On Thursday April 2, 2015, Adam Olsen and I were on Voice of BC with guest host Keith Baldrey. We discussed a number of issues including MSP Premiums, BC’s Treaty Commission, Vancouver’s Transit referndum, BC’s controversial wolf cull, the Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal and more.

Over the next few months the residents of Metro Vancouver will help shape the future of public transit in their region. The question is clear and the stakes are high:

“Do you support a new 0.5% Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax, to be dedicated to the Mayors’ Transportation and Transit Plan? Yes or No.“

The vote has sparked a heated debate about TransLink, public transit, how to fund it, and its future in the Lower Mainland. No matter what the result of this plebiscite is, it will have repercussions that echo across British Columbia.

A Flawed Plebiscite

The residents of Metro Vancouver are being asked to accept or reject a 0.5% regional increase to the provincial sales tax. All of the money raised by this tax will be used to fund much needed improvements to Metro Vancouver public transit system. I have already written about this referendum and the abdication of responsibility it represents. Governance is about dealing with issues; not letting them fester and hoping someone else takes the blame. True leadership means listening to stakeholders and being open to compromises. It means making difficult, necessary and, at times, unpopular decisions.

The provincial government was given an opportunity to display this kind of leadership. Metro Vancouver expects one million new residents in the next 30 years, putting an extra strain on an already overburdened transportation system. It is a problem that requires decisive, well thought out action that engages stakeholders and fixes systemic problems. Instead the government decided to duck its responsibility and hold a plebiscite.

The referendum began as a campaign promise. During the 2013 election the BC Liberals were down in the polls and grasping at straws. In a move that put politics before leadership, the Premier promised that any new TransLink tax would go before a referendum. Public Transit is a complicated issue; it’s a balancing act of providing services and staying affordable. It requires listening to the citizens of today while working for those of tomorrow.

Unfortunately, the BC Liberals ignored this.

With a focus on purely political outcomes, they waded, half-cocked, into a complex issue and we are witnessing the results. They set in motion a $6 million dollar referendum, the first in Canadian history asking voters to directly approve a tax, while ignoring the serious structural issues in Vancouver’s public transit.

Perhaps this explains why the province is asking the wrong question. They could have followed the Premier’s original plan and asked a more nuanced question. In her own words, “It needs to be a multiple-choice question. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ doesn’t do justice to the questions that are there.” This would have given voters more options, saving them from choosing between another regressive tax hike and a struggling transit system. Better yet, they could have explored a key concern by asking voters about the organization that runs public transit in Metro Vancouver. They could have asked a question about TransLink.

The latest polls paint a very clear picture. Only 12% of respondents, on either side, have a positive opinion of TransLink. Contrast this with the 39% that believe “TransLink is very broken and needs a complete overhaul”’ and the additional 25% who have a generally negative view of the organization. In fact, 61% of those planning to vote No, believe that TransLink cannot be trusted with the extra funds to be raised by this tax. The Vancouver referendum is turning into a vote about TransLink and the management of its 1.5 billion dollar annual budget instead of a vote about transit.

Despite all of this, Transportation Minister Todd Stone has made it clear that he will not reform TransLink, regardless of the plebiscite’s results. The government promised a referendum while refusing to listen to residents of the Lower Mainland. They’re not just voting No to the tax increase, they’re voting No to TransLink. People are calling for change. People are calling for reform. And the government is pretending that they can’t hear them.

There are serious problems with TransLink. And here I am not only talking about the examples of waste outlined by the No Transit Tax campaign. Improving inefficiency and eliminating wasteful processes is important, but will not come close to raising the needed funds.

My concerns have more to do with the structure of TransLink and the unfortunate relationship it has had with the province. In my view this referendum has given us the opportunity to open a conversation about TransLink. It has to regain the trust of the people it serves. Regardless of how Metro Vancouver votes, there needs to be change. In order to understand how to move forward, I think it is important to first look back, not only at the referendum but also at TransLink itself.

