Bill

2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD


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


Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)


THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 5

B. Ralston: I rise to take my place in this debate, and I want to make a couple of comments about the proposed governance structure that this bill recommends to govern transportation in the south coast or the lower mainland. Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about these assumptions that are made as to how the new entity will be financed.

It is striking, the degree to which this governance structure shows contempt for the democratic structures of British Columbia. It's very striking. It's often been said that the British parliamentary system is a system of amateurs advised by professionals, and I think that is meant very seriously.

I remember a famous American political commentator who said he would rather be governed by 15 people picked at random from the Boston phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard. There's a presumption in democracy that elected people will make the best decisions, and if they don't, the people they represent will correct them either through their representations or at election time.

But here the presumption is very clearly different. It's striking in its contempt for elected officials. I refer, to give an example, to the mayors council, which will have some very minor role in the governance structure — nominally there in the structure, but a very minor influence.

What the prospective member of the mayors council on regional transportation must do, in section 209, is swear an oath. I'm reading from the section: "I will, when exercising my powers and duties under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act as a member of the mayors council on regional transportation, consider the interests of the transportation service region as a whole."

Now, it's a striking proposition in the sense that it expresses a complete lack of confidence, an arrogant contempt for those elected mayors who have much experience in running a transportation system and certainly in interpreting the land use patterns and the property tax financial decisions that would be required in running such an enterprise.

To subject them, before they can take their place in this organization, to this process of taking an oath to consider the system — the transportation service region as a whole — strikes me as arrogant in the extreme and says everything that needs to be said about this minister's lack of respect for local government.

The mayors council has a role in the screening panel in selecting directors for the new entity. Again, it's striking that in section 170 of the proposed act, an eligible individual as a director "does not hold elected public office of any type…."

[1510]

So it's not simply that you're not a member of a council that might be…. That you can't be a member of a school board, can't be an elected official of any type, again expresses a contempt, an arrogance, for those people who choose to serve their community in whatever capacity. I suppose you can't be a diking commissioner. You can't be on the harbour authority. Any position in which you hold elected public office, you're disentitled to be a director of this agency.

The screening panel is set out, and these are the people who will select the directors. Another wise political scientist said that the greater the degree of remove from direct representation and the more levels you have to work through in order to get to the ultimate decision-maker, the less democratic it is. This board is constructed like a Russian doll. There's an entity inside an entity inside an entity inside an entity before you get to the real decision-makers.

I would like to review what's in the screening panel. The mayors council is entitled to appoint someone. But they can't appoint one of their own, because that would be an elected official. So the mayors council has to select someone other than an elected official. They certainly can't select one of their own to do that.

The Minister of Transportation can select someone, and it's directly, in this particular case. Presumably,

[ Page 8844 ]

that will be someone who's very supportive of the minister's position. One would assume that.

Next, the Institute of Chartered Accountants is entitled to appoint someone. The Institute of Chartered Accountants does appear before the Finance Committee. Their CEO, Mr. Rees, made a presentation to the Finance Committee earlier this year. I believe he appeared before us in Mission. But there's nothing in what the Institute of Chartered Accountants does that suggests, inherently, an interest in transportation per se.

I looked at what they called their checkup document, which is their annual review of the economy in British Columbia. Their recommendations are conventional business recommendations that one hears from chambers of commerce from time to time, but nothing terribly striking.

In their review of the mainland southwest development region, what they do talk about is air quality. It's striking that they do talk about that. They have some observations about ozone data, but they don't tie that in any way to transportation. I don't think it's any great revelation that air quality, particularly in the Fraser Valley, is tied to emissions, but they don't really talk about that in any way whatsoever. So they record the levels of ozone. They mark that as an indicator of public health, but they don't appear to connect that in any way to transportation.

I don't want to express any distaste for the accountants. Obviously, they perform a valuable societal function. No person who does their taxes that have any complexity would want to be without the advice of an accountant from time to time. Certainly, they perform a valuable function in industry, business, non-profits, universities — whatever. But there's nothing inherent, I would say, in this particular Institute of Chartered Accountants that qualifies them to appear on the screening panel.

