British Columbia Hansard — 20 November 2018, p.m., Issue 187 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20181120pm-Hansard-n187

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 187 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Third Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Linda Reid Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees.................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ..................................................................Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)...................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)....................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ...............................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon. Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 6613 Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 6613 Bill 57 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018 Hon. D. Eby M. Lee A. Olsen Hon. C. Trevena Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018 Hon. C.

Trevena J. Sturdy P . Milobar T. Stone J. Thornthwaite A. Olsen D. Barnett S. Sullivan J. Isaacs L. Throness S. Cadieux B. Stewart S. Gibson J. Y ap Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6651 Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018(continued) T. Redies Hon. C. James S. Thomson S. Bond M. Stilwell S. Sullivan N. Letnick A. Weaver B. Stewart

TUESDAY , NOVEMBER 20, 2018 The House met at 1:31 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members L. Reid: We are joined today by Jon Leech of ASTTBC fame, formerly of that organization. He did wondrous work for all of us and is a dear friend of probably every member in this chamber. I’ d ask the House to please make him welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. D. Eby: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 57, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018. In the little House, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 45, Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018.

Second Reading of Bills BILL 57 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time. Bill 57 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act continue to make improve- ments to this act. The act will give the civil resolution tribunal jurisdiction over motor vehicle accident disputes up to $50,000 for accidents that occur on or after April 1, 2019. [L.

Reid in the chair.] The act also grants the tribunal exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a person injured in a motor vehicle acci- dent has suffered a minor injury which will result in a limit on their damages for pain and suffering. Although the act has general public support and was unanimously adopted by all parties in the Legislature, it will be legally challenged. It is therefore essential that we make the act as clear as possible. The proposed amendments make additional technical changes to the act in order to clarify provisions and close potential loopholes.

None of the pro- posed amendments change the underlying policy of the act. Access to justice is a primary objective of class action law- suits. Amendments in this bill to the Class Proceedings Act will further this objective by ensuring that at least 50 percent of awards and settlement funds that cannot be paid to class members will be provided to the Law Foundation of British Columbia to support a wide range of access to justice pro- grams and initiatives.

Class proceedings addressing harm suffered by Indigen- ous people will be exempted from this new scheme, ensur- ing that 100 percent of undistributed funds remain avail- able for programs and initiatives, specifically benefiting Indigenous people. Dr. Peter German’s reportDirty Money: An Independent Review of Money Laundering in Lower Mainland Casinos makes 48 recommendations to address money laundering in B.C. ’s gambling industry. Government has accepted all recommendations in principle from Dr. Peter German’s report.

Bill 57 makes three amendments to the Gaming Control Act to address the intent of four of the report’s recommend- ations. These amendments provide new authorities to the gaming policy and enforcement branch to begin the process of creating a more independent regulator. [1:35 p.m.] Finally, amendments to the Legal Profession Act will provide the framework for the regulation of new legal ser- vice providers called licensed paralegals. These amendments are intended to increase access to, and choice in, the provi- sion of legal services, particularly in areas of underserved or unmet need.

With some limited exceptions, the Legal Profession Act restricts the practice of law to lawyers. The amendments will expand who may engage in the practice of law to licensed paralegals, who will be permitted to provide a limited scope of legal services to the public. Licensed paralegals will be reg- ulated by the Law Society of British Columbia. The amendments will apply the framework of the Legal Profession Act to licensed paralegals and will provide authority for the Law Society to establish the scope of prac- tice within the practice of law of licensed paralegals or a class of licensed paralegals.

Additional amendments will also clarify the interaction between insurance legislation and the Legal Profession Act, which authorizes the Law Society to operate an insurance program. The amendments provide that the Law Society is not an insurer and is not carrying on an insurance business in respect of the indemnity program that is operated by the Law Society for its members — both of those sets of amend- ments coming at the request of the benchers of the Law Soci- ety of British Columbia. With that, hon.

Speaker, I look forward to hearing what other members have to say about this miscellaneous statutes amendment bill. M. Lee: Let me rise also to speak to Bill 57. I appreciate the Attorney General and his staff for the briefing that myself and the member for Richmond-Steveston, my colleague, were able to obtain a mere 80 minutes ago. That gave me the opportunity to have a quick lunch and to formulate some thoughts, which I wish to share with this chamber. Let me, first of all, start by going to

section 4 of the bill, which does expand the provision of legal services in our province to include licensed paralegals. This, of course, as 6613

the Attorney General has just referred to, was the outcome of the many reports and considerations that have been put forward, including by the Law Society of British Columbia. I appreciate that this has been the outcome of a particular set of recommendations.

We all know that we can do better in this province in terms of ensuring that all British Columbians have a greater access to justice, and establishing a new category of legal practitioners who are not lawyers and allowing them to do a limited amount of work to assist individuals who are seeking guidance and navigation through our judicial system will be important, at least to continue to find greater ways to pro- mote greater access to our justice system.

Certainly, in the visits I’ve been able to do in the Attorney General critic role, I have seen some of the important work that our family law justice access centres and our First Nations courts have done as examples of ways to enable and open up our justice system to people who typically have a hard time finding their way through our judicial system, par- ticularly in the areas of family law, employment law, debt- or or creditor arrangements, as well as appearing in front of various tribunals like small claims matters and the like.

As we look at this, I know that the Attorney General, in his mandate letter, has an important directive by the Premi- er to consider our judicial system and improving our access to justice in this province. This, I expect, is one initiative that the Attorney General will bring forward, and I look forward to working with him and seeing what else he is considering to come forward with, on this. [1:40 p.m.] As we know, there have been many leaders in the judicial community who have put forward important statements and reviews of the challenges with our justice system.

Len Doust, in 2011, stated in particular, around our legal aid system, that it continues to fail those individuals and families who are most needy of assistance in our justice system and in our communities.

A quote from his report, back in 2011, indic- ated that it’s been unanimous, in terms of the view that: “There are many people who are left behind by legal aid in British Columbia and that it is the most disadvantaged members of our com- munity who are suffering the most as a result of inadequate legal aid, the very people for whom the service was created. ” He went on to say: “It is always important to remember that the people applying for legal aid are often dealing with the legal system for the first time and are unsure and intimidated by the process.

They require patience and understanding in explaining the process in guiding them through the legal system. “Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of British Columbia residents are struggling with a range of problems and do so without the benefit of a lawyer or qualified assistance.

They face hearings, trials, judges, lawyers and legal documents alone, putting their children, their men- tal and physical health, their economic independence and their per- sonal safety at risk. ” More recently, Chief Justice Robert Bauman has said that it is obviously important and worth considering this oppor- tunity, in terms of expanding legal service providers, as the Law Society has recommended, given the ongoing systemic problems.

In December 2014, the Law Society unanimously adop- ted a task force report that recommended that the Law Society seek this amendment to the Legal Profession Act: authorizing it to establish and regulate new classes of legal service providers in order to address unmet and unser- viced legal needs. That report had noted that as much as 85 percent of people with legal problems were not getting the assistance of a lawyer. Many of these people, of course, were left to solve their legal problems on their own.

This has been the challenge that our court system has seen with self-represen- ted litigants — individuals who choose to address their legal issues and come forward in the court system. I think it has been, as acknowledged by many, a burden which is continuing to lead to longer and more prolonged time periods, waiting periods, to get through our court sys- tem, to get into the courtroom to have matters heard. So this particular initiative will help to address some of that.

The Law Society, in their reporting, has found that about 66 percent of British Columbians experienced at least one serious and difficult-to-resolve problem in the three years preceding a 2009 Ipsos-Reid survey. They also found that, despite this, 70 percent of the respondents to that survey seek no assistance to try and resolve the problem, preferring to go it alone, as they say, rather than to seek the services of a legal professional.

The three main reasons for seeking no assistance that were cited were: legal assistance was not actually required or necessary, legal assistance was too costly for the issue, and legal assistance was too difficult for the plaintiff to access. Of the 30 percent who did seek legal assistance for their problems, only half sought assistance from lawyers directly. That should be, actually, 30 percent who did seek assistance with their legal problems — only half of those sought assist- ance from a lawyer.

Again, some of those who sought help from someone who was not a lawyer did so because they had a desire to avoid the court, as well as the expectation that non-lawyers are cheaper than lawyers. That’s probably true, given the state of our legal aid tariff. However, expanding legal services to non-lawyers is not the only way to expand access to justice.

As I said, if there’s an unmet need for legal services, lawyers should have the opportunity to review the way in which they can offer ser- vices to groups. [1:45 p.m.] Of course, I must acknowledge that many members of the bar in this province do great service for British Columbians by taking on countless hours of pro bono work — some of that work they do which, clearly, they’re not billing for. Many lawyers are doing that on a consultative basis. They do it in their communities with not-for-profit organizations in the roles that they play.