A History of Interference

TransLink was set up by the BC NDP and took over services from BC Transit in 1999. It was envisioned as a more accountable, more local and a more fiscally independent organization. It was given an expanded mandate including roads and bridges, in addition to buses and trains. Unlike its predecessor, the board of TransLink was elected. Along with this accountability came the new power to raise taxes independently, allowing for more financial security and long term planning. Over the next decade this oversight, and the original vision, for TransLink, would be stripped away, leaving us with the transportation authority we have today.

The Provincial Government’s meddling began months before TransLink officially began operations. Glen Clark’s NDP government announced the construction of the Millennium Line, a system that would use SkyTrain technology and run only through NDP ridings. This biased route earned it the nickname a ‘train to nowhere’. Besides the obvious partisan criticism, it also drew the ire of the local officials. The new line would derail their plans for a light rapid transit to Coquitlam and saddled TransLink with significant costs.

Not to be outdone, Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government also blocked a transit line to Coquitlam, this time to build the Canada Line. This SkyTrain project connected the Vancouver International Airport with the downtown core. The project was a centerpiece for their Olympic proposal and faced heavy resistance within the TransLink board. They had serious concerns over cost and believed that the resources were much better spent elsewhere. They voted against the government’s proposal twice before finally backing down, accepting the project with substantial fiscal safeguards.

The delay prompted Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon to announce sweeping changes to the TransLink board. He claimed the elected board was too narrow in their thinking, especially in the debates surrounding the Canada Line. In other words, he was saying that the local board created to serve local citizens was too local in its thinking.

TransLink was designed as a regional authority, which was transparent and fully accountable to the people Metro Vancouver. As a body with the authority to raise taxes and seriously impact the lives of residents throughout the region it needed to have a social license to operate. It had to be attentive to the needs of the people. This all ended with Minister Falcon’s interventions.

Governance and Reform

Before the Minister’s sweeping changes were made, a board of fifteen directors ran TransLink. Twelve of the directors were mayors and councillors appointed by Metro Vancouver. The remaining three were Provincial MLAs, although these seats usually remained vacant. The directors made tough decisions but had to engage with voters to build support for policies.

The authority is now run by two boards. One is still elected — the Mayors’ Council consisting of all elected representatives in the Metro Vancouver area. The council has the power to oversee the sale of major assets as well as approve various proposals by the TransLink Board of Directors.

Mayors’ Council also choose the members of the Board of Directors. Perhaps ‘sort of choose’ is a better way to say this. Every year the Mayors’ Council receives a short list of individuals nominated by a screening panel made up of government and professional representations. The Mayors than choose new directors from this list. If they do not choose enough directors to fill the empty seats the decision reverts to the screening panel.

This appointed board has a wide range of responsibilities including developing long term plans, approving TransLink’s operating budget and running the ‘day-to-day’ operations of TransLink. Despite this significant power there is no way to hold board members accountable. They can only be fired by provincial legislation, and don’t have to worry about re-election. The process was intentionally designed to be a step removed from democracy, mirroring port and airport legislation. The key difference between TransLink and any port authority is that TransLink has the ability to raise taxes on more than 2 million people.

Two board seats have been recently added for mayors and two more, still vacant, have been added for province. While these tentative steps towards engagement and democratization are a step in the right direction they do not go nearly far enough.

Regardless of the results of the plebiscite, TransLink’s governance must be reformed. It is far too big and far too powerful to be so far removed from democracy. There has been much talk about the need for change, but not nearly enough on how this change could occur. An interesting place to start this discussion would be to examine the way public transit is governed in London, England.

Like Metro Vancouver, London’s transportation system is run by a large organization (Transportation for London — TFL) with a broad mandate including buses, trains, roads and cyclists. Unlike Metro Vancouver the ultimate power is in the hands of the mayor. This democratically elected representative sets an overall vision for the city and designs the policies and the strategies that will bring it into practice.

