Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 23, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 39

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Celebrating the B.C. tree fruit industry

D. Ashton

M. Dean

Poverty reduction

J. Brar

E. Ross

SkyTrain to the North Shore

J. Thornthwaite

R. Singh

The importance of public transit

B. Ma

L. Larson

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 7 — Ride-sharing

S. Cadieux

B. D’Eith

J. Sturdy

A. Kang

R. Sultan

N. Simons

M. Morris

D. Routley

J. Isaacs

M. Elmore

J. Thornthwaite

M. Dean

MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

CELEBRATING THE

B.C. TREE FRUIT

INDUSTRY

D. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I hope you had a nice weekend.

To staff and all my peers here in the Legislature, I hope you had

a nice weekend.

[10:05 a.m.]

It gives me great pleasure today to stand up and talk about

something that’s near to my heart — not only the Okanagan Valley, which

is incredibly picturesque and has incredible vistas and landscapes, but

from lakeside views to seemingly endless rolling hills and lush fields.

It’s a place that I’ve been happy to call home for most of my life.

Whether you choose to relax by the lake, go on a hike, bike along the

trails, there’s always more to see and explore in the

Okanagan.

For those who prefer to take in the scenery at a more leisurely

pace, we have some of North America’s finest vineyards and orchards.

Orchards and tree fruit, in particular, are of great significance to the

local culture and employment and have a long history in the area that I

have an incredible honour to represent. The fruits that they produce are

not only contributing to the health and lifestyle of all the valley

citizens and the visitors but are an integral part of our region’s

economy. The revenue generated from the freshly grown produce ranks in

the millions and helps support thousands of jobs in the area through

local farms, distribution centres, groceries, farmers markets, plus many

more interconnected enterprises.

Just a short drive out of Penticton, it houses one of B.C.’s

biggest suppliers of the tree fruit industry, the B.C. Fruit Growers

Association, who have been operating in the Okanagan Valley for over 100

years. The B.C. Fruit Growers Association helps promote B.C.’s apples,

pears, cherries, apricots, peaches, prune plums and nectarines. I need

to say that farming touches many of the lives of the citizens of the

Okanagan Valley.

Looking at the history, with a special interest in our

government’s past involvement in the tree fruit industry, members on

this side of the House have recognized the work that agri-workers in

organizations like the B.C. Fruit Growers Association have done. We do

our best to ensure that the fruit industry and B.C. produce remain a

priority and garner their proper support.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Over the years, we’ve laid out a plan to ensure that B.C. was

actively promoting the growth and production of high-value, high-quality

B.C. fruit and encouraging the development of a strong and sustainable

tree fruit sector, all which would result in growers earning more

dollars and providing families with a variety of healthy options. We

didn’t just talk about how we were going to do it. We backed it up with

this sentiment — $9.4 million for a replant program, a

multi-million-dollar investment in helping packing houses

modernize.

By creating the Buy Local program, this funding has been used to

promote B.C. apples, cherries and berries and a whole other assortment

of produce to local consumers. The Buy Local program has helped

countless B.C. agrifood producers increase their exposure to market

share in a way that would not have been possible without this support.

We also have worked hard to ensure that B.C.’s tree fruits remain

competitive on a global scale.

We prioritized creating trading partnerships across the Pacific

with China in 2014, leading a delegation which included representatives

from the cherry industry. The mission was an incredible success,

increasing our export value of fresh cherries by 150 percent, going from

$9.9 million to $24 million.

It’s just not about the dollars and the cents or revenue or job

creation. It’s about providing families locally and abroad with healthy

food options and ensuring that we have world-class tree fruit products

that are available on a distribution worldwide. Lastly, it’s about

supporting our agrifood producers here at home and ensuring that they

have had, and continue to have, a steady stream of customers that

appreciate all their hard work. As you can tell, tree fruits are a

passion of mine and of many of the people that I have the honour to

represent.

Historically, government has been a big supporter of the tree

fruit industry, and for many years, the benefits that have come from

government have been spread widely. I hope this work continues. In light

of the wildfire season, which has had some negative effects — not only a

wildfire in our area but also flooding — we just want to ensure that

government takes heed of how important this industry is. There is a

sizeable and growing demand for our fruit trees and many other B.C.

agrifood products, and we should actively promote and press those

advantages wherever possible.

M. Dean: Thank you so much to the member opposite. I really appreciate his

acknowledgment of all the work that has been going on in the fruit

industry and all the British Columbians who are affected.

[10:10 a.m.]

Our government is committed to supporting and strengthening our

province’s fruit growing industry. We’re very fortunate here in B.C. to

have a diverse and productive industry. In 2016, B.C. fruit growers

produced more than 128,000 tonnes of apples, cherries, peaches, pears,

plums, nectarines and apricots. The total represents close to one-third

of total Canadian production.

B.C.’s tree fruit industry represents 800 growers operating

orchards across B.C. that generate $130 million in wholesale revenue,

contribute $900 million in economic activity and directly employ 1,500

in person-years at the grower, packer and processor level.

I do also recognize that many of B.C.’s fruit growers have been

devastated by this summer’s wildfires. We are committed to helping the

agriculture industry to recover. B.C. ranchers and farmers can now

access the $20 million 2017 Canada–British Columbia wildfires recovery

initiative to help rebuild their livelihoods. This funding is available

through AgriRecovery, a federal-provincial-territorial disaster relief

framework.

I’m going to talk about how our government is building even more

opportunities for the province’s fruit sector with a three-pronged

approach through Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C.

Buy B.C. will offer a recognizable brand on local products and

help B.C. food and beverage businesses expand their sales in the

province. The highlight of the campaign will be a month-long dining

promotion in May 2018 offering consumers the experience to learn about

and enjoy fresh dishes made with local ingredients.

The campaign will also feature the return of the Buy B.C. logo,

making it easier for people to support B.C. farmers and food processors

with an easy-to-identify brand on food products grown and made in B.C.

We know that British Columbians are excited about the products that are

being grown and produced in our province and are ready to celebrate the

success of B.C.’s agriculture industry. It’s time to get the buy-B.C.

conversation going.

Feed B.C. will help increase the use of B.C. foods in hospitals

and other government facilities while creating opportunities to start or

expand a farm or food business in communities throughout the province.

The benefits are obvious. Not only will we be working to increase the

sale of B.C. food products; we’re working to increase the processing of

B.C. foods as well. Creating a market demand for year-round B.C. food

products in government facilities and communities around the province

brings stability to our domestic market and supports opportunities to

start or expand a farm or food business in communities right across the

province.

For example, in 100 Mile last year, at the height of the fruit

season in the Okanagan, the 100 Mile Hospital was serving fruit cups

imported from another country. Our own Minister of Agriculture reported

that here to the House — during our own fruit season. She went and

talked to some food processors and asked if they would expand their

business to meet a B.C. market. They said: “Having a stable market to

sell into is all we need. We just need the opportunity, and we would

absolutely process B.C. product.”

Grow B.C. will centre on policies and programs that support

farmers and help B.C. producers expand local food production as well as

support young British Columbians who want to farm. It will include

policies that support new entrants and young people getting into

farming. British Columbians are so keen to grow local products, and

we’ll create opportunities to help people do just that. We’ll support

young people who are identifying farming as their chosen livelihood.

We’ll encourage them, and we’ll support them.

This program is an important part of our commitment to create good

jobs across the province. We know that for every dollar in farm

receipts, $2 are spent in local municipalities. When our B.C. food

producers succeed, we all succeed. A healthy and striving agriculture

industry is critical in creating good jobs and, quite literally, growing

our economy, especially in rural British Columbia.

D. Ashton: I would like to concur with what the member just said: when B.C.

food growers thrive, B.C. thrives. I would like to speak in favour of

sustaining and supporting the growth of our tree fruit industry. As

spending trends and our global climate change, farmers need to be able

to adapt to maintain their competitive edge. They also have to have

peace of mind knowing that there will be significant demand for their

products when harvesting begins.

[10:15 a.m.]

As I’ve mentioned previously, members on this side of the House

introduced different venues and avenues to help farmers improve their

position within the market. We also created initiatives that will help

sustain their growth, like the replant program.

The replant program provides farmers with the resources to replant

fruit trees with a new, high-value, high-quality fruit, such as

Ambrosia, Honeycrisp and late-season cherries. I would be quite remiss

in not mentioning our Aurora Golden Galas, which many have tasted in

this building. I personally want to thank Richard and Denise MacDonald

for supplying them. Hopefully, they will continue to supply them until

my new trees bear this incredible apple.

The ultimate goal of that, as we’ve said, is to help the tree

fruit producers increase their efficiency and productivity. In 2016, as

we have heard, there was 128,000 tonnes of apples, cherries and peaches

and prunes produced. This represents a substantial amount of money. In

B.C.’s Interior, there are over 430 growers.

I myself am a grower. Last year I planted 350 Aurora Golden Gala

trees, and this year I plan to do the same amount. I would be very

diligent to say how we can put our good land to use and how we can make

it more productive.

At this point in time, the benefits of supporting this industry

don’t stop at the level of the farmers or the distributors. What we have

to do is make sure that we produce in-demand fruits and that we increase

our competitiveness and we get more healthy options for the people that

want them. In turn, if we’re healthy and the people around the world are

healthy and the people that we sell these products to are healthy, we’re

all going to have fuller lives. We know what that can mean to

governments like ourselves.

Madame Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity this

morning. I would like to thank the member opposite for also standing up

in support of the industry.

POVERTY REDUCTION

J. Brar: I rise in this House today to make a private member’s statement on

poverty reduction.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the declaration of the

International Day for the Eradication of Poverty by the United Nations.