Next, members of the Vancouver Board of Trade. Now, it's striking that for an organization that purports to govern the region, it's the Vancouver Board of Trade. It's not the Surrey Board of Trade. One of the members of this chamber is a former president of the Surrey Board of Trade, and I expect he'll probably vote against this legislation because of that. It's the Vancouver Board of Trade — not the Abbotsford Board of Trade, not the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce, not any other business organization in the lower mainland.

[1515]

Why is the Vancouver Board of Trade given such primacy? Why is it selected instead of any of these other business organizations? Surely one would have thought that the Surrey Board of Trade, being the leading business organization south of the Fraser River, might have been considered for that. But no. It's the Vancouver Board of Trade.

I really wonder about the choice of the Vancouver Board of Trade — again, a very respectable organization. I was recently reading a piece in B.C. Business where the then president, Dan Muzyka, attempted to put together a group to look at the future of the region. I agree with what he was setting out to do. He was saying that it's very clear that after 2010 there's really not very much of a business vision for this province. He was supported in that by someone who's on the city council in Vancouver.

Councillor Peter Ladner said: "But all booms end, and when you look beyond real estate speculations and one-time Olympic construction, our productivity is declining; our research-driven, high-growth new industries are lagging behind their competitors; and head-office employment is declining." He warns: "The foundations of all this growing wealth…. They're shaky at best." That's not a New Democrat. That's Peter Ladner, who is a representative on the city council in Vancouver.

In order to address this problem, this lack of vision, Mr. Muzyka, very much in the manner of the regional scope of this entity that's proposed, tried to put together an organization to develop an economic vision, to engage in regional economic development within the very same region that this entity is proposed for. One can't think of an activity that's more integrally related and tied to the economic development of the region than the transportation system. Certainly, that's a very important aspect of economic development.

Land development, the future growth of communities, the business development that would follow — all those things are integrally tied up in that vision of the region. But what Mr. Muzyka found when he tried at the Vancouver Board of Trade to put this group together to do it was that despite his very considerable qualifications…. I certainly in no way want to suggest that there's anything wrong with Mr. Muzyka's approach. I support it totally. He expresses his frustration in this article.

The Vancouver Board of Trade and its members didn't support him in creating this organization to create a vision for the economic future of the lower mainland region, the very region that this transportation entity will cover. So I'm a little troubled by the fact that the Vancouver Board of Trade, given this history of inability to develop an economic vision he proposed to 2025, is going to be placed in a very influential position to select the leadership who are going to drive this transportation entity forward, develop a ten-year plan and a 30-year plan.

They've failed as a group, not through any lack of effort on Mr. Muzyka's part, to develop an economic vision for the region. Why would they be any more successful in promoting a transportation vision for the region than the economic vision that they failed at doing?

I'm troubled by that, and I expect the minister will have an answer for that. Perhaps we can debate that when we get to committee stage of the bill.

The other entity that's included as one of the members of the screening panel is the Greater Vancouver Gateway Society. That is, I gather, not an organization that was set up by the minister to promote the Gateway project. It's a separate Gateway council, which was founded in 1994. I have a list of the executive members. Again, they will be no challenge to the vision that the minister is advocating — the exclusively business vision, I would say, and one aspect of business, not all of business.

[1520]

I'm not sure that their website was up to date. There were people such as the president and CEO of

[ Page 8845 ]

the Vancouver Port Authority, the president of the B.C. Wharf Operators Association, the president and CEO of the B.C. Trucking Association, the president and CEO of the Vancouver International Airport Authority. And in yet another interlocking directorship, I suppose, in some respects, the Vancouver Board of Trade is on the Gateway Council. There are representatives of railways, maritime employers, associations — things like that.

Really, the Gateway Council appears to be basically another aspect of the same thing, although it's styled as a separate entity. It seems very much like the kind of point of view that one would get from the Minister of Transportation or the Vancouver Board of Trade. So although the members of the screening panel appear to be appointed by different people, they all appear to come from the very same perspective.