But we need to continue to find ways to make our legal aid access system work well, through legal aid, for example. 6614 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 20, 2018

I think that as we look at the expansion of the consid- eration of non-lawyer legal service providers, we need to address and ensure that the public is protected. I expect that one of the key areas that the Law Society will first consider further will be in the family law area. We need to ensure that the people who are providing these legal services in that area, for example, are properly trained, are regulated, are carry- ing liability insurance in circumstances where the absence of such safeguards would clearly create an unacceptable level of risk for our province.

The Law Society had acknowledged that once this regulat- ory scheme was provided for under this bill, they will con- tinue to develop the credentialing and regulatory scheme for this change — and that the in-depth work that the Law Soci- ety will be responsible for conducting under this bill will be moving forward to identify the specific types of legal services that the public requires and the type of training that is neces- sary to provide those services in a competent manner.

The original proposal from the Law Society had nearly 20 areas where they proposed the new class of legal prac- titioner would be trained in. For example, in the area of family law, these would include effective interviewing skills; triage intake and assessment; dealing with families in crisis; screening for family violence and power imbal- ances; cultural competence training; effective advocacy; enforcing court orders; business and practice management fundamentals; identifying when to get a lawyer involved; referring a client for independent legal advice; and dealing with unrepresented parties.

Having said that, the proposal to move forward with a new class of legal practitioners is not entirely a new concept. The Law Society of Ontario has approved in principle a new licence that would permit paralegals to provide some form of family law legal services in the areas of custody, access, simple child support cases, restraining orders, enforcement and simple and joint divorces without property. Clearly, as we look at other jurisdictions, this is something that law societies working with government are moving for- ward to progress.

Over the border, our immediate neigh- bours down south, Washington state, have had a similar pro- gram that allows for a new class of legal practitioners. We’re seeing that in many of the states in the U.S., recognizing, of course, they have a different system. But they have a similar approach in order to improve access to justice. The legislation also sets out the fact that the Law Society, as I mentioned, will have control over and responsibility for determining what this new class of legal practitioner will be responsible for. The Law Society will have oversight on that.

That’s certainly something that at committee stage on this bill, we’ll want to have some discussion about, in terms of what the expectation of government will be on that. They will also have the ability, of course, to designate what a new class of legal service provider would be and the scope of practice for that class. [1:50 p.m.] I believe that it’s important, as the government has acknowledged here in this legislation, that it is the Law Soci- ety of British Columbia that is best positioned to regulate legal service providers. They are the ones, after all, who know best how to regulate their profession.

I say that because it is surprising that in contrast, as we’ve seen under Bill 49 in this House, this government has taken an opposite approach where they have taken professional governance out of the hands of professional engineers and professional foresters, for example, under that bill. They put in place a superin- tendent to provide oversight on codes of ethics, professional responsibilities and training and conflicts of interest. These are matters that the Law Society of British Col- umbia administers for all lawyers in this province.

Here we have a situation where under one bill, this bill, the government recognizes the importance of the Law Society for determining the scope of practice, the new categories of legal practitioners who are non-lawyers who might provide legal services in this province — that they clearly have that responsibility.

Of course, it’s very important that this government con- tinue to recognize the opportunity, the ability and the con- fidence that the members of the public of British Columbia have in lawyers governing themselves under the Law Society of British Columbia with some external lay members, as there would be in this effort as well, recognizing that public component. We have lawyers as a professional class in this province that continue to have the confidence of British Columbians and this government.

Y et this government says to engineers and professional foresters: “We don’t have the same confidence in your ability to govern yourselves. We don’t have the same confidence in your ability to govern your ethics, your conflicts, your train- ing.

We need you to give us competence certificates for pro- jects every step of the way. ” I am, in one respect, pleased to see the continued confidence that this government has in the legal profession of this province, but reluctantly, I’m sorry to see that the government does not have the same confid- ence in other professionals in our province, like professional engineers and foresters.

I would like to go on, though, to say that the Attorney General, in this Bill 57, has taken the opportunity to address the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act — which, of course, a few months ago we had the opportunity to review in this House. Members on this side included the member for Richmond- Steveston as the lead critic for ICBC. In this bill, there are a number of amendments being pro- posed.

Again, as I learned just a little over an hour ago in terms of the briefing, many of them address some potential transitions and gaps in the tribunal act to deal with this new responsibility that the tribunal will have in making determ- inations and adjudications around minor injury. This does give me the opportunity, though, to comment on the nature of that determination that this government has provided authority to the tribunal to do. As we looked at in terms of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, the act that governs the determination Tuesday, November 20, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6615

under the Insurance Vehicle Regulation, what this govern- ment did — on the Friday before the Remembrance Day long weekend, the Friday after this House rose — was to table and issue that regulation. That regulation expanded the definition of “minor injury” to include brain injury and concussion. This is, to say the least, a grave concern that we would have, with the increased jurisdiction of the civil resolution tribunal.

Already we’ve had concerns about the competence and the ability of that tribunal to deal with matters of personal injury, matters that include psychiatric and psychological conditions, as well as pain, and now brain injury and concussion. [1:55 p.m.] This is a concern because, after all, back in the committee stage, in May of 2018 — in answers to questions from my colleague from Richmond-Steveston and myself — the Attorney General said that no individuals with brain injuries or with broken bones are subject to the limit on pain and suf- fering awards or the minor injury definition.

When I asked, “Can the Attorney General at least confirm that the way that the minor injury definition is today” — that is, back in May, when we were passing the original legislation — “will not be extended in such a way that will be prejudicial to British Columbians?” the Attorney’s response was: “The member will know that regulation-making powers are con- strained by the statute itself. In this case, this is the regula- tion-making power in relation to minor injuries. ” This is the concern that we have with this government.

It passes major legislation and then puts it all into the regulation-making power of this government through cabinet. The concern that we had at the time was whether the minor injury definition would be expanded. The Attorney General clearly indicated that it would not be, yet he has done that through regulation. Now we’re seeing some adjust- ments, let’s say, in this bill, in terms of how the tribunal will function to deal with minor injuries. Y et the major concern that we should be dealing with and addressing in this House is the greater expansion of “minor injury” to include brain injury and concussion.

I’m under the understanding — when I talk to those who deal with claimants who have minor injuries, defined in this way — that this government has effectively included up to 90 percent of all injuries that we would see claimed to ICBC under the definition of “minor injury” now. That means that 10 percent of injuries are not included, but this is the scale and scope of what this minor injury definition has been included to provide.

The Attorney General went on to say that the regulation- making power is restricted by very strict specific directions, and he would assure myself, at the time, that “if government attempted to put a more serious injury in by regulation that was outside the jurisdiction that this

section sets out, it would be challenged immediately by plaintiff ’s counsel. ” Well, I would suggest that as we debate this Bill 57 and talk about amendments to how the tribunal should function, and whether its decision, under

section 2 of this bill, really gets to a point where “a party alleges that a matter in a pro- ceeding before the court relates to a minor injury…the court must stay the proceeding until the tribunal determines, ” in the case of an accident claim, “whether an injury is a minor injury…. ” This bill merely strengthens, of course, what was intended by the government in the first place, which is to take the determination of minor injuries out of the hands of the courts.

Judiciaries have been trained, through case law in this province and in this country, to deal with the complexity of injuries to British Columbians, the complexity that would include brain injuries and concussions. Many of us, includ- ing people that we work with here, know that brain injuries and concussions can have implications and effects, even though they may not be determined or evident in the first short period of time that this government is putting on these new claimants, which is a four-month period, under this reg- ulation. They may show up later. [2:00 p.m.] We have a test around serious impairment.

We will have situations where, because the burden of proof is on the claimant himself or herself to demonstrate serious impair- ment, we’re putting British Columbians in a very tough pos- ition to deal with what, I think, all members of this House recognize.

When we talk about mental health, when there’s been a physical trauma to the brain and those who are continuing to suffer the effects of that, surely we should all be sensitive to how we’re dealing with that — not suggesting, as the reg- ulation is doing now, sending those claimants to the desig- nated medical or health practitioner to determine whether that individual has a minor injury. This is under a very tight time frame, 28 days, to put out a report under a very low fee schedule.

I understand that last year, there were 63,000 minor injury claims that went to ICBC — 63,000 potential minor injury claims that now this tribunal is going to be faced with, now with an expanded definition. When we had that debate and discussion in committee stage around minor injury with the Attorney General, he indicated that if the government oversteps the act by expanding the definition, that would be, in his estimation, subject to immediate challenge by plaintiff ’s counsel. This government is proceeding at a time when we need to continue to encourage access for justice.

I appreciate that the civil resolution tribunal — which was brought forward under the previous government, under the leadership of my colleague from Prince George–Valemount — was done for specific purposes, with a specific mandate, dealing with strata disputes in the way that it has. Encouraging legal providers who are not lawyers to come forward in a restrained and specific area to provide legal ser- vices is another example where we can increase access to justice. This, though, is not that.