This was a call to action to fight to end poverty everywhere — a path

towards peaceful and inclusive societies. Former U.S. president Franklin

Roosevelt once said: “The test for our progress is not whether we add

more to the abundance of those who have enough. It is whether we provide

enough for those who have too little.”

It’s my respectful opinion that all members of this House wish to

reduce poverty in our rich province, blessed with tremendous resources

for all of us. But the reality is that we haven’t made any progress

during the last 16 years.

In 2011, Raise the Rates — a coalition concerned about poverty,

inequality and the homeless in B.C. — invited me to spend a month living

on welfare. After much consideration and support from my family,

stakeholders and colleagues, I decided to accept the welfare challenge

to experience firsthand what life is like for half a million B.C.

families and individuals living in poverty.

As a father of two young children, it’s hard for me to imagine

that in a province as wealthy as ours, we have 160,000 children living

in poverty. It’s hard for me to imagine that 103,000 British Columbians

used food banks in 2016. Almost one-third of those using food banks were

children. It’s hard for me to believe that the gap between the rich and

the rest of British Columbians has widened to the point that the top 10

percent of B.C. families now earn considerably more than the entire

bottom half of families.

That’s why I chose to live on provincial income assistance for a

month, beginning January 2012. Over the month, I met with people living

in poverty and on welfare. I listened to their painful and heartbreaking

stories. Each story has a message for all of us.

We cannot afford not to take actions to address the growing gap

between the rich and the poor, and we must start taking action to

address income inequality with a pragmatic approach and clear targets

and timelines. We have a wealthy society, and we can do better. I’m sure

the people of British Columbia want us to do better.

The reality is that our public services have been eroded over the

past 16 years. We can clearly see the impact that this has had on our

people and on our communities.

[10:20 a.m.]

There is a significant increase in the number of people who are

homeless. There is a significant increase in the number of people who

are the working poor. Housing in many B.C. communities is just not

affordable. Child care cost impacts a person’s ability to join the

workforce. We cannot continue down this road. We must change directions.

We must make investments in people, community and a sustainable economy

that works for everyone. We must make investments in our programs and

services that make life better for the people of our

province.

We are ready to start work on B.C.’s first poverty reduction

strategy. We are going to speak with the people of British Columbia to

get their ideas on how we can reduce poverty, support equality and

provide opportunities. We will be asking people what we can do as a

province, as communities and as citizens to reduce poverty and foster

economic and social inclusion.

We will listen, engage and consult broadly with people who are

working and still struggling to get ahead. We will talk with individuals

and organizations that understand poverty in their communities so that

the solutions are meaningful to those who are affected by poverty. We

will develop a poverty reduction plan with clear targets and timelines,

with solutions that make a difference in our communities.

The new government has moved quickly, taking steps that will start

making life better for the people of British Columbia on income

assistance. One of the first things we did when we formed government was

to increase income assistance and disability assistance rates by $100

per month. Earning exemptions have also been increased by $200 per month

to help people earn more, stay connected to the workforce and gain

valuable work experience. We have built transportation support for

people on disability assistance.

We are investing $291 million over two years to build 200 modular

supportive housing units and provide immediate response to the growing

issue of homelessness in our communities. Six hundred of those units are

already underway in Vancouver. Work is underway across government to

develop a homelessness action plan, $10-a-day child care, an affordable

housing framework and to increase the minimum wage.

Working together, we can reduce poverty in this province, and

that’s the part the people of British Columbia want us to

pursue.

E. Ross: Thank you to the member for Surrey-Fleetwood for raising the topic

of poverty reduction. Being a First Nations member and representing a

riding with many small communities in the north, poverty is a topic that

I am well acquainted with and experienced firsthand throughout my

life.

I know the topic is whether or not there is a poverty reduction

plan, but the fact that the LNG development in my riding coincided with

the B.C. jobs plan proved that a job is the best solution to poverty

reduction. It is one of the reasons why B.C. was the leading economy in

the country. As for how to reduce poverty, I’ve said it before: from my

experience, look no farther than the employment available to British

Columbians in Kitimat during the mini-boom we experienced a few years

ago.

That activity was only preparation for the bigger economy if a

final investment decision were announced by either LNG company. On top

of that, the modernization of the smelter in our community provided

tremendous opportunities for people to get out of poverty. It proved

what more and more bands across British Columbia and Canada are

believing in — that independence through rewarding work is the best way

out of poverty.

Being raised by stern parents — who went to residential school, by

the way — who also believed in hard work with no excuses, I was like

most breadwinners are: beyond sad when I had to utilize the welfare

system. As a young man with a young family, I was stuck in a cycle of

earn some decent money until the job ends, begin an anxious waiting

period for employment insurance and, when employment insurance runs out,

apply for welfare until another job comes around. That was a horrible

situation to be in, and I don’t want any British Columbians to

experience that, if I can help it, because they were not good times. I

was extremely angry and borderline depressed at the same

time.

[10:25 a.m.]

Many years ago, as a newly elected leader, I realized that many

people are in the same boat across British Columbia and, just like I

was, just as proud not to admit it.

Poverty is a simple word that doesn’t explain all the social

problems that become a lifestyle and, in some cases, become a culture,

passed on to the next generation. I’ve lived it and tried to eradicate

it in my term on Haisla Nation Council. In fact, it’s why I advocate for

responsible development in the first place. In my own experience as a

leader, I was tremendously proud of the work our council did to engage

with government and industry and also to see the results showing in our

people.

I’ve heard average people, back then and now, talk about their

shift work, their holidays or the new truck they just bought.

Unfortunately, for the last few months, I’ve been hearing about how

people in my riding have to leave to Manitoba, to the Yukon and other

areas of Canada to sustain the lifestyle they just previously

found.

I hope we can continue this progress for able-bodied people to get

out and stay out of poverty. Poverty should be addressed for all walks

of life — both the collective and the individual — especially here in

Canada, a land of freedom. When you’re in poverty, you don’t have the

freedom to choose a holiday, to purchase a car or buy a house — not

while you’re in poverty.

I’m sure that the parents of the member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale felt the same way when they chose to make Canada

their new home and raise a family. The fact is, you just can’t legislate

poverty. If it was simple as that, as simple as passing a law, any

government would have done that a long time ago. The best way to reduce

poverty is give somebody an opportunity, and for that, you have to

support economic development — like Site C, like LNG and, yes, like fish

farms.

So with that, I’d like to thank the member for Vancouver-Lonsdale

for the topic of poverty reduction and hope that that this House can

work to eliminate, not reduce, poverty here in British Columbia. Thank

you.

J. Brar: Thanks to the member for his thoughtful response to my private

member’s statement on poverty reduction. I am actually the member for

Surrey-Fleetwood. Vancouver is very far out there, so I just want to

correct that.

Clearly, the members on the other side — with due respect; this is

democracy — of this House have different perspectives to reduce poverty.

They believe that the path to reduce poverty is to give more money to

the people who already have an abundance of wealth and then let them fix

poverty.

I think the reality of what we have seen during the last 16 years

is that that approach didn’t work when we talk about reducing poverty in

the province of British Columbia. So we cannot continue down that road.

We must change directions. Let me be very clear. The path to reduce

poverty is only one, and that is fair distribution of resources. That is

how we can make life better for many British Columbians who are living

in poverty right now.

Poverty does not discriminate. It affects seniors, children,

families, individuals, those who are unemployed and those who work

full-time. Finding a solution to reduce poverty and homelessness for the

people in our community is a collective responsibility.

I hope that everyone in this House will join me in encouraging

people to participate in the consultation process. I hope you will talk

to your friends, family, neighbours and colleagues about how we can

reduce poverty in our province.

[10:30 a.m.]

We have before us an opportunity to reshape our province for the

people who are most vulnerable in this province. If we are going to make

a difference, we need to work together. I am confident that if we work

together, we will move forward towards a better future where families

thrive and opportunities are unlimited. In the end, government is about

choices, and our government is going to make a choice to make life

better for everyone in this province.

I would like to conclude by saying thank you to the member, and I

would like to conclude with a quote from a famous leader: “Poverty in

the world is a scandal. In a world where there is so much wealth, so

many resources to feed everyone, it is incomprehensible that there are

so many hungry children — that there are so many children without

education, so many poor persons. Poverty today is a cry.” Pope Francis

SKYTRAIN TO THE NORTH SHORE

J. Thornthwaite: I’m rising today to speak to what is without a doubt the No. 1

issue affecting the North Shore: transportation, traffic congestion and

the lack of effective public transit connecting Vancouver to the North

Shore.

While achievements have been made to address traffic congestion —

like the lower Lynn highway exchange at the north end of the Ironworkers

Memorial Bridge that our previous government and former Transportation

Minister initiated and brought to fruition — it is only a short-term

solution to a much bigger problem.

Ask anyone who lives on the North Shore or commutes to and from

the North Shore for work, and they’ll tell you the same thing. We have

some of the most congested roads in the region, and extreme traffic

gridlock is an undesirable fact of our everyday lives. With traffic

routinely backed up over the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge and the Lions

Gate Bridge, sometimes for hours at a time, commuters have little option

when it comes to making the trip to and from the North Shore.

Even buses get caught up in traffic. On average, there are three

to four collisions on the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge a week. Right now,

all it takes is one fender-bender to paralyze the flow of traffic on the

highway and clog the feeder routes on both sides of the

bridge.

So bad is the problem that at last month’s UBCM conference, both

mayors of North Vancouver publicly called for the province to change the

Motor Vehicle Act so that minor fender-benders may be cleared away from

highways, bridges and tunnels faster. Couple this existing congestion

with the noticeable increase of traffic that has coincided with the

removal of bridge tolls and the subsequent rerouting of commuter routes.