That is a legitimate perspective, but in my view and in the view of the members opposite, it's certainly not the only view, nor is it desirable to create a board of directors populated exclusively by people who have that view. This board of directors is not accountable and has very little political scrutiny available to it. Really, it will treat the regional transportation services more as a utility than as a development mechanism, a community-building exercise with the environmental and social land use implications that, of course, any transportation system has.

The government has clearly said that as a result of the Premier's brainwave on the beach in Maui, they're embarking on a process of climate change. They're going to consider that.

It's significant that the governance review began before this change in the direction by the Premier. As a result, the governance review and the structure that is now before us in this legislation do not consider those goals at all.

It's not just me saying that, because I know the members opposite might be a little bit skeptical about me saying that. It's the David Suzuki Foundation. David Suzuki has said publicly that his climate change team is working very closely with the Premier's office. They're giving the Premier his advice on climate change, but none of that appears to have been listened to in putting together this legislation when you look at the financial implications and the sources of revenue that are proposed.

I know that TransLink is now a much-maligned and defunct organization. But back in April 2006 the TransLink chair Malcolm Brodie made a presentation to the Surrey and Langley chambers of commerce, which I was able to hear, and I kept a copy of his speaking notes. He spoke about the challenges in financing TransLink. This is a person who the minister praised earlier in his speech yesterday and is recognized as…. Mind you, he is an elected official, of course. He's the mayor of Richmond, so I suppose that diminishes him somewhat in the esteem of the minister.

Nonetheless, he did set out the challenges that TransLink faced, and I want to read a little bit from what he said about those because I don't want to be accused of misquoting him.

[1525]

"We found efficiencies in many areas, but with demands for more expansion come long-term revenue challenges. As business leaders, you all know that transportation improvements don't come without a cost. Please allow me to explain why TransLink funding options are so limited.

"Our main three sources of revenue are fuel taxes, fares and property taxes. First of all, our share of fuel tax revenue — 30 percent of TransLink's budget — is volatile due to fluctuating gas prices and consumption. We've already raised transit fares, and there is a danger of increasing them again since higher fares reduce ridership.

"We've also reached the limit, in terms of property taxes, that people are prepared to support, with two increases that were approved by municipalities through the GVRD."

Now Metro Vancouver, I add in parenthesis.

I'm continuing to quote:

"While TransLink will receive some federal New Deal funding, the funding is only certain for five years, and it can't be used for operating expenses. We're also facing increased construction costs, a 23-percent increase over the life of our transportation expansion plan."

He goes on to talk about the difficulty of the parking site tax, which this bill would abolish, but he says:

"Because the funds support debt incurred for capital projects, we can't abandon the tax outright without eliminating some $150 million to $200 million worth of vital capital projects, but we continue to look for alternatives."

He concludes with some comments about the importance of the transportation system and it being vital to the provincial and national economies.

Now, I thought that was a pretty good summary from the chair of TransLink about the sources of revenue and the difficulties with those sources of revenue. Just so I can review, there are three sources: fuel taxes, fares and property taxes.

What does this bill propose as the three sources of revenue for the new transportation entity? Why, fuel taxes, fares and property taxes — the same three areas that Mr. Brodie pointed out have some inherent difficulties as a form of stable funding for the operation.

The tax on transportation fuel — or the gas tax, as it's sometimes called. There are some assumptions built into this plan about gas tax revenue. If I could turn to this document now, in the TransLink governance review at page 43, where they looked at projected TransLink expenditures and revenues — because they did a business model for the proposed new entity….

What they assumed on the revenue side: "On the revenue side, it is assumed that property tax revenues would increase by 3 percent, that fuel tax revenues would increase by 1 percent a year and that fares would increase by the rate of inflation. No new taxes or levies are assumed."

Keep in mind that assumption about the increase in fuel tax revenue, because what the Premier's very close climate change advisers from the David Suzuki Foundation say is that that doesn't accord at all. It's completely in contradiction with the climate change

[ Page 8846 ]

objectives of the very elementary climate change plan that's been thus far discussed, because it envisages reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector by a substantial amount.

If you're going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, you're going to encourage…. At least not a 1-percent growth per year over the life of the plan. You're going to increase or perhaps have it stable, but surely your long-term goal would be to have it decline.