This is increasing the role of government and ICBC overtop of the minor injury defin- ition and determination in a way that is highly prejudicial to 6616 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 20, 2018

British Columbians. The way that this government brought forward that regulation will be called into question, as in the words of the Attorney General. This will merely block more of the work of the tribunal. This is not what anybody wants to see. We want to see people get access to justice to deal with their issues, their minor injury claims, to be able to get the kind of care and attention they need to get that whole situation of a traumatic accident behind them. But this isn’t going to do that — not if the gov- ernment is acting beyond its scope of the act and introdu- cing something that….

As I understand it, when consulting with various associ- ations — psychiatric, psychological and others dealing with mental health — the Attorney General had said to them, as well, directly that brain injury would not be included in the minor injury definition. I think this government needs to explain to British Columbians why they’ve gone ahead and done this. I think that as we look at…. I’ve commented on the health care practitioner concept that’s in the regulation itself. This is to assist the tribunal under its adjusted responsibilities in this bill.

Health practitioners include acupuncturists, chiro- practors, dentists, massage therapists, occupational therap- ists, physiotherapists, psychologists, counsellors and kinesi- ologists. There is now going to be a new roster, just like under Bill 49. Y ou will be certified by the government with a stamp of approval by the government that you are in a position to deal with minor injury.

But these are complex matters, and I think that regulation is merely making it harder for British Columbians to seek the kind of treatment they need and the determination they need under this new regime. [2:05 p.m.] I see that my time is coming to a close here on this partic- ular bill. Let me just say that I look at two other parts of the bill with encouraging greater funds to go to the Law Found- ation of British Columbia. I think that that’s an important area to consider.

We don’t know, from a class action proceed- ing, how many of those funds would not typically go to the claimants who are part of that class action — those that are unclaimed, in terms of these amounts. I understand from the briefing that that could be in the thousands of dollars or it could be in the millions of dollars. It just raises the question as to what else this government is doing to encourage access to justice. The work of the Law Foundation is very important. I cer- tainly sat on a board of a public legal education organization, promoting access to justice — the Justice Education Society.

They received, for many years, both from government and from the Law Foundation, important funding to move for- ward with their initiatives. That’s just an example of an organization that does good work in this area and, I presume, will have benefit — not that organization necessarily but other organizations alongside of it that continue to promote access to justice and provide the tools and resources to the public to help them navigate through the justice system. I hope to see other resources that this government is prepared to dedicate towards access to justice, beyond just this undefined amount. A.

Olsen: I was somewhat prepared today for a short speech, and then the member went and used the entire time. So now I am…. Interjection. A. Olsen:I used up the time yesterday. It’s my pleasure today to stand and speak to Bill 57. I do listen with intent to the member for Vancouver-Langara, as he does have some important insights that I think…. I look forward to hearing him ask the questions to the minister during committee stage and engaging as is necessary. Cer- tainly the member has much more depth of field than I do on this file, so I thank him for the comments that he just made.

This miscellaneous bill makes a number of important amendments to four key pieces of legislation, with the pur- pose of furthering the direction that this government has been taking in improving the state of ICBC’s finances and in dealing with money laundering in B.C. ’s casinos. The civil resolution tribunal, or the CRT, is an on-line tribunal that resolves small claims. Changes to the Civil Res- olution Tribunal Act will give the tribunal jurisdiction over motor vehicle accident disputes up to $50,000 and further enable them to make determinations of whether or not an injury qualifies as a minor injury.

This builds upon legislation that was unanimously passed by this House, in this chamber, during the spring sitting earlier this year in the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amend- ment Act, which seeks to remedy the substantial changes facing the Insurance Corporation of B.C., or ICBC. Legislation governing class action proceedings in British Columbia is also being shifted by the act before us that we’re debating today.

The amendments to the Class Proceedings Act require that at least 50 percent of undistributed awards, the settlement funds from class action suits, be disbursed to the Law Foundation of B.C., a non-profit foundation that funds projects and programs in the province in areas of legal education, research, aid and more. Currently undistributed awards and settlement funds from class action suits are disbursed through the legal con- vention of Cy Pres, or as near as possible.

In other words, funds that may have been awarded in a proceeding relat- ing to a medical class action might be allocated to a med- ical foundation to ensure that unclaimed money still sup- ports the cause that it was awarded to. The Law Founda- tion of B.C., with its broad mandate to improve access to justice in our province, will now receive a portion of these unclaimed funds. [2:10 p.m.] Importantly, class action suits addressing harm suffered primarily by Indigenous people are exempt from this alloc- ation of funds.

The entirety of unclaimed funds allocated to Tuesday, November 20, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6617

Indigenous people in class action proceedings will instead continue to be managed according to Cy Pres in an effort to ensure that the benefit of funds is felt by Indigenous people. I think that it’s important. I’ d like to hear, and I’ll be asking, what level of consultation has been taken with Indigenous folks on this. When there’s not a change being made, I can understand that perhaps there’s a feeling that there isn’t a need to have much consultation. But if there is a change being made, per- haps it’s time to have the conversation about whether or not that is still working for people.

So I’ d be interested to find out more about that, and we’ll be asking more about it at com- mittee stage. The third act adjusted by this legislation before us is the Gaming Control Act, one that has been the source of a lot of conversation in British Columbia over the past number of months. It continues to enact the recommendations of Peter German’s report into money laundering released earli- er this year. It enables the gaming policy and enforcement branch to issue directives without ministerial approval, fur- ther strengthening the authority of the regulator to respond to money-laundering concerns.

It also allows the gaming policy and enforcement branch to ban, in consultation with the RCMP , individuals suspected to have been engaged in money laundering in British Columbia casinos. Finally, this act also amends the Legal Profession Act by establishing licensed paralegals as practitioners capable of delivering legal services. Certainly, the member for Vancou- ver-Langara highlighted, I think, the importance of being able to expand legal services in this province so that people are able to get the kind of advice and the kind of support that they need as they go through the process.

I remain interested to see how the scope of their practice will be established in regulation, in the regulatory body. But I think that this is an important move that will broaden access to legal services for British Columbians. There are also addi- tional amendments to provide clarification to the insurance program that the Law Society of B.C. offers to its members. Overall, the miscellaneous statutes enshrined in Bill 57 demonstrate a general commitment to the increased access to justice for British Columbians. I think that’s something that we all support in this House and, certainly, the B.C.

Green Party supports. It’s encouraging that more people have access to legal services, thanks to an increase in funds for the Law Foundation of B.C. and the empowerment of paralegals to offer legal service. I’m also pleased to see the further commitment to the recommendation of Peter German’s report on money laun- dering, in addition to more action in remedying the prob- lems faced by ICBC. I look forward to learning more about these changes at committee stage, as they mark an important step for improving justice in our province.

I’ll take my seat now and thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this bill today. Hon. C. Trevena: Seeing no further speakers, I move second reading of the act. Motion approved. Hon. C. Trevena:I move the bill be referred to a Commit- tee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 57, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. C. Trevena:I call second reading of Bill 55.

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Hon. C. Trevena:I move that the bill now be read for a second time. [2:15 p.m.] It is my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 55, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. Many people have the experience of waiting for a cab, either at a stand or on the corner in the rain or at home, hoping it’ll be there in time to get to the flight you want to catch. For the last six years or so, many have looked to their smartphone apps as providing a solution. In this, our first year of government, I have heard from many who want such a solution.

Some see that the app will replace cabs. Others feel it will allow for transportation in rural communities unserved by public transportation. The legislation before us today does two things. It mod- ernizes the taxi sector, and it does pave the way for app- based ride-hailing. We know that people want new, conveni- ent and safe options to get around, and this legislation opens that door. We want to get this right for B.C. B.C. is different from the rest of the country because we have the Passenger Trans- portation Board, and we’re using that to ensure that our new demand-driven approach, rooted in data, works.

This bill delivers on our government’s commitment to bring in legislation which will set the stage for app-based ride-hailing. The bill amends the Passenger Transportation Act to modernize the regulatory framework for taxis and passenger-directed services. It also has substantive changes to seven other statutes. This is complex legislation that is informed by the work of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, which provided its recommendations to this House earlier this year on commercial app-based ride-hailing. The bill is also the product of Dr.

Dan Hara’s report entitledModerniz- ing Taxi Regulation, which included a number of suggestions to enable the existing industry to remain viable and to com- pete on an equal footing should app-based ride-hailing ser- 6618 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 20, 2018

vices be introduced in B.C. I also want to take the opportun- ity to acknowledge the introduction of some private mem- ber bills in this House, which have also been useful contri- butions. The approach set out in this legislation is also informed by experiences elsewhere. Whether the gridlock that New Y ork City is now trying to address, in addition to its already dense traffic, or the accident in Toronto resulting from a lack of regulation on drivers, we know that the absence of….

