Sun columnist Don Cayo, almost in passing, revealed a devastating insight in his column today – “Premier’s new stance on referendum opens door for a better approach:
Tax measures are — as the premier herself noted in a conversation with me a year ago when I was researching a series on direct democracy — one of the worst-possible subjects for a referendum. Citizens are always unlikely to put their hands up for a tax increase, especially if and when the policy case for it hasn’t been spelled out patiently and carefully in advance.
That certainly raises a question as to the Premier’s motivation for the referendum: why choose one of the ‘worst-possible’ mechanisms, and then give an unrealistically short time for it to be exercised?
Cayo, however, adds his own take:
… if tax policy isn’t a good subject for a referendum, the future of transportation is. It’s a key to both quality of life and economic growth. And what the region winds up with in the way of transportation infrastructure that will both shape and service its future needs will be either enabled or constrained by how much or how little money tax policy is able to raise.
I look forward to Don arguing for a referendum on the Massey Bridge – more expensive than any transit line, less likely to meet forecasts (if Golden Ears and Port Mann are indications), more influential in shaping growth and less effective at meeting the regional vision – as part of the package put to voters.
He does have a helpful suggestion:
A well constituted citizens’ assembly could look in depth at all of the transportation issues facing the region: the competing priorities of new transit and new roads; more buses versus various types of and routes for rail; pros and cons of potential revenue measures; even which communities’ needs should top the list.
Alternatively, here’s an idea based on Ontario’s approach, described below by Anne Golden, the chair of the Provincial Advisory Panel on transit funding.
First, the Premier can begin by assigning the task to a leader of respect, in the way Gordon Campbell recruited Jack Poole to lead the Olympic initiative – preferably an apolitical, charismatic citizen who can bring together diverse views.
Then recruit a panel to represent those views, charged with producing “a consensus report that had the unanimous support, representing all major stakeholder groups, from across the political spectrum.”
Their job is to do the complex work of assessing options and making trade-offs, ultimately coming up with a single package of projects and funding mechanisms that, as Anne Golden described it:
… is simple and it works: It starts with a few revenue tools to create a reliable revenue stream that levers a reasonable amount of debt that unlocks the billions of dollars needed to build the highest priority “Next Wave” projects within a decade.
… a fair and balanced contribution from all stakeholders, without asking too much of any one group.
If there must be a referendum, that would be the plan put to the voters, with the backing of the Premier, the provincial government, the region and the municipalities. Part of the job of the panel members would be to convince their constituencies to get behind the plan they were part of creating.
Accompanied by a serious, well-funded communications strategy, requiring a simple majority in the region, and a straightforward yes-or-no vote, perhaps this might pass.
A lot of ‘ifs’ there. But better than a list of taxes, inadequate to fund regional needs, with a none-of-the-above, send-a-message-to-TransLink option that would only confirm what the Premier apparently believed at one time: doing tax policy by referendum is one of the worst-possible ways of governing.
At best, a referendum will only delay the inevitable. The trend is towards urbanism, and there are too many people who want it too badly. And as all truly urban places know, there is only so much room for cars, and also a recognition that cars destroy quality places – so walking, cycling and transit will dominate, simply because this underlies the desire for the urban.
This process has been underway in places like Amsterdam for years.
A “no” outcome of a referendum here may set things back a little, but that’s it. The die is already cast.
It’s the damage done in the meantime that should worry us.
I agree as well that the trends towards transit and livability won’t be derailed by a single referendum or even by a single, opportunistic politician who lacks the capability to provide even competent public administration (but sure has the PR side nailed down!) despite holding the highest job in the province.
That being said, far too many in BC have a very blasé attitude about the long term consequences of this referendum too. There seems to be a general attitude amongst many, away from online forum such as Price Tags etc, that even in the event of a ‘no’ vote, a new government will have no problem going in a completely different direction from a public vote, held only a few shorts previously. Referendums, given their rarity in Canada (to date) tend to set binding precedents on the political class.
Also, this notion assumes that there will be a new government after the next election which frankly, is a bet I would not be willing to make. Even if a new government, whenever it is formed, is willing to reverse the policies that form after a ‘no’ vote, you can be quite sure that as long as Premier Clark runs the province, that ‘no’ vote will be absolutely binding.
Metro Vancouver, unlike virtually every other major metropolitan area in the country, has managed to continue steady planning and construction in the expansion of its rapid transit system. Every other area has experienced long gaps when expansion simply stopped, when even proposals to extend existing lines by one or two stations were considered ‘radical.’ This more or less steady progression, largely hindered by political issues, is a major reason why Vancouver has become such a livable, desirable place. This referendum could easily derail all of that, with the negative consequences being with all of us for the rest of our lives.