The mayor is also the chair of the TFL Board of Directors. This board is responsible for implementing the vision and strategies put forward by the mayor. Each of these directors is handpicked by the mayor and is drawn from a broad spectrum and currently includes the Executive Chairman of British Airways and a licensed taxi driver.

Transposing this model onto TransLink, the authority would still be run by two boards but the power dynamic would shift. The elected and accountable Mayors’ Council would be responsible for deciding organizational goals and the policies which could bring them to fruition. The mayors currently sitting on the board of directors could move to chair positions. The Council as a whole could appoint the other directors directly and be able to end their tenure early, should the need arise.

This is by no means the only avenue for change, it is just one model that has worked in one place. The new TransLink must be the result of significant consultation and debate and I only mean to illustrate one potential alternative.

Conclusion

This referendum shouldn’t have happened. At best, it is a misguided dereliction of duty on the part of the provincial government. At worst it is a cynical political ploy. If Premier Clark was serious about bringing democracy back to TransLink then she should have done so. The Premier should have reformed the organization, bringing back democracy consistently, instead of throwing voters a bone when it’s politically convenient.

It is unfortunate that the province decided to take us down this path. It has not stopped people from expressing their distrust of TransLink, but it has left them without a proper forum to call for change. Regardless of how the Lower Mainland votes there needs to be a serious conversation about TransLink. And this conversation should not only be about its flaws. It should also be about how we can fix them. The call for change may have begun with a referendum but it doesn’t need to end there.

Finally, as I wrote in the article in February, if I lived in Vancouver, I would vote ‘Yes’. I would do so reluctantly. I would do so begrudgingly. And I would do so frustratedly, knowing that my provincial government had abdicated its leadership responsibility.

These are my thoughts on TransLink. What are yours?

After Question Period yesterday the premier participated in a media scrum. There she announced that the government made “a principled policy decision” regarding the direction that First Nations treaty negotiations would take. Today I rose in Question Period to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation about building trust and respect within the Treaty process. I noted that this wasn’t consistent, in my view, with an apparent “principled policy decision” being announced in a media scrum after question period much to the surprise of key stakeholders.

As you will see from the exchange, I simply cannot fathom how Minister Rustad, a man known for his integrity, can continue to head up his portfolio when his ability to build trust and respect with First Nations has been undermined.

Most regrettably, the key message that this whole fiasco has sent to First Nations is that you cannot trust the word of the government. Sadly, this is a message that they have heard loud and clear for far too many decades. And here I thought that we were taking serious steps toward reconciliation.

Question

A. Weaver: Yesterday the Premier claimed that the government made “a principled policy decision” regarding the direction that First Nations treaty negotiations will take. I must admit that this is the first time I’ve heard of a principled policy decision being announced in a media scrum after question period.

Last month cabinet appointed Tom Happynook, the highly respected hereditary whaling chief of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, to the Treaty Commission. As the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation will know, trust and respect are two essential characteristics of relationship-building.

My question is this. Did the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation inform Mr. Happynook, prior to his appointment, that the government’s new direction would include no longer appointing George Abbott or anyone else as chief commissioner and potentially dismantling the entire Treaty Commission?

Answer

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, although I really appreciate the note that you sent me. You’ve broken from your tradition of sending written questions to us. But that’s fine. I get how that can go.

I do want to thank the member, because Tom Happynook is an excellent individual, and we’re very honoured that he has accepted the appointment to the B.C. Treaty Commission office.

The B.C. Treaty Commission office is structured in that there needs to be four commissioners — two appointed by the summit, one by the federal government and one by the government of British Columbia — in order to be able to function.

Without those four people being in place, the Treaty Commission office cannot continue forward with the work. So I had discussions with Mr. Happynook about the appointment. I talked about the fact that we are thinking about the treaty process, and we’re excited about being able to work with nations and being able to find ways to be able to do things better. Mr. Happynook said that he would be excited to be part of the B.C. Treaty Commission process and the work that they will be undertaking.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I would suggest that the minister call up Mr. Happynook, as I did yesterday, and ask the same question of him.