A well- balanced regulatory framework for app-based ride-hailing services is necessary to ensure that B.C. doesn’t repeat the mistakes made elsewhere. We believe that the changes set out in this bill strike the right balance between meeting consumer demand for more services while establishing a modern regulatory framework that prioritizes safety for all British Columbians. First and foremost, the bill does not propose any change to the provincial regulation of passenger-directed vehicle ser- vices in this province.

The Passenger Transportation Board, an independent tribunal, will continue its role in receiving applications and setting out terms and conditions of licences, including those from companies seeking to provide trans- portation network services in which passengers hail and pay for trips with their smartphones. The Passenger Transport- ation Board will have the authority to determine the rates charged to passengers as well as the supply and operating area of vehicles under licences authorizing transportation network services. Safety is key to our approach.

New requirements are pro- posed for drivers of taxis and other passenger-directed vehicles to meet a provincial record check standard. This change addresses the gaps in the current municipal approach in which some communities demand police record checks of drivers while others do not. To strengthen compliance and enforcement, the bill pro- poses significant increases to the administrative penalties for non-compliance of licence holders as well as a hefty increase to the maximum fines for offences, up to $100,000 a day for corporations who contravene the act.

The bill contains several changes to ensure that the new regime effectively monitors and provides an adequate supply of accessible vehicles where they are needed. To reflect the unique operating framework of the trans- portation network services in which drivers typically use their own personal vehicles to carry passengers, amend- ments are proposed to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the Insurance Corporation Act to ensure that ICBC can devel- op new insurance products for the use of app-based ride- hailing.

The bill also addresses the overlap of jurisdiction, unique to this province, between local governments and the Passen- ger Transportation Board. We’re proposing changes to local government legislation that remove the authority of a muni- cipality to refuse to allow the delivery of transportation ser- vices within their jurisdiction despite the Passenger Trans- portation Board’s approval. [2:20 p.m.] Finally, I want to highlight the checks and balances we propose to ensure the legislative framework for passenger transportation services in this province works, first and fore- most, for British Columbians.

The bill proposes to place a requirement on the House to appoint a special committee to review how things are working. We recognize the multiplicity of stakeholder view- points on the topics of taxis and ride-hailing. That’s why we’re providing members of this House, working together in a joint committee, to have an opportunity to engage stake- holders in a transparent and public review process and then make whatever recommendations the committee deems appropriate to ensure we have a model that works for every- one in this province. British Columbians have told us they want more trans- portation options.

They’ve also told us they expect these options to be safe, affordable and convenient. Our govern- ment believes this bill marks a significant step in ensuring such services will soon be available to all the citizens of this province. J. Sturdy:I wish I was more pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 55, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, and hopeful that we were going to see a piece of legislation that would allow ride-hailing to be embraced by British Columbians in the near future.

But once again we’re debating a piece of legislation that does not make it possible to do something today, nor tomorrow, but at the end of a some- what convoluted process and a high level of uncertainty, in a year or two or perhaps never. This government has been in office for 18 months now.

The government even appointed a legislative committee on ride-sharing, of which I was fortunate to be a member, and then, unfortunately, chose to disregard most of the recom- mendations — such as, simply, the requirement for a class 4 driver’s licence, for example, when the committee recog- nized that a class 5 was adequate for ride-sharing and taxi drivers. The entire time they have been promising the ride-sharing rules are coming, that they’re just around the corner, that they will be here soon and that we’ll have them by 2017 Christmas or 2018 Christmas and now, perhaps, 2019 or, more likely, 2020 — if at all.

Unfortunately, there’s not much in this bill that will tell us when ride-sharing will be active in British Columbia. Let’s imagine, for a second, the happening of other things. The NDP’s made-up speculation tax, you know, is the one that doesn’t particularly address speculation. Imagine if the Deputy Premier said, “Well, you know, it could be in effect next year, or it could be the year after, or just wait until you get your property taxes, and then we’ll figure it out, ” or if the Attorney General had said: “Well, we don’t know when that referendum on proportional representation is happening.

It could be next year, could be tomorrow, could be never. ” Actually, all things considered, he might have done that, Tuesday, November 20, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6619

given everything else he left for deciding after. We’ll see what happens here. But last Christmas the NDP said this would be a thing. I have here a quote from the NDP news release: “The B.C. NDP support the passing of new rules to intro- duce ride-sharing to B.C. in 2017. ” Unfortunately, they then said it’s too hard, too difficult, too complicated, to do what literally every other province and hundreds of jurisdictions around the world have done, and that it’ll have to be later. A quote from Mr.

Vaughn Palmer in today’sSun: “Sure, they wasted no time launching a half-baked speculation tax and in stacking the deck in favour of electoral change. But the implementation of a service that is already in place in comparable jurisdictions all over the world? Well, some things just can’t be rushed. ” [2:25 p.m.] I’m going to take a minute to list some of the jurisdictions that have ride-sharing, either through companies that oper- ate as close as Seattle or Alberta or through local companies. Iraq has international ride-sharing, called Careem, which operates in Baghdad. Even Baghdad has ride-sharing.

Careem operates in more than a dozen countries across Asia. Afghanistan has an Uber, with a “b, ” called Buber, which is probably a better approach than here. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members. J. Sturdy: Even Syria, with all its problems, has ride- sharing. Russia has Uber, but we don’t. Some other jur- isdictions — Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, Ott- awa, Quebec, Halifax — all have ride-sharing. North Bat- tleford, Saskatchewan, has ride-sharing, population 13,888. Y ou might say that is a tiny population and they have less to worry about than British Columbia.

At the same time, Shanghai, home to six times as many people as in all of British Columbia, has Uber. Now, we have here today, if this bill is any indication, a realization that there’ll be little under the tree for Christ- mas coming forward, because we won’t be seeing this type of opportunity. Sadly, it’ll be like waiting for a cab in Van- couver, standing at the curb, told, “It’s going to arrive soon. Really, it will be here soon, ” but you wait, and you wait, and you wait, and sometimes it just never arrives.

It’s been 18 months, and even with this legislation, we still don’t have a clear pathway to ride-sharing. Eighteen months where — and it’s true; I actually checked on it today — your hamburger can get an Uber, but we cannot. Government seems to be approaching ride-sharing like it’s inventing something new. Y et jurisdictions around the world have ride-sharing. Every other Canadian province has man- aged to pass ride-sharing legislation. They have people get- ting to appointments on time. They still have a taxi industry. They still have public transit. They have systems where people have the power of choice.

But British Columbians are being denied these kinds of choices. I have no idea why government is reluctant to allow a ser- vice that has been adopted by jurisdictions, large and small, across the globe. With the constant promises from this gov- ernment, it feels like we’ve been waiting forever. I know that getting ride-sharing on the road is one of those areas where we do agree with the Third Party. But this bill is set up to create further delays and make it impossible to deliver ride-sharing.

Amendments will need to occur to eight different statutes: the Passenger Transportation Act, Insurance Vehicle Act, Insurance Corporation Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Commercial Transport Act, Local Government Act, Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter. Through this amendment, the Passenger Transportation Board, an independent tribunal, will have its powers expan- ded enormously. It will decide the fare structure, the floor and the ceiling rates. It will have exclusive jurisdiction in determining supply and operating area for both taxies and ride-hailing companies.

They evidently apply a three-part test to this determina- tion in terms of their decision on whether and how ride- hailing will be implemented, the tests of: is the applicant fit and proper to provide the service; is there a public need for the service; and does the applicant promote sound economic conditions in the industry? [2:30 p.m.] It’s this last test which is particularly a mysterious require- ment. How will it be interpreted? Sound economic condi- tions for whom — the taxi industry? Where is the consider- ation for the consumer? This is how decisions will be made with regard to ride-hailing.

Is it the consumer, or is it the industry that is dominant in the decision to promote or adopt or approve ride-hailing? The concern is that there’s not a worry about the con- sumer. What happens if there are no good transportation options available? The provision of the service is good for whom — the taxi industry, the drivers, the consumer? I’m told this will be based on Passenger Transportation Board precedent, of which I don’t believe there is much in terms of this particular type of activity.

We learn through the decisions and the presentations through the standing com- mittee that there was little data available to base decisions on, even with the requirement of the public need, other than anecdote. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] I might add that this legislation does ignore the bulk of the committee recommendations with regard to boundaries and rate and vehicle caps, along with the previously men- tioned class 5 recommendations.

When combined with the opportunity of local government to set vehicle types, to cre- ate the requirement in each jurisdiction for business licences and the ability of local government to determine the age of the vehicles, the type of propulsion in vehicles and the clean- liness of vehicles, amongst other things, it just strikes me that 6620 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 20, 2018

the implementation of ride-hailing in British Columbia will be a very cumbersome process, if it’s possible at all. Instead of unleashing the potential of ride-sharing, the government has offered up some of the most restrictive rules and roadblocks for ride-share drivers in Canada. They will be subject to commercial licences, special training, road tests, medical exams and annual vehicle inspections.