It’s clear the situation has never been worse.

However, we can’t look at the issue of traffic congestion without

connecting it to the issue of affordability and, more specifically, the

housing affordability in the North Shore. The mayors of the city and the

district of North Van have tried to alleviate some housing concerns with

a focus on increased density. But understandably, they are not getting

unified support from residents, as they equate the push for greater

density to even greater traffic congestion.

It’s no surprise that with housing prices escalating exponentially

across the Lower Mainland, many are finding it increasingly unaffordable

to live on the North Shore. Case in point: take a look at the numbers

when it comes to employee demographics at Lions Gate Hospital, one of

the North Shore’s largest employers. According to a 2015 study, of the

1,800 active Vancouver Coastal Health employees working at Lions Gate,

only 54 percent actually live on the North Shore. This means that

approximately 46 percent live elsewhere and are commuting to and from

the North Shore on a daily basis.

Over 51 percent drive alone, while only 10 percent choose to

commute by existing public transit. Moreover, those that do choose to

commute by bus or car pool are condemned to endure the same congestion

issues that single-occupant-vehicle commuters face.

If people can’t afford to live on the North Shore and it’s their

lack of collective agreement to have any housing density, then people

need to be able to get back and forth to work in a reasonable, efficient

and affordable manner. Otherwise, the North Shore risks becoming a ghost

town, where neighbourhoods lack a sense of community, where neighbours

don’t know each other and where small businesses struggle to survive.

Currently, we are destined to have a community where only the rich can

afford to live.

Across the North Shore, businesses big and small are already

experiencing staffing shortages. In North Vancouver, the worker shortage

has turned into a full-blown staffing crisis, as the high cost of living

and lack of effective transit are forcing some businesses to close their

doors early each night. It’s been well-reported that several new North

Shore businesses have been forced to delay their openings by several

months as they can’t find enough staff to hire.

The West Vancouver school district superintendent has told me that

that 10 percent of his workforce resigned last year due to inadequate

transit to get them back and forth to work. The mayor of the district of

North Vancouver has stated that due to upcoming retirements, they are

going to find it difficult to fill positions with people who live here

on the North Shore.

[10:35 a.m.]

Remember last winter? Do we want we really want our snow-removal

staff living in and commuting to the North Shore from the city of

Chilliwack, say? How’s that going to work in the snow? If we’re going to

be serious about addressing the issues of traffic congestion, then we

need to start having earnest discussions about what we want the future

of transit to be on the North Shore. To do this, we need a brave vision

and a bold strategy.

At present, TransLink’s position is that we need to first worry

about advancing and implementing the mayors’ existing ten-year regional

transportation plan. Well, with transit improvements for the North Shore

making up a very small component of the mayors’ plan and debates still

ongoing regarding the feasibility of its implementation, I believe now

is the time to start a conversation about connecting the North Shore to

greater Vancouver’s existing network of SkyTrain rapid

transit.

When one considers this government’s peculiar — dare I say,

political — opposition to bridge building, in addition to the cost and

seismic concerns that come with building underwater tunnels, all

solutions appear to point towards rapid transit as a way to alleviating

gridlock.

My preliminary idea is to extend our existing SkyTrain across the

Iron Workers Memorial Bridge to Phibbs Exchange with rail extending

eastward and westward across the North Shore from Cates Park to

Dundarave. This would connect the current SkyTrain lines from Vancouver

and Burnaby to the eastern end of the North Shore — an area woefully

underserviced by transit.

Check out the sample map that I have on my Facebook. The big

advantage to this plan is it would work to provide the opportunity to

one day connect further the rail network of Vancouver cities along the

Sea to Sky corridor, like Squamish and Whistler. If residents from

Vancouver travel to the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal, Squamish, Whistler

or even Pemberton, they must go through the North Shore.

We are a huge transportation corridor that millions of non–North

Shore residents and visitors use, and the north end of the Iron Workers

Memorial Bridge at the foot of the Cut has the worst congestion on the

North Shore. But why is it that North Shore residents are being asked to

densify when adequate transportation avenues on and off the North Shore

are not available? How is it justified that we have, arguably, the

highest property taxes, yet the least amount of public transit

services?

I’d like to remind people that plans to build the Canada Line and

the Evergreen Lines were approved before the push for increased density.

The lines were built and the density followed. Now the Canada Line is

bursting at the seams.

To realize this vision that I’ve set forth today, we need to begin

initiating dialogue with the public, municipal leaders, North Shore

stakeholders and all levels of government, including First Nations. Only

if we choose to dream big and invest in our communities in a sustainable

manner will we stand a chance to meaningfully improve our future quality

of life and livability on the North Shore.

R. Singh: It’s so good to see that members from both sides of the House have

a desire to improve our transit infrastructure. Thank you, Member, for

bringing this up.

This government is committed to making transit accessible to

people in Metro Vancouver. We have already taken a step towards that by

making an annual bus pass available through the new disability

assistance supplement. We are also committed to building transit hubs in

both urban and suburban centres so people have an efficient and

affordable mode of transportation.

Our government is also committed to funding 40 percent of the

capital costs of the Mayors Council vision and working in full

partnership with all levels of the government to have these projects

underway as soon as possible. We also look forward to moving ahead with

important transit projects within the Mayors’ Council vision that will

improve the daily lives of people in Metro Vancouver.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers for her support

for public transit.

We need to make transit a cheaper, more affordable, more efficient

option. The majority of people don’t take transit to lessen their carbon

footprint. They take it because it is more efficient and it makes their

lives more affordable. We need to incentivize people to get out of their

cars. I worry deeply about the sustainability of my community, and we

need to start having conversations about the diversity of housing

options within communities so that we can encourage our young people to

be able to live here.

I want my children to be able to live close to where they grew up

and our elderly neighbours to have options to downsize in their own

neighbourhoods. But we can’t do that and expect the citizens to accept

more density without the accompanying transit that I’m proposing right

now.

I would like to use this as a starting point for discussion for

our transit vision and, hopefully, get buy-in from the North Shore

mayors, the councils and the Mayors’ Council.

[10:40 a.m.]

Our previous government had a strong track record of working with

our North Vancouver mayors and our federal government counterparts. We

continue to ensure that strong working relationships are in place moving

forward. Certainly, if it weren’t for the strong relationships between

the MLAs, the MPs and the district of North Vancouver, we never would

have seen the lower Lynn highway interchange project break

ground.

I’m looking forward to the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce

forum on transportation next month, and I hope that the plan I’m putting

forward will be looked at, along with the others already

discussed.

My hope is that by sharing my ideas publicly with my constituents,

our community leaders, the chambers, fellow elected officials and

TransLink, the North Shore will finally be given the importance it

deserves in the Mayors Council plan. And then, maybe then, North

Shorites can finally look forward to an efficient, affordable,

environmentally-efficient solution to our constant gridlock.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT

B. Ma: I applaud the member for North Vancouver–Seymouron her earlier

statement. I cannot express how thrilled I am to know that we now have

members across multiple parties across the entire North Shore who

support public transit as the way forward. I think it is absolutely safe

for me to say that my colleagues in North Vancouver–Seymour and West

Vancouver–Capilano will definitely agree with me when I say that traffic

and transportation are major issues for us on the North

Shore.

Rising housing prices and the insufficient number of jobs that pay

well enough for a person to both live and work on the North Shore have

turned our beautiful segment of the Lower Mainland into both a commuter

town and a town which workers commute to.

The traffic numbers certainly show it. The major growth in traffic

over the Second Narrows Bridge over the last 12 years has been into the

North Shore in the morning and out of the North Shore in the evening,

demonstrating that much of our traffic woes are produced by those who

work on the North Shore. Or rather, it’s produced because there are so

many people who work on the North Shore but aren’t able to live in it.

You see, traffic congestion and housing affordability are intricately

connected issues.

So what can we do about it? I absolutely echo the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour’s earlier statement. Public transportation is the key.

And that’s why it was a central theme in my election campaign as

well.

Urban planners and engineers around the globe have known it for

years: you cannot build your way out of urban congestion with more roads

and bridges for vehicles. We’ve seen it time and time again. The more

lanes that exist for vehicles, the more vehicles we see on the roads.

The solution for congestion-riddled areas — like the North Shore and

many other areas of the Lower Mainland — is to invest in a diversity of

transportation modes that include safe cycling infrastructure,

pedestrian infrastructure and, particularly, public transit.

Reliable, accessible, financially economical and frequent public

transit is our key to urban mobility and, yes, even housing

affordability. After all, the fact that you work ten kilometres away

from where you work matters a whole lot less if you can get there in 20

minutes or less for a very reasonable cost.

What’s particularly exciting about public transit is that it

doesn’t even take a massive megaproject to have a substantially positive

impact on the North Shore. The Second Narrows Bridge carries

approximately 130,000 vehicle trips per day. According to vehicle

traffic counts, the increase in the average daily number of vehicles

between 2005, when traffic on the North Shore was a lot more reasonable,

and 2015, when it wasn’t, is only about 3,000 vehicles a day.

So 3,000 vehicles — that’s all we have to clear from our highways

to bring traffic levels back to the far more tolerable 2005 levels.

After too many years of stalling on public transit investments, however,

we have a lot of work to do to make it work for the North Shore. We have

to fund the ten-year mayors vision and then look immediately to the

development of next steps that take areas of Metro Vancouver, like the

North Shore, into account and encourage the kind of smart growth

required to bring bigger and better forms of rapid transit to the North

Shore.