I’ve heard that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is a man of integrity. I’ve heard this not only from his constituents but also from First Nations. However, in order for a minister to be able to do his job, he must have the trust of the cabinet and the Premier. This is especially true for the portfolio of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, which comes with the added burden of historical B.C. governments dealing in bad faith with First Nations and with the complexity of navigating an intricate treaty process.

The events of the past few weeks have thrown into doubt whether this minister can speak with authority to First Nations, given the fact that the Premier is making major decisions that affect the foundation of his work, apparently without his knowledge.

To the minister: an honourable man of integrity as he is, how can he continue to head up this portfolio when his ability to build trust and respect with First Nations is being undermined by the Premier?

Answer

Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I have spent the last two years travelling around the province building relations with First Nations, nations that are in the treaty process, nations that are outside of the treaty process, nations that we already have treaties with. We continue to find ways to work with all nations on progressing with our relationship with First Nations.

I find it interesting that both nations that are in treaty and not in treaty have all said the same, similar things to me: “The process needs to be reviewed. We need to find ways to be able to improve things.” So I’ve been working very closely with all nations. We’ve been listening to them. We’ve had the All Chiefs meeting. We heard this message come forward.

Even with the wide range of groups that we have, there is one thing that is consistent. That is that First Nations want to see good things for their people. They want to see healthy and wealthy communities. They want to work with the province and the federal government on the relationships, and they want to be able to build a prosperous future. We plan to work with them as partners in doing that.

On Tuesday, March 24, I rose to speak to Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2015. The purpose of this bill is to implement the budget described in the government’s Budget Speech. Bill 10 contained amendments to the Carbon Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, Provincial Sales Tax Act, Small Business Venture Capital Act, and Tobacco Tax Act, together with a number of other general and consequential amendments. As noted in my speech at second reading (reproduced below), no one will agree with everything in the Bill and no one will disagree with everything in the Bill.

To give some context to my opening remarks, please note that George Heyman, MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, spoke immediately before me and ended with this statement:

Middle-class families, children and youth who are looking to their future, who are looking to jobs in a diverse, modern, growing B.C. economy — whether it’s in the tech sector, the creative sector or a cleaned-up resource sector — wait and continue to wait.

Apparently, it looks like they will have to wait a very, very long time, until at least 2017, before they see a government plan that builds an economy for the future.

A. Weaver: I do agree with the member, and I look forward, as either leader or someone in the Green Party forming that government, to offer British Columbians that vision that the member so eloquently put forward.

This Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, really contains no surprises. It outlines what the government has mentioned it would do as part of its budget speech. There’s some good and some bad, as there always is in all budget speeches. Of course, nobody in this House will agree with everything in here; no one in this House will disagree with everything in here.

Let me outline a few of the things that I think are worthy of highlighting, as I do believe they are important steps. For example, discharging liabilities from retroactive changes, in sections 1 and 2. Amending, through streamlining, the Carbon Tax Act. Coming over again to look at the B.C. mining flow-through expenditure, the flow-through of mining tax credits.

Now, on this particular case I would like to see some evidence that this actually is benefiting industry in British Columbia and not at the expense of small household investors. Without constraints added to the flow-through tax credit, there’s a danger that the capital can come in and that shares can be dumped on the market. Unsuspecting private investors buy up these shares at an above-market value and simply cannot sell them. So there is some concern about the flow-through mining tax credit, but overall, I think it does incentivize mining investment in British Columbia.

As the previous member pointed out, the digital post-production tax credit…. A very fine piece of legislation, I think, here as well as extending the training tax credits and changes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act.

This bill is…. It’s not so much troubling about what’s in it; it’s about what’s not in it. What we have in British Columbia is the second-highest income inequality in the country and the highest wealth inequality in the country. We’re the only province without a comprehensive poverty reduction plan. We have 500,000 people living in poverty, 160,000 of those being children.