I don’t think there’s debate around criminal record checks, an annual or appropriate health certificate, drivers’ abstracts and these types of things, but these other issues are road- blocks that will be problematic for the industry to come into play in British Columbia at all. Then, of course, there’s the need for the Passenger Transportation Board and ICBC decisions. Government has had the opportunity to bring clarity and standards to a service that people want.

Instead, with this bill, they’re offering the potential of a wild patchwork of fares and regulations across different cities and different jurisdic- tions. Across the Lower Mainland, there could be a dozen different ride-sharing fare regimes. The minister mentioned that this is all about safety, and we certainly agree that safety needs to be paramount. But we also need the entrepreneurial spirit and the opportunity for the new economy to be embraced and to be supported. It’s not really about public safety. In reality, it’s about providing safety for the status quo industry.

It’s not building the kind of public safety that Mothers Against Drunk Driv- ing know ride-sharing can build by getting drunk drivers off the street. In fact, in many ways, you could say that we have a ride-sharing bill designed to stop ride-sharing. Apparently, the way this government works, it takes three times as long to bring this framework for ride-sharing in as it does for them to alter our electoral system.

Let’s remember that ride-sharing is already operating in hundreds and hun- dreds and hundreds of jurisdictions around the world. [2:35 p.m.] When it comes to changing democracy, it’s a matter of a few weeks to cook up two electoral models that don’t exist anywhere in the world, and this bill fits the pattern for this session. While the government is telling people that this legislation will bring ride-sharing to British Columbia, it is in fact all about making it next to impossible for ride-hailing to hit the road in the near future. It’s one more delay piled on a legacy of broken promises and delays.

There is no surprise coming from this govern- ment. This government has spent this fall talking about how it wants to alter our democracy so every vote counts. Y et, it’s promoting a system where backroom party officials instead of voters will decide who gets a seat in this House. It sounds like less democracy, not more. Then there’s the so-called speculation tax and delivering higher taxes for hard-working B.C. families. The one thing it fails to end is flipping and speculation.

So it’s no surprise that this government, after more than a year and a half of delays and broken promises, delivered a piece of legislation that looks to throttle the potential of ride- sharing. Instead of ride-sharing, we can say that government is offering up ride-failing. Interjection. J. Sturdy:There you go. It’s failing all the people who are waiting for a cab yesterday, today and tomorrow. It’s failing all the businesses losing productivity to staff who just can’t get to meetings and appointments due to a lack of trans- portation options.

It’s failing B.C. ’s tech sector, which thrives on ride-sharing in other successful jurisdictions. It’s failing our tourism sector that sees tourists welcomed to British Columbia and welcomed to long waits for a cab. The owner of Harbour Air just blocks from here has called time and time again for ride-sharing because his customers are astonished when they land in Vancouver or Victoria and can’t order an Uber or other ride-share.

In my own riding, we see countless tourists coming to Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton and finding out they’re forced to use an overtaxed taxi industry rather than any ride-shar- ing apps that they have on their phone already, either at home or to use it in other countries or other tourist des- tinations around the world. A quote here, Kirk LaPointe,Business in Vancouver, just today: “Like its proportional representation proposals, the ride-hailing plan leaves much to be defined in the months ahead.

This is a government so intent on studying situations that it needs to start paying tuition. ” It’s failing public safety, where ride-sharing could help reduce impaired driving, according to the University of Phil- adelphia study. Availability of ride-sharing can reduce impaired driving by more than 5 percent. The great success of ride-sharing is the innovation that is unleashed — the power it has handed to its customers. The wants and needs have set the quality of vehicles, the fairness of the fares and the expanded availability of transportation options.

But instead of being driven by the customer and the consumer, this government, through the Passenger Trans- portation Board and ICBC, is going to decide the supply, the price and the boundaries for ride-sharing. In 18 months, this government has failed families of the province through its transportation policy. More families are stuck in gridlock, with a failure to address the Massey Tun- nel bottleneck and pushing back the solution by years and adding billions of dollars, undoubtedly, to the cost.

There will be fewer projects at higher costs just like the government’s previous incarnation years back, forcing unionization on public projects. The failure to deliver ride- sharing is denying people the benefit that would flow from powerful new transportation choices. This legislation is yet another transportation failure that leaves British Colum- bians paying the price for the NDP’s ideologically driven policies.

We have a bill that once again has little of substance, pawning off responsibilities to other bodies for regulation that will be developed down the road, with intense regula- Tuesday, November 20, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6621

tion and no actual plan to bring a much-needed service any- where near the smartphones of British Columbia. [2:40 p.m.] As we move into committee stage, I hope that we’ll be able to see support for amendments to this legislation from our Third Party colleagues that reflect their previously stated ideals along with ours, including allowing private insurers to provide an insurance product to the ride-hailing-vehicle industry. Private insurance opportunities are already provided all across North America, and the product does not have to be re-created. It’s available now.

We’ll be looking to make amendments to allow for this type of product to be provided. Ride-hailing, typically, is part-time work. Class 5 licensing should be adequate. To get a class 4 licence is an onerous process. I know, from personal experience, as I do have a class 4 licence. But it adds and creates additional barriers, especially for very much a part-time job. Out of curiosity, I did phone ICBC, in the motor vehicle branch, to see if I could book myself a time to get a road test for a class 4 licence. Unfortunately, after half an hour on hold, I gave up.

I will try again and will update the House in the future to see, actually, what the process is to get a class 4 licence. But my experience has been that it adds a barrier that is really going to limit the ability for people to take up this opportunity and provide transportation services around British Columbia. We’ll be seeking an amendment in this regard, and hope- fully, we’ll see the support of our Third Party colleagues.

This is a more challenging amendment to try and incorporate, given the nature of the legislation as it’s written, but seeking to let the market drive the price and volume of drivers is key to how this service is supposed to be working. It should be a market-driven service, and that determines the price, and it provides an opportunity for more people to come into the industry, where it’s necessary at any given time of day. It should be a market-based approach. The approach we are seeing by government flies in the face of the new eco- nomy and stifles creativity and entrepreneurship.

This is all being loaded back onto the transportation board and its mysterious approval process in terms of how these types of activities will be allowed. I am concerned at the circumstances that we see here. I am concerned, with the heavy-handed and controlling nature of this legislation, overseen by a government-appointed board that does not support the addition of ride-sharing services in British Columbia, that we will remain, here in British Columbia, an outlier in North America as a jurisdiction without ride-hailing.

I do look forward to the committee stage to dig a little deeper and see if we can approve this bill and actually get to a place where when you turn on ride-hailing apps in British Columbia, they actually work. P . Milobar:It gives me pleasure to rise to Bill 55, the bill around ride-hailing, the Passenger Transportation Amend- ment Act. I only wish I was rising to speak to a bill that would actually see ride-hailing and passenger transportation improvements happen in British Columbia.

Unfortunately, with this bill, what we’re seeing is nothing but further delays by the government — delays that are really unnecessary and delays that…. If the government was truly sincere about bringing forward ride-hailing and moderniza- tion of the taxi industry, we should be able to see it happen immediately, as opposed to kicking the can down the field. Now, I don’t often take more than a couple days off at any given time, but this summer I was fortunate enough to spend a week in New Y ork with my wife for our 25th anniversary. And I thought, “Well, here’s a perfect opportunity to…. ” Interjection. P .

Milobar:Thank you. She’s a very patient lady, tolerating me for that many years. [2:45 p.m.] I thought I’ d take that opportunity to try Uber. I had the app, actually, as I was on the committee looking into Uber in January, which was, remember, such a rushed process. In last fall’s session, we had to rush to create the committee. We had to rush to meet in January so that we could get our results to the minister at the beginning of February so that something could happen. Something was going to take shape. Something was going to be moved forward at lightning speed.

Although the Premier missed his target of his promise of 2017, we were going to see Uber and ride-sharing and Lyft and all of those types of companies in place by the time we’re standing here right now. After all of that rushed work, we still don’t see anything. But I digress. I go to the app on my phone, the Uber app on my phone, knowing full well it wouldn’t work in British Columbia. But I was just curious to see what the overall lay- out of it was. I didn’t bother connecting it to my credit card or anything like that at that time because I thought: “Well, I’ll never use it in British Columbia anytime soon.

So what’s the point?” I got to New Y ork and realized: “Oh, I’ve still got the app. ” So we actually took a cab from the airport down to our hotel. Unfortunately, they had mechanical problems, and they let us off at the side of the freeway and we walked a block and a half to get to a gas station to get a new cab that, luckily enough, was filling up. We got to our hotel fine. I decided well, maybe we should try Uber. Put the credit card attached to the app. I had never tried it before.