These conversations are happening, and they have been happening

for a while. The conversation that the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour has added her voice to is so important. We, as a

society, have grown so car-centric that we somehow have allowed

ourselves to fall into the trap of believing that personal vehicles are

the only way to get around in an urban setting and that failing to

invest every transportation dollar into roadways is somehow a disservice

to society.

[10:45 a.m.]

I absolutely insist it is not. We must recognize that when it

comes to transportation planning, the goal is to move as many people and

as much goods around as possible, as time-efficiently as possible, for

as little money per trip as possible, expending as few GHGs as possible,

while ensuring safety is a core consideration. Doing that means being

more of what I might refer to as being mode-agnostic and mode-diverse.

Cars, bikes, buses, trucks, trains, gondolas, ferries, SeaBuses and

shoes — they are all valid ways to get around. It is not about cars; it

is about people. And people can move around in a whole lot of different

ways.

For the North Shore, our commitment to public transportation as a

way forward is absolutely critical. You know what? Whether it’s more

SeaBuses, more buses, new routes or aspirational concepts like

underwater tunnels for transit, SkyTrain to the North Shore, or more,

it’s time for us to shift the conversation from the question of how we

move cars around to how we move more people around.

That’s why we must also commit to encouraging active

transportation options as a way to allow people the choice of leaving

their cars at home so that existing roadway capacity can be better

utilized for goods movement and used by people who depend on their cars

to get around. If done properly, biking infrastructure is an effective

way of keeping cars off of our roads.

Let’s be absolutely clear, however. Being pro–public transit and

pro–active transportation doesn’t mean that the family of six that

depends on their car to shuttle their children to school and soccer

games should be forced to leave their car at home. It means that the

options to allow other people, like myself, to get off of the roadways

and onto my bicycle or onto a bus is available so that that family of

six can get around in their vehicle more quickly. It also means that the

ability for their children to travel by bus on their own when they’re

old enough and responsible enough exists so that their parents are not

transporting them around until they have their own driver’s licence or

their own vehicle. It is about choice. It is about health. It is about

freedom. It’s about people.

Now is the time, with agreement from North Shore MLAs that

represent both sides of the House, that we must invest in public

transportation and move forward on it with urgency. We now have the

conditions required to make up for lost time. Let’s get on it, and let’s

get the North Shore moving again.

L. Larson: I’m pleased to respond to the statements this morning on public

transit. We are all aware of the challenges facing the population of

commuters on the Lower Mainland. The growing population and the

increasing numbers of vehicles on the roads also create an issue with

increasing pollution from those vehicles.

Governments will continue to wrestle with those issues until

enough public transit is available that people will actually leave their

vehicles at home. But I think some clarity might be in order about what

public transit looks like to those living beyond Hope. Our world does

not revolve around the transit on the Lower Mainland, except for the

fact that our taxpayers are paying for it.

Transit, for us, is a bus with a dog pictured on the side — a

greyhound, to be specific — and that transportation option is about to

be cut off to a large number of small rural communities in British

Columbia. Even the current Greyhound service is not always convenient

for travellers. The current stops in Princeton are at 1 a.m. and 4 a.m.,

depending on whether you are travelling east or west — not exactly the

best of times. But that will end soon anyway, as the stops are being

removed. This is a service that for years has connected the people in

our communities to health care and family, a service that has now become

uncertain for the people who have come to rely on it.

All of the 17 communities in my riding will lose some or all of

their service from this carrier — the only means of transportation

between the small communities themselves or between the small community

and the larger centre. Greyhound has served rural B.C. since 1929, but

it has experienced a 25 percent drop in ridership in the last four

years. Since 2004, it has applied for a reduction in service to rural

B.C. six times, citing millions of dollars in losses. The rising costs

of fuel and some competition from other carriers have contributed to

Greyhound’s losses. But in my riding, there is no other carrier, no

competitor and, with the removal of Greyhound, virtually no

service.

There are some B.C. Transit services in the Okanagan Valley, a

once-a-day or twice-a-day opportunity to go from Osoyoos to Penticton or

Kelowna. For example, you can leave Osoyoos to travel to Penticton at 7

a.m. and return after one. It certainly will get you to an early

appointment at the Penticton Regional Hospital, but then you will wait

four hours for a ride back.

[10:50 a.m.]

There are other travel options available, on different days of the

week, to get you further up the valley to Kelowna. It’s not every day,

so appointments have to be made with transportation in mind. This

particular B.C. Transit service is paid for through a partnership with

the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen and local communities

along the route and is heavily subsidized by the users and local

taxpayers. In Grand Forks, there is a service once a week to Kelowna, to

their closest regional hospital.

There are no internal means of public transportation in my 17

communities. You need to have a friend or your own vehicle or wait for

the one local taxi to get to your call, in order to move around inside

your community. The addition of the extra carbon tax to the fuel costs

of everyone who has no other transit option but to use their own vehicle

will not make their lives more affordable. So the question of what

service can be retained for rural B.C. and who will pay for it

remains.

The number of transit systems in the Lower Mainland has grown from

13 to 83 in the last 20 years, and ridership has doubled from 21 million

to 51 million annually. Public and government support for public transit

is at an all-time high. So perhaps it is time to modernize the rural

B.C. Transit system, with appropriate subsidies and government

support.

Our old system has not adapted to the modern world. Focus should

not continue to be solely on the Lower Mainland. There is a great big

province out there that could use some planning and consideration

also.

B. Ma: The member opposite is absolutely right. Although my previous

statement had been focused primarily on North Vancouver, the North

Shore, because it is my local community, public transportation remains a

critical piece of our transportation infrastructure beyond the North

Shore as well, of course. It’s important to the Lower Mainland, and

absolutely, it is important to rural areas as well.

It does my heart well to know that there is so much buy-in, I

guess, now, for public transportation as a critical part of the way to

move forward. Our car-centric ways are perhaps becoming more

diversified, and I look forward to what that looks like.

I remember meeting a young woman in my riding of North

Vancouver–Lonsdale who had come in from a rural area. She had a medical

appointment at Lions Gate Hospital, and she told me that the trip into

North Vancouver had taken her six hours and five hitchhiking rides. She

was coming in to North Vancouver for a one-hour doctor’s appointment,

and she was headed back. Hopefully, it wouldn’t take her five

hitchhiking rides or six hours again.

I was extremely worried for her. It reminds us of what has

happened too many times along the Highway of Tears without appropriate

transportation options for those who are unable to operate vehicles on

their own. I absolutely agree. Public transit in rural areas must also

be prioritized.

Hon. M. Mungall: I now would like to call the House to go into private members’

motions and moving Motion 7 that’s standing on the orders of the

day.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to

proceed with Motion 7 without disturbing the priority of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 7 — RIDE-SHARING

S. Cadieux: It’s my privilege today to bring forward a motion that

reads:

[Be it resolved that this House support the implementation of ride

sharing in British Columbia in 2017.]

I believe this is a very timely topic for British Columbians. I’m

certainly hearing from my constituents that they indeed believe it’s

timely. With all three parties in this House supporting ride-sharing in

British Columbia, at least in theory, I hope that the introduction of

this practice will be imminent.

In fact, during the election, all three parties promised that

ride-sharing would come to British Columbia by the end of this year, and

I know a number of us in this House still maintain this intention. But

unfortunately, it does appear that we’ve hit a bit of a

roadblock.

Despite extensive consultations done by our former government and

despite the NDP campaign promise, the new government has ordered yet

another consultation period. The minister who ordered this consultation,

without so much as reviewing the results of the previous one, now has no

information available about the kinds of timelines that we can

expect.

[10:55 a.m.]

That effectively puts us back in park, at least for now. And there

are some obvious gaps to the government’s consultation as they are

currently planned, which adds another troubling layer to the handling of

this issue.

Now, while consultations typically involve all major stakeholders

in an issue, in this one that the government has ordered, it makes no

mention of consulting the actual ride-sharing companies, leaving us

wondering whether or not the government is interested in introducing

ride-sharing at all. Notably, the terms of reference for the

consultation also exclude the general public, the very people who these

services are intended to benefit most.

There’s no doubt that British Columbians want ride-sharing

services. They’ve showed us that, in the last election. They’ve been

writing to our constituency office. I had hundreds of emails prior to

the election on the topic of ride-sharing, and I’ve had a pile just

since last week from people who are concerned about the government’s

delay.

I’ll read a couple of them into the record, as a part of this

motion. Conrad writes: “Last weekend I took my wife downtown for a

birthday weekend. I tried using the Yellow Cab app. It didn’t work. I

called them, and there was no answer or a long wait. There are no cabs

to be found anywhere, which is problematic.” He goes on to say: “We are

the only major city in North America that does not have ride-sharing.

How many studies do you need? Can’t you see it’s working everywhere

else? Copy what they do — done.” This is from one constituent of mine

who uses ride-share in other cities.

Another constituent, Scott: “I tried to get a taxi last Saturday

night in South Surrey at 11 p.m. It took six unanswered phone calls and

over 90 minutes to get one. I mean, when you see this and you see the

reviews” — he means of taxi companies, as he goes on in his email —

“please help.” In his email, he showed a screen shot of the on-line

listings of taxi companies where users could vote, and not one had a

rating of more than two out of five for their service.

Another writer, Hal, says: “I just spent two hours yesterday

waiting for a taxi in Vancouver. Seriously? Yeah, apparently when it

rains, they get swamped. Seriously? We do live on the wet coast.” Hal

goes on to say: “Please, just get it done.”

In the last election, where no party returned to this House with a

majority, they also showed us that they wanted more cooperation and

collaboration from their elected officials. We have the opportunity to

put that into practice right now. I know that my Green colleague across

the way has put forward a private member’s bill on the same issue, and

we look forward to reviewing this bill in good faith and ensuring that

it adequately addresses public safety concerns, like licensing and

insurance.