This is a problem. As soon as you see a disparity between the wealthy and the poor growing with time and a decreasing middle class, you start to see the emergence of unstable societies. Human history is full of examples of where such unstable societies end up.

We look at some of the tax credits that are added in here, which make good headlines but, frankly, are boutique tax credits that are similar to what we’re seeing out of the federal Tories and that benefit very few. It benefits those who don’t need them.

A $12.65 per child for fitness equipment…. Now, the people who could benefit from $12.65 aren’t buying fitness equipment. They’re trying to put food on the table. And $12.65 in fitness equipment really is not doing much for anybody. It’s rewarding those who would actually be buying it anyway. By buying it anyway, they can afford to buy it anyway.

Coming to the B.C. education coaching tax credit. This is so egregious I don’t know where to start — $25.30. Picking on teachers who happen to volunteer to do some coaching or they’re an “eligible coach.”

What about all those teachers who buy art supplies out of their own pocket? What about all those teachers who buy school supplies out of their own pocket? These are not eligible deductions because they’re employees of the school board, yet they spend their own money on it. What about all those teachers who are volunteering and taking kids on field trips? What about all those other teachers who are struggling with class sizes and compositions that are so unbearable that the burnout rate is incredibly high?

Here we give $25.30 — that’s a case of beer after a soccer game — as a tax credit to coaches. To be honest, it’s insulting. It makes a good headline, “B.C. Government Rewarding Coaches,” and the subtext is: “by giving them $25.30 if they dedicate hundreds of hours to after-school coaching.” Hon. Speaker, $25.30 to somebody struggling to make ends meet is a big deal; $25.30 to a coach may buy that case of beer when they watch Sunday afternoon football.

There are other aspects in here that are troubling. As I outlined earlier, we have the highest wealth inequality in the country and the second-highest income inequality in the country. This does not bode well for a future society, one where the discrepancy between rich and poor grows.

There are real challenges for the middle class in British Columbia that we do not see in a budget measures act. These challenges are for small business owners struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay bills, struggling to meet payroll, struggling to pay MSP for their families. There are those who are living and trying to afford a place to live in Vancouver or Victoria, where the rents are substantially higher than any income assistance they might get.

There are those who can afford to pay more in our society. Those in our society who can afford to pay more, when you talk to them, are willing to pay more, provided that they know where that money is being spent. This is a problem with this bill here. The government is actually finding little boutique credits to give away, but it does not outline a vision as to where it could actually better our society through the injection of funds that we so desperately need in issues like education, social services and others.

We have a very fine debt-to-GDP ratio. I will give the government that. But what we also have is a dramatically declining ratio of percentage of revenue to the government as a percentage of overall GDP. This government has made choices such that health care funding as a percentage of GDP has remained fixed, but education funding and social service funding as a percentage of GDP have dropped dramatically since this government came to power. Why is that the case? It’s because revenue has not kept pace.

Now we hear the mantra — you would expect to see this here — “We will help the middle class when B.C. is wealthy and prosperous” from hypothetical LNG that, as you know, will never materialize. But when it does, we will all be wealthy and prosperous. “We’ll wait until then.” Well, these people can’t wait until then. These people who are so desperately trying to make ends meet don’t find any tax break in here.

Well, I guess they have the increase, the $18,327 to $19,000, before anyone pays any provincial income tax. In fact, that’s a good thing, but one questions as to where this number comes from and what studies were actually done to determine that the 19 with three zeros after it was the appropriate number that should have been done.

With that said, I look forward to exploring the details of this further in committee stage. As I reiterate, in my view, the problem with this budget implementation act is not so much what’s in it, but what’s not in it. With that, I’ll sit, as I see the member for Surrey-Whalley has just arrived.

Seemingly out of nowhere, George Abbott, the highly respected former Liberal Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, was abruptly dumped last week from becoming chief commissioner of the BC Treaty Commission. In October, just six months earlier Abbott had accepted an invitation of Minister John Rustad to head up British Columbia’s Treaty negotiation process. He was supposed to begin next Wednesday when Sophie Pierre’s term expired on April 1st.