It took a little bit of getting used to in terms of trying to track where exactly the car is when you’re on a busy street and it’s com- ing — which side of the street and that and the like. But it seemed to work reasonably fine. An interesting thing was you knew exactly, as the con- sumer, how much it was going to cost you. Y ou punch in where you want to go, where you’re standing. Y ou know what the fare is going to be. In fact, they would give you some options. There were various levels of options you could take. 6622 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Y ou knew roughly how long the car was going to take within about 30 seconds or so, depending on traffic lights. Y ou could track it in real-time approaching you with a dot on the screen or the car on the screen. And as a consumer, you were able to know exactly what you were getting. There were a couple times where Uber seemed like it was a little too expensive, so we actually just went over and we hailed a cab instead. We didn’t exclusively use Uber when we were there. We used both. I think that’s, in talking with the cab drivers and the Uber drivers in New Y ork on each drive, what we were finding.

We were finding that that was the same experience they were having, that people were using both. People were exercising their own free option as a consumer, their own ability to think and their own ability to make a decision as to whether they felt Uber was a good deal at any particular given time or a cab was a good deal or, if between the cost and the conveni- ence, the two together made one form over the other more desirable. That was up to the consumer to decide. Jump forward to coming back to British Columbia. We don’t have any of that.

What we see in this bill is, frankly, not only a way to put a legislative end to ride-hailing coming in — because there’s very little in this bill that the ride-hailing industry would have been asking for — but, in fact, it adds further confusion even for the taxi industry. In fact, what we’re seeing is a piece of legislation that’ll actually add fur- ther confusion to public transportation options for people in British Columbia and further confusion for those companies that are providing those services and the people that work within those services as they move forward.

The fact that there’s still not defined geographic bound- aries but there’s a recognition that there will be some sort of geographic boundary change — but we’ll leave that to the Passenger Transportation Board. That report was in the minister’s hands in February. Why was that not directed in February to the Passenger Transportation Board? And why was that not already figured out now, instead of eight, nine months later, when now we’re going to direct the Passenger Transportation Board to start looking at redoing the bound- aries in the Lower Mainland?

If you want to talk delay that falls directly at the feet of the current Transportation Minister, there’s a very clear delay. Report generated in February. Much rush to do it. We had to meet in all of January, the committee did. I don’t mind that. I don’t mind working hard. That’s totally fine.

But one would think if such a rush was on to get the report done and one of the most basic things for the report would have been around ride-hailing and around the ability for ride-hailing compan- ies to be able to go across boundaries, that that would have been directed right then. [2:50 p.m.] Let’s not forget that there had already been a report done on the Lower Mainland area for the taxi industry, but that 34-page report was deemed not to be good enough.

I’m still not sure if it was actually read or not, because, lo and behold, the exact same consultant had been hired by the Transport- ation Minister to do the exact same work around the taxi industry again. That was the whole reason the committee on ride-hailing was created — because that new report was specifically not to look at ride-hailing, and we were specifically not to look at the taxi industry. So a report that was supposed to be basic- ally the reworking of the same work done by the exact same consultant that started even before the committee got their work done….

And here we are nine months later from the later report of the Uber committee, as it came to be known, and we’re only finally recognizing that boundaries in the Lower Mainland might be an issue when it comes to ride- hailing and the taxi industry? Forget about the fact they’ve been in power for 18 months. The fact that the Minister of Transportation took nine months to figure that piece out after all these new reports were done is astonishing, to say the least.

It’s embarrassing, actually, to have to say to people from outside jurisdictions that we don’t know when this is going to come because something as fundamentally well known as boundary issues in the Lower Mainland — both with the taxi industry and the issues they would create within the ride- hailing industry — up until yesterday seemed to be totally foreign to the Transportation Minister — not to anyone else that has an inkling of what’s going on in the transportation industry, but to the minister.

Here we have a piece of legislation that would finally direct the Passenger Transportation Board to do what they should have been doing in the first place. Y et the minister’s own answer during question period today indicated that the minister was going to be looking at the boundaries, not the Passenger Transportation Board. I’m not sure if she misspoke in her answer in a hurry to try to get an answer out — because there really wasn’t much of one there — or if she was misquoting her own bill, misquoting her own piece of legislation. Interjection. P . Milobar:Y es, it is. It’s very embarrassing.

Y ou should read theBlues, because you would find that the minister actually did commit to the minister taking care of the boun- dary issue. In fact, it’s the Passenger Transportation Board that will be. The interesting thing about that… Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members. P . Milobar:…is that the Passenger Transportation Board is being held up in this piece of legislation as the cure-all of how this is all going to just run smoothly and seamlessly and how everyone is going to be able to move quickly once all the legislation regulatory pieces are worked out. Well, let’s look at that.

It was a few months ago that the minister directed the Passenger Transportation Board to get Tuesday, November 20, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6623

500 taxi licences out for Christmas time. How has that been going? I think we’re at about 200 right now. Now, they’re still going to be processing those other 300 applications for new taxi licences at the same time they’re supposed to be doing the new boundaries, at the same time they’re supposed to be coming up with the criteria for people to apply for Uber licences, at the same time they’re supposed to be figuring out how many Uber licences would even be allowed, which typ- ically doesn’t happen anywhere.

They’re going to do all of that, and then the minister will turn around and say: “Well, we didn’t delay anything. It’s the transportation board. ” No, it’s not the transportation board. There needed to be more direction in this bill. There needed to be actual leadership in this bill from the Transportation Minister, not just washing of the hands and pushing it off to the Passenger Transportation Board. I don’t hear or see a massive up-hiring in the Passenger Transportation Board to be able to try to move these permits through in a timely fashion.

In fact, I’ d be willing to bet it would be faster for a wannabe Uber driver to apply to be a cannabis store licensed permit holder and get approved through the Attorney General’s office than it would be to apply to be an Uber driver and have your paperwork handled by the Passenger Transportation Board. That’s how ridiculous this legislation has become. To think that people on an individual basis, on a one-off basis of Uber drivers are going to go in one at a time and apply, or in pockets of five…. That’s not how this all works.

The fact that there was a total ignoring of the class 4 or class 5 driver’s licence by the minister says it all right there. [2:55 p.m.] No one is saying that you should only have a class 5, and that’s it. Of course you need to have criminal record checks, of course you need to pass those types of tests, and of course there needs to be safety check-ins for your car to make sure that there’s proper repair and maintenance to your car. All of those things need to be in play, absolutely.

But to suggest that the class 4 licence is the key to make zero problems ever hap- pen would be to suggest that there’s not occasionally the odd bad apple that drives for a taxi company. Now, I’m not saying the taxi companies and the taxi drivers in general. I’ve always had good experiences with them. So I’m not trying to paint the industry with a brush. But it’s like any industry. When you have thousands of people working in it, there’s the odd underperformer. There’s the odd person that maybe snuck through the cracks or shouldn’t be actually operating.

Y ou hope that the system will catch and identify those people. Having someone on the front end take an extra step while they’re waiting for the passenger transportation board, then sit around and, as the previous speaker said, start to wait for ICBC to have a road test for their class 4 will not only back up the ICBC offices, but it will make an even longer wait for that person to be able to try to make a living. Look at what happens when you start backing up the ICBC office.

I’ve written the minister earlier this year about issues we’ve had in Kamloops, where people with their Ns and their Ls are trying to get road tests and are being told to come back in six months because of staffing shortages, because of people away on legitimate long-term leaves and not able to backfill. That’s the real world that people are living in. I know the other side doesn’t want to actually hear about the real world. They would prefer to just pretend that everything works in a great theoretical realm.

But the reality is that there are a great many people out there in a great many road test centres that are waiting long periods of time for something as simple as getting their class 5 to begin with. We’re now telling people…. Plus all that competition for time. Let’s add in all these other people to come back in and get retested for essentially one extra criteria check instead of the skill set of: “Can you drive a vehicle properly? Do you know the rules of the road?

Do you operate in a safe manner?” They could even do a quick, simple endorsement to a class 5, like you do if you want to pull an oversized travel trail- er over a certain weight. Y ou go in, and you have a class 5. I don’t have a class 4, like the previous speaker, but I have that endorsement — to be able to haul a travel trailer. That was a much simpler process than if I’ d tried getting a class 4.

Those processes exist, but those processes exist and could be used only if you had a government that actually was trying to make something streamlined and only if you had a government that was actually interested in trying to make true, relevant changes versus finding roadblocks to modernization. In an earlier interview, I likened it to when the CRTC was first trying to control the Internet. I think the govern- ment needs to recognize that the world is changing. They can keep putting up these roadblocks all they want. They can keep having their innovation commissioner.

They really like to tout the new innovation commissioner, and here they are trying to block one of the most simple of new technologies coming in within the transportation realm, trying to make it sound as if this is some insurmountable hurdle that needs to happen. We haven’t heard about the boundaries being a huge issue in the other jurisdictions, yet here it seems to be a massive, massive problem. When you start looking at the bill…. As our previous speaker said, we’re looking at bringing in a few amendments.