Despite the government’s rhetoric about a new era of collaborative

government, they haven’t provided any assurances that this House will

indeed get the chance to examine that legislation, despite the fact that

the majority of the members of this House would like that opportunity.

We expect more from a government that claims to be listening.

Indeed, there’s a demand for a whole spectrum of transportation

options so that British Columbians have the flexibility between

different services, depending on their needs. For example, the advance

of ride-sharing in the province would provide the option to free up some

of that taxi time — valuable taxi time when it comes to accessible cabs,

for one, who often choose the easy fare instead of picking up the person

with a disability, as I noted last Tuesday. When I called a half an hour

ahead to book a wheelchair-accessible cab, they said no problem. At

6:40, I was still waiting, and I called back. We were waiting to hear

that it became available.

The reality is that ride-sharing makes up a continuum, the public

desire is there, and I hope that government will stop stalling and

instead involve this House here, being paid to make decisions, to move

forward on this issue.

Deputy Speaker: Maple Ridge–Mission.

Interjection.

B. D’Eith: Thanks to the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

Uber tried to come into the B.C. market in 2012 — that was five

years ago — but was suspended following an order from the registrar of

passenger transportation. The Liberals had five years to get this right

and failed to do so.

[11:00 a.m.]

The previous government had consultations, which took a long time

to come, resulting in a report, Ride Sourcing in B.C.: A Stakeholder

Engagement

Summary , that wasn’t released until September 2016.

This report was used to guide the previous administration in developing

the proposed economic regulatory framework for ride-sharing.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Following the consultations and taking the report into

consideration, the previous government announced its plans for

ride-sharing on March 7, 2017, just before the election, and committed

to bring in the model by December 2017.

In response to this announcement, the Vancouver Taxi Association

issued an open letter to the previous government, criticizing the plan

by saying that the proposed insurance model was unfair and that not

restricting the number of taxi licences would be a destructive

competition to the taxi industry. Further in the letter, the Vancouver

Taxi Association expressed a desire to work with the government to come

up with a model that meets the interests of taxi users while protecting

the existing industry.

The B.C. Liberals stormed ahead with the December 2017 launch

plan, notwithstanding the serious misgivings from the taxi industry and

other stakeholders.

Well, our government will bring in ride-sharing. We’re committed

to that, but we will do it the right way. Unlike the B.C. Liberals who

put together a hasty pre-election plan that had clear problems with taxi

services and issues with insurance requirements, our government will

look at this complex issue and develop a plan to bring ride-sharing to

B.C. that balances the interests of all stakeholders, including the

ride-sharing industry.

Our government has hired industry expert Dan Hara to engage with

the taxi industry and other stakeholders to make recommendations that

will create a fair and level approach to ride-sharing in British

Columbia, an approach that reflects the significant investment that the

taxi industry has made but doesn’t unfairly benefit or punish one group

or the other. We’re creating a made-in-B.C. solution that ensures a

level playing field for all service providers and safety for consumers.

Even this fair-minded approach has members on the other side saying that

we should have ride-sharing in by December 2017.

In response to this, I say….

Interjections.

B. D’Eith: No. You were promising it for December 2017, Members. I say it’s

pretty hypocritical for the official opposition to be calling foul when

their own throne speech in 2017 said that they recognized the errors of

their ways. Let me quote from the clone speech.

“For British Columbians looking for other model options for getting

from A to B, your government will deliver…its commitments to support

car- and ride-sharing. While all parties in this Legislature publicly

stated their support for ride-sharing in the recent election, your

government has heard the message that legitimate implementation concerns

remain. Any proposed legislation will be referred to an all-party

committee for extensive consultation with the public and stakeholders

and, in particular, in regards to boundaries and insurance.”

The Liberals were finally listening after 16 years of “my way or

the highway” politics. Or should I say no highway? This flip-flopping

goes on. MLAs….

Let’s talk about the referendum. How about the referendum,

Members? Slowed us down for four years and didn’t support our mayors.

That’s what the legacy of the previous government is.

This flip-flopping goes on. The MLA for Vancouver-Langara, who’s

running for leadership of the B.C. Liberals, seemed to agree with the

sentiments of the clone speech, stating that the B.C. Liberals moved too

quickly to introduce ride-sharing. He even said that the NDP is trying

to steal his position on ride-sharing. He tweeted: “NDP is trying to

steal my position on this matter.”

Also, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, another B.C. Liberal

leadership contender, back-pedalled on previous statements on RedFM,

made earlier that week. “I want to make very, very clear to the

listeners. There aren’t going to be any changes with respect to Uber

overnight or next week or next month. At some point in the future, they

will likely have their services here in British Columbia but not any

time soon. Any changes will only come if we can ensure that there’s a

level playing field for everyone.”

The only thing that is clear is that the B.C. Liberals are

confused about their position on how ride-sharing should be brought in,

in British Columbia.

[11:05 a.m.]

J. Sturdy: First of all, I think we should get the terminology correct here,

that it’s not actually ride-share. That’s not correct.

Real-time ride-share, instant dynamic, ad hoc or on-demand

ride-share is a service that arranges one-time rides on short notice,

usually using a technology like GPS to determine the driver’s route and

arrange a shared ride, smartphones to request a ride, and social

networks to create trust and accountability between drivers and

passengers. This is coordinated through a network service, which can

handle driver payments and matches the riders using an optimization

algorithm. Real-time ride-sharing fills empty seats in passenger

cars.

It definitely has benefits around lowering fuel usage and

transportation costs, providing service in areas not served by public

transit and can act as a transit feeder. Ride-sharing is more like

modern car-pooling than anything else. This is truly what people are

talking about when they’re talking about the sharing economy.

Now, I know it sounds like the same thing and splitting hairs, but

what we’re debating today is actually more appropriately and accurately

termed ride-sourcing — not the same thing, not part of the sharing

economy. It’s a technologically advanced way of making better use of our

existing transportation fleet. It’s a way of reducing cost and getting

better and more accountable service. It’s a way to request service via

mobile app or website, to track the location of the driver and know when

the car will arrive, and have the service monitored by a transportation

network company, or a TNC.

Typically, the driver is subject to background checks, training,

drug and alcohol policies and insurance coverage. It’s often a cheaper

service than a cab, though not necessarily, and would typically provide

a receipt by email. It can provide service in less populated areas, as

well, not served by cabs.

Beyond the fact that British Columbians understand the opportunity

and need to derive these benefits that they have clearly stated that

they want, like most modern jurisdictions, to implement these

technologies in their communities, British Columbians understand that

government is delaying the implementation of ride-sourcing as a result

of a political directive.

I should remind the House that this delay is not just in 2018. The

government has said that at best — at best — they will consider

legislation in the fall sitting next year. This is not implementation

next year. This is a consideration of legislation at the end of this

year. So if the government could see their way past their political

obligations, we may see ride-sourcing at some point in 2019 or 2020 — or

not.

While we often think of this as an urban issue — a fact that

today’s list of speakers, I suspect, surely suggests is true — I would

remind this House that urban B.C. does have transportation options.

Complain all you want about the quality or the provision of a public

transit service — how it doesn’t get you where you need to go, or it

will take far too long, or you can’t take your dog with you, or a myriad

of other complaints — in many parts of B.C., outside of urban centres,

transit not only just doesn’t work for you but just isn’t

there.

In many communities in B.C., your transportation options are your

car or your thumb. For me, it’s just a car, because I ask you, if you

saw me standing by the side of the road on a dark and stormy night,

would you pick me up? I don’t think I’d pick me up. No, for

me….

Interjections.

J. Sturdy: The member from Sunshine Coast will pick me up. I thank you for

that. You’re a trusting fellow.

Ride-sourcing in rural B.C. is critical to provide safe

alternatives to getting where you need to go, when you need to get there

— be it home or work, soccer practice, grocery shopping or a doctor’s

appointment. Ride-sourcing in rural B.C. isn’t a “nice to have.” It’s a

must have.

Beyond urban parts of my riding, like West Van or Squamish or

Whistler — but for Bowen Island, for Britannia Beach or Pemberton or

Devine or D’Arcy or Nequatque — all ask governments to get on with it,

to get on with ride-sourcing, to give people with few transportation

options another option so that they can get home safely.

A. Kang: Over the weekend, I did some baking with my kids. I preheated the

oven to 350 degrees and put the cookie dough in the oven.

[11:10 a.m.]

Just two minutes after, my kids asked me: “Mommy, can we take the

cookies out? They smell so good.” I explained to my kids: “Well, as a

responsible mother, I can’t give you half-baked cookies.”

It’s funny. We all think it’s funny here today. I’m standing here

explaining to members opposite that as responsible legislators, we can’t

hand British Columbians half-baked ride-share legislation. As a matter

of fact, the previous government had five years to bake this ride-share

legislation, but what we see today is that the previous government

didn’t even turn the flour into dough. Now the members opposite want us

to finish this in 2017. This is like asking us to take the half-baked

cookies out of the oven and then serve them to kids or guests or

families and friends. That’s not good public-policy-making, and that’s

not responsible. That’s doing British Columbians a

disservice.

Some members on the other side of the aisle can agree with me. The

member for Vancouver-Langara also believes that the following concerns

need to be addressed before launching ride-share programs in B.C.:

maintain passenger safety, treat everyone fairly and create a level

playing field for competition. The two members from the other side of

the aisle should really talk it through and figure out what their party

really wants them to do, especially when one of them wants to be the

leader of the party.