What is so bizarre about this recent turn of events is that both the federal government and the First Nation Summit had already approved Abbott’s appointment. In a strongly worded press release, the First Nations Summit blasted the government for their decision just days before the new commissioner was to start working:

Obviously it came as a shock to some of the Premier’s own cabinet ministers too. On March 20, Health Minister Terry Lake  was quoted in Kamloops This Week as stating he was surprised by the decision to dump Abbott. He was further quoted as saying “I understand he was being considered,”and “I haven’t been an intimate part of those discussions.”

What’s even more more unusual is that Minister Lake is also a member of the cabinet’s Priorities and Planning Committee, commonly referred to as the inner cabinet. This committee, chaired by the Premier, identifies the broad direction of government, including its priority policies and programs. If anyone in cabinet should know what is going on, it should be Minister Lake.

In a statement issued by government, John Rustad, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, commented on the rationale for suddenly no longer supporting Abbott.  “I have also heard from many First Nations that the treaty process, mandates and negotiations take far too long and they are looking for a better way.”

An obvious question is which First Nations is the Minister referring to. And when did Minister Rustad start hearing from them?

But it doesn’t end there. In response to questions in the legislature on Monday, Minister Rustad stated:

“We said last September in the all chiefs meeting that we wanted to find a new path. We wanted to look at new ways to work with First Nations. We were at a signpost in the road, and we had a choice as to the path that we could take. Over the last number of months we’ve been thinking about our relationships with Nations, how we can work with First Nations differently. We’ve come to the realization that the B.C. treaty process has been very successful for the Nations that have made it through, but we need to be thinking about how we can revitalize it, how we can move forward.”

So if in fact the Minister was already thinking of a new path in September, why did he nominate Abbott to be the commissioner in October? The logic is perplexing.

It might be argued that in light of the landmark Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court of Canada decision, the first to grant aboriginal title , the government decided to focus more on economic partnerships rather than the treaty process itself. In fact, Rustad alludes to this in a response during question period on Monday where he states:

“The Tsilhqot’in decision has set the stage for thinking about how we can do things different in the province of British Columbia and how we need to shape relationships.

But we have, over the last two years, signed close to 150 new agreements. We’re now up to 300 agreements between First Nations and the province of British Columbia, furthering that reconciliation — many of those new agreements just in the last year alone.”

But here again, why would Rustad approach George Abbott in October, more than three months after the June 26, 2014 Supreme Court decision?

Perhaps we should be looking to the real power brokers in the BC government — those working on the LNG file. These are the members of the Cabinet Working Group on Liquified Natural Gas. This committee is chaired by Premier Clark with Minister Coleman serving as Vice Chair. Ministers Bennett, de Jong and Polak also serve on the committee.

We know that this government is  desperate to fulfill its irresponsible, and unfounded election promise of hope, wrapped in hyperbole, for wealth and prosperity for all British Columbians from a hypothetical LNG industry that may or may not materialize sometime in the future.  Perhaps the government is desperate to provide industry certainty by focusing on economic and  resource negotiations instead of treaty negotiations with First Nations. If this is indeed the case, you certainly wouldn’t need a highly respected, efficient and thoughtful deal-maker in the form of George Abbott to distract from the governments goals.  And so, George Abbott gets thrown under the bus with no consultation and despite the protestations of the First Nations Summit.

This fiasco makes one thing clear to me. John Rustad should resign.

He does not have the confidence of the upper echelons of the government or he would not have recommended then withdrew support for George Abbott. He does not have the confidence of the First Nation Summit who were blindsided by the last minute decision. And he does not have the confidence of the opposition in the legislature. Most regrettably, the message that this whole fiasco sends to First Nations is that you cannot trust the word of the government. Sadly, this is a message that they have heard loud and clear for far too many decades. And here I thought that we were taking serious steps toward reconciliation.