Now, frankly, I’m not holding my breath that the junior partners of the government are going to support any of the amendments. I hope they do, but so far we’ve seen a long history of bluster. We’ve seen a long history of threats and demands, very public, and then, at the end of the day, noth- ing but capitulation.

We’re watching it right now unfold during the commit- tee stage with the speculation tax — amendments to allow municipalities to opt out, after months of the Leader of the Third Party insisting that that would bring the government down if they didn’t at least amend that, and that he was going to amend that, and he was going to make sure it was 6624 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 20, 2018

amended. What did we see? We saw him vote against that very same amendment on the speculation tax, in spite of what he was promising to do in face-to-face meetings with mayors, in spite of what he was promising the public he would do in terms of how he would conduct his votes in this House. [3:00 p.m.] I have every expectation, frankly, that that’s going to hap- pen. That’s going to happen as we see this bill unfold. We’re going to hear lots and lots of bluster from the Third Party about how they’re disappointed in certain aspects of the bill.

It’s the exact same aspects that we’re probably going to agree need amending. We’ll bring in those amendments. Then they will come up with some excuse, some reason — probably because of a conversation in the $1 million secretariat room that none of the public is ever privy to — to make sure that that doesn’t happen, to make sure that the government can continue to stall ride-hailing and ride-sharing and, more importantly, improvements to the overall transportation net- work system that the public is demanding happen. Let’s look at something like insurance.

It’ d be very simple for the government to allow the private sector to come in when it comes to passenger transportation companies. That type of insurance product exists all over the place. In fact, the insurance industry has been all over the airwaves the last couple of days, saying they’re ready to go. They could jump into B.C. in a heartbeat. But it would require the government to allow the dreaded private sector to actually do something in this province, so that’s not going to happen. Let’s look at the ramification of that not happening sooner.

Let’s just say for a moment that the minister changed the insurance right now and allowed that to happen while still dragging their feet on all of the licensing and approvals and everything else Uber drivers would have. Why is that significant? Because when you look at people within the taxi industry saying that they’re paying up to $37,000 a year in insurance for a cab, allowing those cab industry people access to a more affordable, equitable insur- ance product instantly would actually help the current taxi industry.

But the Transportation Minister doesn’t seem too concerned about helping the current taxi industry get more competitive, doesn’t seem to be too worried about helping the taxi industry meet their request of their 500 licences that they’ d like to see extra on the road, doesn’t see intent to help them at all.

It makes perfect sense if there’s an insurance product out there for a passenger transportation vehicle, be it a taxi or an Uber or whatever it is, that says, “On the 12 hours it’s parked in the compound not doing the work of the vehicle, you’re not paying any insurance of any great significance…. ” The odds of it causing any harm when it’s sitting parked in a compound and not earning any money are pretty slim. But when you have the meter running, when you’re out on the road looking for fares, you pay insurance for that 12 hours or eight hours or whatever it happens to be.

That seems to be an insurance model that has worked for the Uber and ride- hailing industry. The taxi industry would love to see that come in as well, because they know it would drop their cost structure. They know they wouldn’t have to come up with $3,000 a month for insurance for their cabs. That would make them more competitive. They’ve been a long-standing industry in this province. They’re very hard-working men and women. They take great pride in what they do. They work very hard. They’re like any other small business. They look at any way they can to try to keep their costs under control.

At $3,000 a month for insur- ance, and having the minister stall an insurance product that would actually result in them paying less insurance, I can’t understand how they would think that’s a good thing. I think that they’re realists. I think that the taxi industry is realist. I think they understand that it’s only a matter of time that things will keep evolving, that the modern world will keep changing how people order their passenger transporta- tion vehicle to come pick them up and take them from point A to point B. I think the taxi industry fully understands that.

I think they don’t understand why we have a Minister of Transportation who’s done nothing to address their insur- ance needs as well as the ride-hailing company’s insurance needs and is essentially saying to the taxi industry: “Y ou can only have cheaper insurance once we allow Uber and Lyft to have cheaper insurance. ” Well, I would say, on behalf of the taxi industry, that’s not good enough. They should be able to get cheaper insurance as soon as possible under the same insurance models that are being discussed for Uber and Lyft moving forward.

Y ou know, the other side loves to try to keep pointing out that we’ve had years; we’ve had years. I don’t think anyone is disagreed that there was some learning that needed to hap- pen, that there were some early days problems that needed to be understood and addressed. [3:05 p.m.] Those days have long since passed though. Those days have long since passed to the point that the Premier himself said during the election — made a promise, made a commit- ment to this province — that a year ago, as we stand here today, we would already be having this system in place.

Of course, he also said there’ d be a simple yes-or-no ques- tion on a referendum. He also said it would be part of a municipal campaign. He also said it would be part of a dual- threshold system of a referendum. He’s also said there’ll be no closed lists. So right now I’m starting to have a little hard time believing at what point we start to take the word of the Premier on these types of promises, because he’s also said that we would have it in the fall of 2018 after he blew past the fall of 2017 promise. Well, I’m standing here. Last I checked, it’s the fall of 2018.

In fact, when is the winter solstice — December 21? We’re about 30 days away from winter solstice, 31 days away. And the best we’re hearing is maybe this time next year, maybe in 2019. And I say maybe, because by all indications, whenever Tuesday, November 20, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6625

the government has been pressed on these dates, 2019 starts to filter off, and it starts to become apparent that the goal of this bill is to create an environment where people could actu- ally apply by this time next year to get a licence. Then they could sit in the queue with the Passenger Trans- portation Board for who knows how long, trying to find out whether or not they get a licence. Once they get that licence….

And it’s not sure, obviously, at this point, if the Passenger Transportation Board would require you to stand in the ICBC line and wait for your class 4 licence first, to wait six months to get that licence to then turn around and go in the line. If that’s the case, you would not actually be able to apply until the spring of 2020 if you have to wait to get your class 4 first.

Given the moving goalposts of these dates, I don’t know why anyone would go out and get a class 4 licence and spend the extra money and time and everything else trying to get their class 4 licence when they’re not even 100 percent sure when this may or may not happen and what the process to apply would be. Most people applying would reasonably know if their criminal record check would pass. I know of, in the city of Kamloops’s case — and I know a great many other com- munities are that way — taxi companies who had a driver that wanted to drive that didn’t pass the criminal record check.

The RCMP recommended they not get a cab licence. It would come in front of city council, and it would be a quasi-judicial hearing by city council in a closed meeting, and you’ d make a final determination. I’m not sure if that’s going to happen here with Uber or Lyft drivers. There’s no real clarity on that. There’s a lot of back-and-forth language in this bill, but there’s no real clar- ity on a whole lot of stuff. The bottom line is that this bill does nothing to try to actually implement ride-hailing into the province.

I can only imagine where we’ll wind up, hearing from the Third Party, as we bring forward our amendments. It’ll be a very interest- ing conversation, because on the one hand, they’ve been very clear that they really think we need to have ride-hailing. Y et their partners in government — it’s one of the reasons that they’re taking their time with this — are worried about all the congestion it will cause on the roads.

Y et at the same time, we see the Leader of the Third Party out front, touting all the EV vehicles and this new magical target for EV vehicles that will probably give him justifica- tion for supporting LNG, is my guess, because now they’ll have this 2040 goal for EV vehicles they never have to prove out while they’re approving all the LNG legislation and approvals that need to happen over the next little while, so they can turn to their base and try to pretend that they’re still meeting their targets while approving LNG and that they didn’t actually sell out on LNG.

It’ll be very interesting, and I wait to hear what the Third Party comes up with to try to justify why they’re not going to support our amendments, the exact same amendments that they’ve said all along they think need to happen to make ride-share actually a proper ride-share, ride-hail-type sys- tem, yet at the same time, probably try to use the excuse of congestion, even though they’ve known about congestion. [3:10 p.m.] I know the Leader of the Third Party spoke about possible congestion even as we were going through this as a commit- tee back in January.

They’ve certainly been aware of it all this time, have not really mentioned it as a potential problem, have mentioned that they would like to see similar amend- ments that we’ve made, or will be making, as a way forward to try to actually get this. Y ou have an innovation commissioner. Y ou have parties that are trying to tout innovation. Y ou have a Premier that’s desperately trying to recapture his youth and speak like he’s 32 again. Y ou have all these things going on. Y et the one piece of transportation that has been solved everywhere…. It has been solved in North Battleford, Saskatchewan — a fine place.

I have been there. And Kazakhstan. I haven’t been to Kazakhstan. I hear it’s lovely in the springtime, though. They both have ride-hailing. In fact, I found it interesting earlier today. Maybe that is the key to PR. Several examples they use were actually PR countries. Maybe that’s actually the sales pitch for PR. It’s what they’re trying to say. With PR, you’ d actually get ride- hailing, because apparently, under first-past-the-post, they really don’t want to bring it in.