While members opposite are still figuring out what they want, we

know that people want more options for getting around quickly, safely

and affordably. We’ve heard it loud and clear, which is why the Minister

of Transportation and Infrastructure has hired Dr. Dan Hara, an industry

expert, to engage with the taxi industry and stakeholders. Through Dr.

Dan Hara, we are inviting community members to bake this ride-share

legislation with us. Together we will create a solution that is made in

B.C. and a legislation that screams the local flavours of British

Columbia — diligence and fairness.

We have to acknowledge the fact that we are living in a time when

technology is constantly changing. The most important challenge for

democratic representatives like us is not only to solve the problems of

the present but also to solve the problems of the future.

One important question that we must ask ourselves when dealing

with ride-share: how do we give people access and convenience while

protecting their safety? We will bring ride-share to B.C., and we will

do it the right way. As a diverse province that attracts talents from

all over the world, we welcome new technologies that offer potential

benefits with open arms. We also need to make sure that we protect the

jobs that British Columbians currently depend on and help them make the

transition into the new economy.

We are here to create a win-win-win situation for British

Columbians. We are making sure that the new service providers win, that

the existing service providers win and that all the customers win. We

are here to create a level playing field so we don’t unfairly benefit or

punish one group over the other.

There is much work to be done, but we are going to do it. We want

to be certain that we’ve addressed everyone’s needs before launching

ride-share in B.C. That’s the only way to guarantee success. Most

importantly, we have a timeline. The Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure will be delivering a report by the spring of 2018,

followed by legislative changes. In the meantime, I urge the members

from the other side of the House to be patient. Licking cookie dough off

a spatula may be delicious, but not everyone likes to eat half-baked

cookies.

R. Sultan: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake is correct. We had five years on

this side of the House to discuss and implement a form of ride-sharing,

whether it’s Uber, Lyft or some other combination.

I think the reality is that this strong signal that the world is

changing was certainly communicated to the existing operators in the

taxi industry, and they have had five years to figure out how to compete

with a ride-sharing model that is commonplace elsewhere in the world. We

don’t need another consultant to come along and explain how ride-sharing

might work. They just have to go to some other city — and there are

dozens, if not hundreds of them — to see how it works. I’d be terribly

astonished, at the end of the day, if we come up with anything that

isn’t very similar to what those folks are doing. So what we have here

now is….

[11:15 a.m.]

Understandable. My heart goes out to the people on the opposing

side trying to wiggle off an election promise that now, my goodness,

seems to have some political consequences in a very important part of

Metro Vancouver. Heavens. Was this not foreseen before you fellas and

ladies added another promise to that long list of promises that one by

one you’re trying to wiggle off, disengage from, deny or send to a

study?

I wish I was in the consulting business right now. These folks are

generating more business than we would ever dream of. We should just do

it, as the opposition, the opposing bench, said they would. Let’s just

do it. I support the motion strongly. Let’s get over these broken

promises.

I have here a thick wad of emails. I want to read the first two.

This was not any choice; I just took the first two off the pile. From an

anonymous constituent:

“I work in downtown Vancouver and regularly have an extremely

difficult time to get a taxi. I work as a conference manager, and my

delegates from out of town and abroad often complain and are shocked at

the lack of taxi availability in the city.

“Living on the North Shore is also very tough, as the buses and

SeaBus stop running fairly early evening. If myself or my young adult

children are downtown, taxi drivers often say they don’t want to drive

to North Vancouver because they likely won’t secure a fare to come back

downtown. My kids have been refused taxi rides. Even though I believe

this is not permitted, it happens. The SeaBus also starts running

relatively late on Sunday mornings, which makes it difficult to get to

the airport without paying a fortune for a taxi.

“We have recently downsized to one car in order to do our part to

relieve congestion in Vancouver and the North Shore, but I’m finding the

taxi and bus service expensive and inadequate. I have used Uber and

similar ride-sharing services in other cities — Calgary, Portland,

Lisbon, etc. — and had a fabulous experience. It was a nice way to meet

locals and help our fellow citizens make some extra money, especially in

an expensive city like Vancouver.

“Until our public transit becomes more accessible and affordable, I

think we need more ride-sharing options. We can’t deny the changing

landscape of this social world.”

That’s the very first email, just off the top of the

pile.

The second email in the pile:

“Dear Mr.” — me.

“I’m not in the habit of writing letters to complain, but I’m

writing this as I feel so strongly about the fact we need to make our

current government” — that’s you folks — “aware we need ride sharing in

B.C., especially in the Lower Mainland. My wife and I have travelled in

many cities and used Uber with nothing but praise for the system. This

is not something I can say about the current state of the taxi system

here in Vancouver.

“We live in your riding on the North Shore, and a perfect case in

point is trying to get a taxi from downtown to the North Shore late at

night. I’m not sure if you have ever experienced this, but most times

it’s almost impossible. The current taxi operators refuse to drive over

the Lions Gate Bridge for only one reason, which must be purely

financial, as it is only a one-way fare.

“Aside from that, taking taxis on the North Shore frequently, I am

appalled at the quality not only of the vehicles that are being used but

many of the operators as well. I feel a company like Uber raises the

bar, and this can only improve the service levels for everyone.

“I thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you pass this

message on to” the leader of the Green Party, “as I believe he is

introducing a bill to push this issue forward this year, not in 2018,

when the current government will have spent another sum of money with

the same consultant that was previously used. My question is: to what

end?”

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

[11:20 a.m.]

N. Simons: Because of my generosity, I thought I should just, perhaps, say,

on behalf of the member, how he was likely going to conclude because he

voted for the following statement: “For British Columbians looking for

other modern options to get from A to B, your government will deliver on

its commitment to support car and ride-sharing. While all parties in

this Legislature publicly stated their support for ride-sharing in the

recent election, your government has heard the message that legitimate

implementation concerns remain.” That member voted in favour of this

statement, which said that important implementation measures need to be

concluded.

When we assumed government after the previous government clung on

to power for two months, we discovered that there still needs to be

considerable discussion before we decide to throw 10,000 taxi drivers

and their families and their friends and their supporters and their

relatives into the wind. I think that’s an example of good, solid

thinking on the part of this government, as we are not planning to do

that.

We are delaying for good reason. And I think that the members

opposite would agree. When there are good reasons to delay legislation,

we should think about that carefully. I would say that the hypocrisy is

pretty obvious when members on the other side are suddenly interested in

an issue that they were worried about before the election.

Yes, I understand. We all want ride-sharing in this province.

Let’s all agree that, in fact, we would all be supporting this motion

100 percent if we just changed the 2017 to 2018. I’m sure that

government, with 16 years in power, previously, has a little bit more

patience now to wait one more — less than a year, I’m sure. They had two

years, in fact, in order to…. They had since 2012. That’s five years.

That’s five years, and they did nothing, except a fairly light review of

how people would think about it.

Quite honestly, I think it’s quite interesting that all of a

sudden they’re big fans — big fans. When they had the opportunity, they

just passed the buck. Now they’ve passed the buck, and we’re realizing

that we have to deal with this seriously. We have to take into

consideration the legitimate concerns of people throughout this

province, and we’re going to do exactly that. We’re going to consider

those concerns, and we’re going to do what’s right for the people of

this province without throwing people into the unemployment line, as

this particular opposition wants us to do.

Now, obviously, there are studies that have been done on various

aspects of ride-sharing. One thing that perhaps the leader of the Green

Party needs to consider is that the most recent study from the

University of California Davis, from the Institute of Transportation

Studies, has found that ride-sharing does not take cars off the road. In

fact, it probably adds to congestion. That was a study issued last

week.

We know that the scenes are changing as we go forward, and we know

that the circumstances in different cities are changing. We need to

invest in public transportation. We need do what this government has

decided to do already — make up for the shortfalls that that previous

government has put into systemic problems for our province.

We need to address ride-sharing, yes. We’re going to do it next

year — a study that will do an adequate review of the concerns of people

who are affected directly. I think that’s the important thing to do.

That’s the responsible government thing to do. That’s something that’s

foreign to the opposition, but they have time to think about the fact

that they waited so long. We’re going to get to it. We’re going to do it

within a year. We promised that, and I’m glad that we’re moving ahead on

this file with the proper due process.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity. It’s been

a pleasure, and I hope that members from the other side are going to be

able to figure out how they can put the square peg into the round

hole.

M. Morris: I got a kick out of the metaphor that the member for Burnaby–Deer

Lake had with the cooking dough and the half-baked cookies and whatnot.

I have to say that the previous government had been working on this for

quite a while. The only reason it was half-baked was because that

government turned the oven off.

Ride-sharing has been something that we’ve seen in an informal way

throughout the province. Many of the small rural communities that I’ve

lived in for years have been using ride-sharing for decades.

[11:25 a.m.]

An example. I was living in a remote community 20 years ago, and

my wife and I were making a trip into the nearest community. That trip

took anywhere from two to four hours, depending on road

conditions.

A couple of women from the community asked if they could catch a

ride with us. No problem. We had a large vehicle, and we could take

them. As we got underway and were approaching the community that we were

heading to, each of them pulled out a hundred dollars and said: “Oh,

here’s the usual fee that we pay to take this trip into this

community.”

Of course, we refused that, and we were quite amazed that they

were paying money for this ride-share. We found out that it was a common

practice in this community for folks to dish that kind of money out. We

refused the money, and they bought us lunch instead, so it was a good

exchange.

But I see it every day. I see it on Facebook in the communities

within my riding. I’ll see somebody come on and say, “Is there somebody

going to Prince George?” “Is there somebody going to Vancouver?” — if

there’s anybody going in a particular direction. They’re asking for

assistance either to transport them or a family member in that

direction, or to haul something back to Mackenzie, in this particular

case.