That's a source of revenue. Mr. Brodie already points out that the gas tax revenue is inherently unstable because of fluctuations in price and vehicle usage. So the proposed financial plan for this entity doesn't make sense in terms of the other commitments that the government has made.

[1530]

Maybe the Minister of Finance didn't know that. I find that hard to believe. Maybe the Premier didn't tell him. I find that hard to believe. Maybe the two ministries or the Premier's office and the Ministry of Finance are working in isolation. That's possible. Certainly, on such an important, major public endeavour, these considerations would be taken into account. But there's nothing in the plan to suggest that that's been taken into account.

Mr. Ian Bruce of the David Suzuki Foundation, the Premier's climate change adviser, says:

"TransLink estimates that to achieve the B.C. emissions target, the percentage of trips now made by transit would have to grow from 11.5 percent today to 25 to 30 percent by 2020, more than doubling transit ridership within the metro service region.

"Although there are no studies or estimates on the level of transportation service required in B.C. Transit service areas to achieve the B.C. government's emissions target, a similar increase in ridership may be required for other B.C. Transit systems as well. Enhanced transit service will be most cost-effective and practical at shifting commuter trips from cars to transit when larger communities also pursue contact development.

"The province faces serious problems if current transportation trends continue on a business-as-usual basis. In the lower mainland vehicle ownership is growing faster than population, largely due to the lack of alternatives to the personal automobile."

The Premier's climate change adviser from the Suzuki Foundation says that the other measures are good measures — the California vehicle tailpipe measures and the low-carbon fuel standards. He goes on to say: "These policies will be unlikely to halt, let alone reduce, overall greenhouse gas emissions from B.C.'s vehicle fleet." This is for a couple of reasons. It'll take quite a while to phase in those new vehicles, and secondly, without significant investment in transit service and other sustainable transportation, more vehicles and longer vehicle trips will negate the emission reductions by the California standards.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I want to read it, just so that it's clear that it's the advice of the Premier's climate change adviser at the Suzuki Foundation who's saying this. It's not something fanciful that I have extracted from any document.

Mr. Bruce says:

"Foremost" — he's referring to the TransLink governance review panel — "the panel's recommendations were based on TransLink's financial projections contained within the ten-year plan, a plan that was not designed to provide sufficient transportation infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions to the levels envisioned by the B.C. government.

"Secondly, the panel assumed that fuel tax revenues would grow at 1 percent, the then current rate of growth of fuel — gas and diesel — consumption. Under the province's new climate change targets, however, transportation fuel consumption in B.C. will need to decrease by 33 percent by 2020 to achieve B.C.'s emission target. Therefore, we have prepared a series of recommendations in this document that are consistent with the B.C. government's climate change goals."

There you have it. The financial assumptions that are in this document on one of the three sources of revenue — which Mr. Brodie says raised, in the old entity, 30 percent of the budget — are completely flawed. This projection was prepared before the Premier's climate change direction and has assumptions that, if the Premier is to be believed or these targets are to be seriously tackled, will not come to pass. So the revenue structure on which this entity is founded has had one of the three legs of the stool kicked out from under it at the beginning.

I really wonder whether this is good policy, and I'm not sure that all the professional experts that the minister would pack onto this board of directors wouldn't tell him the same thing. I don't see why this problem can't be addressed now.

[1535]

Apparently, this document, this bill, these financial assumptions and these revenue projections are prepared in the absence of any consideration of what the David Suzuki Foundation's climate change specialist says about the targets that have been set for reductions in the transportation sector.

I have very serious concerns about the financial viability of this entity, if that advice from the David Suzuki Foundation — Mr. Bruce — is taken seriously. Maybe it won't be.

There are some skeptics who deride the Premier's conversion to climate change and say that the targets are not really serious, that this will not come to pass, that it's simply being concocted for political purposes. I seriously hope I'm wrong on that, but what this bill posits, holds out as its projections for revenue and what the David Suzuki Foundation says are a complete contradiction.

At the committee stage I hope the minister, if he chooses to listen to me, will provide some answers.