It’s ridiculous in the extreme that we need to stand in this House at the end of 2018, knowing full well that there is no way that this legislation will be in practice, in actual func- tion, will be picking up fares, will be transporting people around in British Columbia until, at the earliest, mid-to- late spring in 2020. There is absolutely no way, given the timelines laid out in this legislation. In fact, when staff and anyone else within government is pressed on that fact by the media, they have actually backed that up on earlier press conferences and when this bill got introduced.

The reality is that 2019 is nothing more…. Like the ref- erendum, it’s a sham. It is nothing more than a date made to placate people. It is nothing more than an acknowledg- ment that at a minimum, it’s a two-year broken promise by the Premier, going into a third-year broken promise by the Premier. It is nothing more than a reaffirmation that one should be very careful what they trust when the Premier makes a commitment, because it seems that be it PR or be it ride-hailing, neither of those two topics ever seem to have any commitments that actually stand the test of time.

They continually seem to keep moving, and they continu- ally seem to get changed at the moment and at the whim of the Premier. Bill 55, by title — I like the title. Bill 55 in practice does nothing to achieve ride-hailing and the modernization of the passenger transportation system in our province.

I look for- ward to the amendments coming, and I really do encour- age our Green partners for once to put their money where their mouth is and actually stand up and vote for something they’ve told the public and their grassroots supporters all along that they support. 6626 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 20, 2018

T. Stone:I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 55, the Pas- senger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018. The amend- ments that are provided for within this relatively large bill are intended, or so we’re led to believe, to pave the way for the introduction of ride-sharing into the B.C. market. The amendments provide for changes across eight statutes and a whole bunch of regulations that will then flow from that. I start there because this was a file that I was able to devel- op a fair bit of familiarity with, if I can say it that way. It is a very complex regulatory framework that’s in place.

It’s akin to the complexity that exists with the liquor framework in British Columbia. The passenger transportation framework has been built up in this province through successive gov- ernments over literally decades and decades. [3:15 p.m.] Arguably, the legislation and the regulations that form the passenger transportation framework haven’t kept with the times, haven’t kept with the rapidly evolving technologies that we see in passenger transportation and that we see very vividly with respect to ride-sharing.

In terms of the key principles that this package of legis- lation is intending to address, I think all members of the House can acknowledge that there is value in these prin- ciples and that they’re worthy of embracing. Enabling a regulatory framework for the introduction of ride-sharing to British Columbia is good. Obviously, ensur- ing public safety, the safety of drivers but also the travelling public, is important.

Establishing a system that allows for the existing industry — so the taxi industry and the existing pas- senger transportation companies — to continue to thrive as well as welcoming new entrants is a worthy principle, as are reducing regulatory overlap and burden, enhancing com- pliance and enforcement and, very notably, protecting and enhancing accessibility and accessible service in passenger transportation. All of these principles, as detailed in the package that is wrapped around these amendments, are worthy and do carry tremendous value.

I think, as I said, all members of the House can get behind those principles. I mentioned a moment ago the disruptive element of this particular industry, ride-sharing. As a former tech CEO myself, I’m proud to have been associated with, prior to my coming into politics, lots of individuals in my business life, prior to elected office, in the technology space. There is no question that the technology that is represented in ride-shar- ing came upon the world very quickly. This is a file that landed on my desk shortly after becoming a minister back in the summer of 2013.

As the member who spoke prior to me, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson…. There is no question that this particular industry, the ride-sharing industry…. Some call it the ride-hailing industry now or transportation net- work services, passenger-directed vehicles — all kinds of dif- ferent phrases to describe the industry. It has evolved quickly. There were lots of lessons to learn through the period of 2013, ’14, ’15. As this disruptive tech- nology emerged in parts of North America and other parts of Canada and, indeed, in other parts of the world, it emerged and was bumpy in some places.

There were no end of issues in jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions really grappled with how to embrace this disruptive technology known as ride-sharing. It was important in the earlier years of our last man- date…. Certainly, as the minister responsible, it was very important to open up a dialogue about the potential impacts of ride-sharing coming into British Columbia — to open that dialogue with the taxi industry, to open that dialogue, obviously, with ride-sharing companies and potential new entrants into our market but also to have that dialogue with local governments.

There are significant passenger transportation implications at the local level that are represented through the onset of ride-sharing. And, of course, to have that dialogue with British Colum- bians in communities big and small. [3:20 p.m.] There has been a lot of focus on ride-sharing and its potential benefits but also the challenges that it poses to existing industry in Metro Vancouver.

There is also an appet- ite for additional passenger transportation choice and con- sumer convenience in small communities, whether it be my hometown of Kamloops or whether it be along Highway 16 and communities there that are looking to provide innovat- ive transportation options for their citizens. The point was that through the early to midsection of our last mandate, and as the minister responsible, it was import- ant to have these conversations. It was important to do the research. It was important to conduct the reviews that were conducted then.

It was important to learn those lessons from other jurisdictions around the world. Where that got us was that by late 2016 and into 2017, we had done a tremendous amount of work, as the government of the day, at not only having those conversations and learn- ing those lessons but developing a brand-new framework for passenger transportation here in British Columbia. That cul- minated in three tracks of work. One was the development of an actual legislative package, which was done through to the end of December of 2016. I will talk about that more in a moment.

That also involved a lot of work at ICBC in terms of developing not just an insurance product that would be needed for ride-sharing companies — recognizing that there is no existing insurance product that ICBC can offer for the model that is represented by ride-sharing — but also addressing the taxi industry’s long-standing and, frankly, rightfully placed concerns around the cost of insurance to their industry and ways to improve how insurance works for the taxi industry. There was a tremendous amount of work, through a good amount of 2016 and into 2017, on the insurance product side of this question as well.

Thirdly, pulling together all of the above, the potential proposed legislative changes and what that would mean for driver and passenger safety. Changes to how the Passenger Tuesday, November 20, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6627

Transportation Board would function and what that would mean to its relationship with government. They’re changes that would significantly impact — I believe, in a positive way — local governments and communities across British Columbia. All of that had to be considered not just from a regulatory perspective but also from a policy perspective. There’s a tremendous amount of policy work done. This all culminated on March 7, 2017.

I very proudly stood in Vancouver at the Trade and Convention Centre as the minister responsible, along with my then colleague Peter Fassbender, the former minister of community services and member for Surrey-Fleetwood. We were proud that day, on March 7, 2017, to announce that we were moving forward with the introduction of legislation, with policy changes and with insurance product development approvals to welcome this new industry into British Columbia, and doing so all the while respecting, appreciating, acknowledging and support- ing the contributions of the existing taxi industry.

That was our commitment to voters, to British Colum- bians, in 2017. We put our plan in the shop window, so to speak. I’ll come back to the more detailed reminder for you of what those plans were. We put that in front of British Columbians, and we said, going into the provincial election which took place in May of 2017, that we would, if re-elec- ted, at the first session after an election, be introducing that legislative framework, that package, and other related regu- lations.

And we would also be ensuring that the insurance products for both changes on the taxi insurance side but also the new insurance product for the ride-sharing com- panies…. [3:25 p.m.] All of this would be done and would be ready so that ride- sharing could be welcomed in British Columbia in time for the holiday, the Christmas season of 2017. We had that work all done. We do know that the NDP and the Greens matched that election commitment and also promised to welcome ride-sharing by Christmas of 2017. Well, not to rehash what happened from that point for- ward…. Interjections. T.

Stone:As much as some members of the House might want me to regale a transfer of power that may have taken place, I’ll let them use their time to talk about that part. But there was a transfer of power in July of 2017. There was a new government that was sworn in, and that new gov- ernment now sits on the government benches. It is an NDP government, a minority government, that is supported by three Green members of this House.

Therefore, at that point, it was incumbent upon this new government, the NDP , to deliver on their election commitment — which again, as I said a moment ago, was to facilitate the introduction of ride- sharing in British Columbia by December of 2017. We then, as the summer of 2017 left us, found ourselves in the fall of 2017. Very regrettably, despite an election com- mitment to do otherwise, the current Minister of Transport- ation announced that ride-sharing would not be coming in 2017. Rather, there would be a plan underway to pave the way for ride-sharing in 2018.

Now, we know that there were two facets to that plan. There was the Hara report. This was to look at what strategies could be employed to further strengthen the taxi industry. I understand that, and we’ll talk about that in a moment. But there was a second track, which was represented through the legislative committee — the legislative committee of this House with representatives from all parties — that was man- dated to deliberate and to come back with a plan for the entry of ride-sharing in British Columbia. All of that work was done that winter and into early 2018.

We were then advised, earlier this year and the sum- mer, that, in fact, ride-sharing would not be introduced

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20181120pm-Hansard-n187
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20181120pm Hansard n187
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1eb58dde0da322db65a9bf40639bab77fb386c7a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).