This has been an ongoing thing for decades that rural communities

have embraced. It’s something that the communities in the urban centres

have embraced around the world, except for here in British Columbia with

Vancouver.

I’ve said this in the House before. I had an instructor — a very

impactful instructor, actually, because I quote him quite a bit in some

of the work that I do. He made a statement in one of the courses that I

was taking that said that no organization has a right to

exist.

I have to reflect…. My colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano was

saying that this ride-sharing was brought to British Columbia about five

years ago, and it should have been a heads-up to the taxi companies to

adjust the kinds of services that they provide to the public so that

they wouldn’t be in the position that they’re in today. This is a

significant change that we’re having, and I say to the taxi companies

that perhaps they’ve got to have a clear, close look at this in order to

make the fundamental changes that they need.

So ride-sharing is coming to British Columbia in one fashion or

another. I know the bureaucrats that we had within the ministry have

been working diligently on this file for a long period of time. The

metaphor that the member opposite was using…. The cookies were in the

oven. The oven was on full. It was baking. Things were moving along in a

good direction here. We had looked at the intricacies and the

complexities associated with ride-sharing in British Columbia, and we

felt that we had the necessary tools in place to move ahead with it,

thus the legislation that we had introduced earlier when we were in

government.

This government — the current government that we have — made the

campaign promise that they would have it in by the end of 2017. They’ve

turned the oven off, and everything died in the oven. So there was an

opportunity for this government to work on the foundational work that we

had already done prior to that. They could have carried on with that

legislation.

I’m grateful to see what the Green Party’s legislation looks like

as we put it through the debate process and the committee stage, but

ride-sharing is something that has come to the world. It will come to

British Columbia in one form or another.

I think the quicker that we embrace that, the quicker the general

public will be able to get to North Vancouver in the middle of the night

instead of having to wait for a taxicab. Or as my colleague said,

oftentimes, those with mobility restrictions are delayed in getting the

services that they need. So we’ll see this take place, whether that

government wants it to happen or not.

D. Routley: I’m pleased to rise to speak to this motion. I think it’s

important that we acknowledge what we’ve been hearing and what’s

happened so far.

What we’ve been hearing here is a lot of criticism over the pace

that this consideration is going to be taking. But what is important is

that we are not captive to every change in our society. We are able to

control and direct and shape the form of public policy that affects

change in society. I think that’s our responsibility.

I think it’s our responsibility to come here and, when we make

decisions, make them on a basis that’s beyond an informal car-sharing in

a rural B.C. community, as the member for Prince George–Mackenzie

indicated.

[11:30 a.m.]

We have a higher duty than that. We have to make sure that there

is not the calamity or disaster of legions of underinsured drivers,

undertrained drivers. We’ve heard the horror stories from around the

world where this service has gone wrong. Yes, it offers great benefit,

and I would like to have used it when I’ve been stuck without a cab in

rush hour in Vancouver. I may do. But the fact is that we cannot rush

willy-nilly into something, as responsible legislators, that could have

direct and immediate harm on the citizens that we represent — not only

those who are in the car and those who are driving the car but also

those who are in the taxi industry.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie made the astonishing

assertion that no organization has the right to exist. Now, let’s just

think about that for a second: no organization has the right to exist.

It’s such an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, but confrontational in

the context because the organization he’s indirectly referring to is

that of taxi drivers, the taxi drivers association. Indeed, they have a

right to exist. Their families have a right to exist. Their jobs have a

right to exist.

We have a duty to protect them. We have a duty to introduce

something that will affect their lives in a way that will have the best

possible impact. That’s our job.

I’ve heard the members over here simply say…. The member for West

Vancouver–Capilano said: “Let’s just do it. I’ve seen it. I’ve used it.

It’s great.” Yes, there are people who have used it, and yes, they’ve

used it to great effect. But then there are people who have suffered

extreme harm through this kind of service, poorly introduced and poorly

planned. We shouldn’t forget that as legislators.

The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky gave us a fine definition

and description of what the ride services do. But what he avoided

talking about was our responsibility as legislators, our responsibility

to act in the public interest.

The members opposite…. It’s quite entertaining for someone who has

sat in this House now for 13 years, just about, to listen to a former

government that broke massive promises completely. “We will not tear up

contracts.” They tore up contracts. It cost the people of B.C. hundreds

of millions of dollars, their broken promises. And now to have those

members heckle back to us that delaying fulfilling a promise, so we

don’t hurt those who we’ve promised to, somehow equates to the record

that the former government had.

It’s quite astonishing. We’ve become used to a certain level of

hypocrisy here, but this really does clear that bar considerably. And

this is coming from members, of course, who, in the clone speech in July

of this year, told British Columbians that “for British Columbians

looking for other modern options to get from A to B, your government

will deliver on its commitments to support car- and ride-sharing. While

all parties in this Legislature publicly stated their support for

ride-sharing in the recent election, your government has heard the

message that legitimate implementation concerns remain.”

Exactly. Yes, we all did agree that ride-sharing is coming. Yes,

we all did agree that we all welcome it. But we have not agreed that the

hurdles have been cleared, the many hurdles that need to be cleared in

order for us, as responsible legislators, to be able to stand up and

vote for something with the confidence that it is safe, that it is in

the best interests of the people we represent. I haven’t seen that

yet.

We have to do that work. Unfortunately, this government, having

taken five years to deal with the issue, did very little of that

work.

Interjection.

D. Routley: The member asked if it’s okay to break a promise. No, it’s not. We

will fulfil the promise, unlike the former government that has broken

practically every promise it made in the ten years I’ve been

here.

J. Isaacs: I rise today to speak on what has become a common theme of this

NDP government: broken promises. This particular promise involves

something all three parties had agreed on, or so it appeared. During the

election, all three parties ran on a platform that included bringing

ride-sharing to British Columbia by the end of 2017.

[11:35 a.m.]

In fact, the NDP promised to voters on May 4: “The B.C. NDP

supports the passing of new rules to introduce ride-sharing to B.C. in

2017.” So you can see how my constituents and I would be right to assume

that we would be able to use a ride-sharing app soon — hopefully, in

time for the holiday season.

But then we heard a quote from the Minister of Transportation at

last month’s UBCM conference, who stated: “The previous government

wanted it by the end of the year. I don’t want to do that.” That’s

disappointing. What’s more, it’s a complete contradiction of their

campaign platform, another broken promise — a promise that was made to

every one of my constituents, a promise made to the minister’s

constituents and even the Premier’s constituents.

The minister can’t even provide a timeline for bringing in

ride-sharing and, instead, is spending $165,000 on duplicating a study

that the same expert has already performed for the city of Vancouver —

an expert who, by the way, donated thousands of dollars to the

NDP.

It’s embarrassing that Vancouver is now the largest city in North

America without ride-sharing. Tourists from all around the world and

business travellers who are here to advance business and sales are

shocked when they arrive in Vancouver. If they want to explore the city

or simply get to their sales meetings on time, the options available to

do this reliably or affordably are not there because Vancouver has not

modernized its transportation options to include ride-sharing when,

clearly, this demand for this service obviously exists.

There are over 600 cities in 78 countries that already offer their

citizens and taxpayers ride-sharing options that are reliable,

convenient, trustworthy, safe and affordable. When I think about that,

I’m really not sure what work needs to be done on this file when right

here in Canada, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa have all

had ride-sharing for years. They’ve certainly been able to figure it

out.

Our government took extra time and studied the issue even longer

than those jurisdictions, and we were ready to introduce ride-sharing by

the end of 2017. But I think I know what the delay is here. I think it’s

because the NDP didn’t have any intention of ever bringing in

ride-sharing this year, much like they had no intention or any intention

to replace the George Massey Tunnel.

We’re hearing a lot today from members on this topic, but I think

it’s always important for us to listen to our constituents. I have

received over 50 emails, as well as a number of phone calls, from my

constituents, who are voicing their concerns at the lack of action of

this government.

Here are the letters. One is from Raquel, and Raquel says: “Uber

is great for the environment — less vehicles on the road; great for the

economy — more jobs; and great for us in British Columbia — convenient

and affordable transportation.”

Karen says: “This is one way to actually deter people from making

a huge mistake and possibly hurting or even killing someone when they

drink and drive.” And Sean says: “In addition to providing much-needed

jobs, it will help fill some of the gaps in our public transportation

system with a convenient, reasonable cost option.”

I receive letters from students who just want to get to class on

time, seniors who want to get around town or have medical appointments,

and many others who simply want to have a fun night downtown and cannot

find a safe and reliable way home.

I can tell you that my constituents are very frustrated and

disappointed with this government’s repeated broken promises. I hope

that for the sake of all our constituents, this government can find a

way to keep their promise and make ride-sharing a reality before the end

of 2017.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the motion moved by the

member for Surrey South on ride-sharing and pleased to speak on behalf

of folks in Vancouver-Kensington on this issue.

[11:40 a.m.]

Certainly, our government is committed to bringing in

ride-sharing. We’ve seen it being adopted across our country and around

the world, with respect to this new technology, a new industry coming in

to serve folks. We know that people want more options for getting around

quickly, safely and affordably, but our government is committed to

bringing in ride-sharing in B.C. doing it the right way.

I just heard remarks from the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

She’s getting some emails. Folks feel frustrated about the pace of

bringing in ride-sharing. I think I would characterize the frustration

of folks around British Columbia for the last 16 years as the record of

the B.C. Liberal government and their inaction on a number of issues,

including their opportunity, for five years, since 2012, to bring in

ride-sharing.

Our government is looking to bring in…. It’s a complicated matter.

We’ve heard some remarks from my friend from west Capilano to “just do

it.” But we know the reality is that, certainly across Canada, there’s a

difference in terms of the regulatory framework, regulations and

restrictions, at the municipal and provincial levels. And we know from

the experience in the United States, certainly at the state level, that

having very different regulations from the national level, they’ve had

to negotiate state by state as well.

It’s not a matter of let’s just do it. We have to be responsible.

Certainly, it’s incumbent on us that we address concerns of everyone in

the industry. We’ve heard about concerns from the taxi industry, as well

as stakeholders, citizens who want to bring in and have the opportunity

to improve our public transportation system.

From my perspective, I am particularly concerned about the safety

aspects. This is a key concern that has been addressed in jurisdictions

not only across Canada but in countries around the world. We don’t have

the ability in British Columbia to address the insurance realities. That

is a big concern. We know that the taxi industry is regulated at both

the provincial and municipal levels through six statutes and

provincially mandated through the Passenger Transportation Board. We

have to get it right.

The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain referenced that we don’t

need to have a provincewide study because there was a study done in

Vancouver. I would like to inform the member that the study was done in

Vancouver. Vancouver is one city across our great province. That was

meant as an opportunity to address issues, and we did not have

recommendations.

Certainly, there’s a need to have a clear, comprehensive study

addressing these concerns, which I hold very seriously. We know the

stories of inadequate insurance coverage, of people who are using these

ride-sharing services falling between the cracks and not being covered

in catastrophic accidents. This is a reality, and we have to treat that

very seriously. Our government will do that. Passenger safety is key,

and I think we have to get it right in British Columbia.

I want to just comment and really compare some of the frustration

that we’ve heard from these members. They’ve had five years to bring in

ride-share. They’ve had 16 years as a government. They made commitments,

recognizing some of these shortcomings and the difficulties of bringing

it in. They back-pedalled on their so-called commitment and agreed that

additional research needed to be undertaken.

We know that in their post-election clone speech, which was

adopted, they abandoned their own commitment to bring in ride-sharing by

the end of 2017 and committed to put the issue to an all-party committee

and extensive consultations. They recognized that proposed legislation

would have to be referred to an all-party committee for extensive

consultations with the public and stakeholders, particularly regarding

boundaries and insurance. That was one of their commitments made in the

clone speech.

As well, ride-hailing service was something that they had

promised, but their throne speech promised to slow that down so that

they could undertake extensive consultations to look at these issues. We

know also that members from that side have stated that they are

restricting ride-share.

There needs to be a study, and we need to be responsible to ensure

that everyone is protected in British Columbia for ride-share coming in

[11:45 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: If you’ve been paying attention to question period over the last

few weeks, you know that I have been quite vocal about the

implementation of ride-sharing in B.C. During the spring election, the

electorate got a clear message from all three parties that sit in this

House that ride-sharing would be brought into British Columbia by the

end of 2017.

Our party and caucus made a clear commitment to create a

made-in-B.C. model that would give British Columbians more choice, more

flexibility, ensure passenger safety was not compromised, and also

ensure that current taxi operators would remain competitive in the

industry.

When we were in government, we had extensive consultations with

diverse stakeholders throughout the province, including the taxi and

limousine industry, local governments, business associations,

other provinces throughout the country. We sought to develop a framework

that placed high priority on passenger and driver safety while ensuring

that ride-sharing operators offer passengers safe, well-maintained

vehicles with qualified drivers.

Fast forward five months, however, and the public’s call for

ride-sharing has become even more vocal. Vancouver is now the largest

city in North America without ride-sharing. British Columbians have made

it clear that they want more choice, more flexibility and more

growing list of broken promises, including ride-sharing.

In my opinion, nowhere is the need for ride-sharing more important

than on the North Shore. You’ve already heard me rise today to draw

attention to the lack of transportation and transit options that

currently service the North Shore, with the last SeaBus to the North

Shore ending at 1 a.m. and even earlier on weekends and holidays. North

Shore residents that work or who are out for an evening downtown are

severely limited in their options when it comes to getting home

safely.

There are currently more than 4,000 people in my riding that have

registered accounts with Uber, including me, so 4,000 of my constituents

have accounts, all without a regulatory framework in place. Take, for

example, Dillon, a small business owner from North Vancouver who employs

three staff members, who writes: “In one of Canada’s largest and most

expensive cities, we need to have affordable, safe and easily-accessible

private transportation options. Please pass laws allowing Uber and other

ride-sharing companies to operate in B.C. this year.”

Take Colleen, a 48-year-old mother from the North Shore, who

writes:

“I simply cannot understand why any more money is being spent to

study whether or not to bring ride-sharing to Vancouver and the Lower

Mainland when it is so desperately needed. We live in a consumer-driven

society, and the current lack of transportation options on the North

Shore keeps more people at home than out enjoying more of the

establishments and venues around the Lower Mainland.

“My husband and I would love to be out at restaurants, craft

breweries, shows or even further-flung friends’ places where we can

enjoy a couple of glasses of wine and know that we have options to get

home safely. At 48, I have the means and interest to explore our city,

but not until I know I won’t have a challenge getting home to my kids at

a reasonable hour at the end of the night.”

Let’s listen to Mike, a tech CEO from North Vancouver, who writes:

“I am a longtime resident of the district of North Vancouver, and I’m

writing to express my support for a ride-sharing option in B.C. I have

generally been happy with taxi service in Vancouver except during

special events and holidays, when we are used to waiting literally hours

to get a taxi. I’m asking you to please support ride-sharing programs,

and let free enterprise operate on a level playing field. Let consumers

decide what service they prefer, including your constituents. I want

freedom of choice.”

How about me? I worry about my 20-something children, who want to

get home on Friday or Saturday night when buses are unavailable, the

SeaBus shuts down early and the cab they call refuses to take them to

the North Shore. Why? Not because they don’t want to, but because they

can’t get a fare back. In either case, people are stranded. That’s not

just inconvenient; that’s unsafe.

During the election, all three of our parties made a commitment to

bring ride-sharing to B.C. before the end of 2017. For the sake of

Dillon, Colleen, Mike and every other British Columbian that is counting

on ride-sharing to be implemented before the end of 2017, I hope this

NDP government keeps its word and doesn’t add ride-sharing to its

ever-growing list of broken promises.

[11:50 a.m.]

R. Leonard: I would seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: I’d like to take a moment to introduce, and ask you to welcome, some

children — from age 5, in kindergarten, to grade 8 — from the Heartwood

Learning Community, along with their teacher, Carly Boyle, visiting parents

and other chaperones. They access the popular North Island Distance

Education School that’s in my community, and they’re here today to learn

about our parliamentary democracy. I’d like to ask the House to welcome

them.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Debate Continued

M. Dean: I’m very proud to rise today to take

part in this discussion about

ride-sharing. We do know that people do want more options for getting

around quickly. We understand how important it is that people are able

to get around with efficiency, to be able to get to their family duties

and events and support their families as well as take

part in the

economy, and that we need to be able to be moving goods and services

around as well.

It’s really important that people cannot only get around quickly;

they also need to get around safely. And it also needs to be affordable.

Ride-sharing enters into that domain and offers some solutions for us to

be able to enhance the lives of British Columbians and the economy of

British Columbia by bringing ride-sharing to B.C.

The NDP government has said: “We will bring ride-sharing to B.C.,

and we will do it in the right way. We’re here for a win-win for British

Columbians.” We’re going to create a made-in-B.C. solution. What’s

critical to that is that it’s going to ensure a level playing field for

all service providers and safety for customers. So our plan is not only

going to protect jobs — jobs that currently exist in British Columbia,

where families are relying on people being employed in that sector.

We’re also going to make sure that British Columbians have access to

modern ride-sharing services that they expect.

Dr. Dan Hara said it best. He said: “Whenever there’s a new

technology that does offer potential benefits and net improvements, it’s

always possible to allocate those benefits so that there’s a

win-win-win.” That’s going to be our approach.

Our government is committed to bringing in a safe and fair and

accessible made-in-B.C. solution for taxis and ride-sharing vehicles in

B.C. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, particularly with the

taxi industry. We will be certain that we’ve addressed their needs so

they can compete on a level playing field when a ride-sharing system is

introduced into B.C. We can’t forget that there are people’s livelihoods

at stake here. Thousands of people and families rely on the taxi

industry to put food on the table and create a better life for their

families.

Our government is focused on shaping policy that creates

opportunities for everyone. While this is going to be a long-term policy

and a future-looking policy, we’re also committed to doing this as soon

as possible. However, we do understand that in the clone speech, the

members opposite agreed that this couldn’t be done by the end of this

year.

Uber first approached the previous government in 2012. They had

five years to address this matter, but the B.C. Liberals were more

interested in putting out a press release before the election than in

actually bringing a workable solution of ride-sharing to B.C. In their

post-election clone speech, the B.C. Liberals abandoned their own

commitment to bring in ride-sharing by the end of 2017, and they

themselves committed to putting the issue to an all-party committee with

extensive consultations.

So yes, your new government has hired the industry expert Dan Hara

to engage with the taxi industry and stakeholders to make

recommendations that will create a fair and level approach to

ride-sharing in British Columbia — an approach that reflects the

significant investment that the taxi industry has made and doesn’t

unfairly benefit or punish one group over the other.

[11:55 a.m.]

Recommendations stemming from this consultation will inform the

government on the potential direction needed in creating a made-in-B.C.

solution for passenger-directed vehicles. What’s really important to us

is to make sure that people can get around quickly, safely and

affordably. As promised, we’ll be delivering a report by the spring of

2018 with legislative changes anticipated for the fall.

With that, I move the adjournment of the debate.

M. Dean moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada