British Columbia Hansard — 26 November 2018, p.m., Issue 192 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20181126pm-Hansard-n192

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday, November 26, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 192 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 Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................................

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

Gary Lenz Acting Sergeant-at-Arms......................................................................................................................................... Randall Ennis, MMM, CD

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 Monday, November 26, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 6829 Introduction and First Reading of Bills................................................................................................................................ 6830 Bill M223 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2018 J.

Sturdy Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 6831 Days of Activism campaign against gender-based violence M. Dean Hazel Pietila J. Sturdy Fire hoses and safe driving J. Routledge Sexual consent J. Thornthwaite Leonard Krog D. Routley An Evening for the Animals SPCA fundraiser S.

Bond Oral Questions......................................................................................................................................................................... 6833 Role of Attorney General Ministry in legal advice on administrative leave motion A. Wilkinson Hon. D. Eby S. Bond Excavation in Shawnigan Lake area and permit application S. Furstenau Hon. M. Mungall Role of Attorney General Ministry in legal advice on administrative leave motion J. Johal Hon. D. Eby Legislature investigation and legal advice on administrative leave motion L. Throness Hon. D. Eby T. Stone M. Stilwell P .

Milobar M. Lee M. de Jong Tabling Documents................................................................................................................................................................. 6838 Budget 2018, second quarterly report Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, annual report, 2017 Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6838 P . Milobar D.

Ashton Standing Order 35 (Deputy Speaker’s Ruling) .................................................................................................................... 6839 Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance — administrative leave for Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms Orders of the Day Motions Without Notice......................................................................................................................................................... 6839 Powers and role of Finance Committee Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Human Rights Commissioner Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6840 Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018(continued) Hon. C. Trevena J. Sturdy A. Olsen T. Stone T.

Shypitka Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 6847 Bill 57 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6847 Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018(continued) J.

Sturdy Point of Order (Chair’s Ruling) ............................................................................................................................................. 6848 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6848 Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018(continued) J. Sturdy Hon. C. Trevena T. Stone A. Olsen Hon. L. Beare J.

Thornthwaite Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 6852 Bill 47 — Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act Third Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 6852 Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6852 Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018(continued) J.

Sturdy Hon. C. Trevena A. Olsen T. Stone Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 6858 Bill 54 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2018 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6859 Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018(continued) J. Sturdy T. Stone J. Thornthwaite Hon. C. Trevena A.

Olsen Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 6868 Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018 Third Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 6868 Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6868 Bill 57 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018(continued) J.

Y ap Hon. D. Eby A. Weaver M. Lee Bill 47 — Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act Hon. A. Dix J. Isaacs N. Letnick

Committee of the Whole House(continued) Bill 54 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2018 M. Lee Hon. D. Eby A. Weaver Bill 52 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018 I. Paton Hon. L. Popham D. Davies B. Stewart M. Bernier M. Hunt

MONDAY , NOVEMBER 26, 2018 The House met at 1:35 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Hon. J. Darcy:We’re very fortunate to have a family visit- ing from New Westminster today — their first trip, I think, with their children to the Legislature. Andrea Spence is a Crown counsel lawyer with the B.C. prosecution service cur- rently working in the Richmond courthouse, and Devin Schellenberg is the head of the radiation oncology depart- ment at the B.C. Cancer Agency in Surrey.

With them are their two children, Cora Schellenberg, who’s in grade 2 at École Herbert Spencer Elementary, and Emery Schellenberg, who is in preschool. They visited the B.C. museum yesterday. Today they’re here in the Legislature because they want to introduce their children to how government works. I will ask the entire House to please make them very welcome and hope that we show them the best of what happens in this chamber today and not the worst. Hon. J. Horgan:If the members will indulge me, I have an embarrassment of introductions today.

Firstly, of course, I was joined this morning by the consul general for Ireland, Frank Flood, who was bringing greetings from the Emerald Isle. We talked about a range of issues. He’s welcoming everyone here to visit Ireland anytime soon, and I encourage members from the opposition to do that in the next number of days. The rest of us, wait until the House is recessed. I also want to introduce His Excellency Thomas Winkler, the ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark, who’s with us in the gallery today. Of course, members will know that we have an outstanding relationship with Denmark.

They will be playing in the World Junior Hockey Championship right here in Victoria and Vancouver, over the Christmas break. I look forward to talking to the ambassador about that as we meet this afternoon. I also want to acknowledge, and all members will join me in this…. Shane O’Grady from protective services and his wife, Alicia Hardy, welcomed Cora, 6 pounds 14 ounces, on October 1. Shane is one of the people who do diligent work for all of us here in the Legislature. I know that members will want to congratulate the arrival of Cora.

Lastly, I want to speak about the James Bay Elementary child care group; 27 people not bigger than this were by, in my office today. They were sitting out in the rain eating their snacks, and I thought I’ d bring them in out of the cold. We had a delightful chat about: “What was that flag? What was that flag?” Among them was the grandson of my best friend; Desi Finnerty was here today. Would the House please con- gratulate Desi for getting into the building assisted. And to all the others who are with us today, would the House please make them very, very welcome. Hon. K.

Conroy:As we all know in this House, we all have incredible staff, and I’m no different. In the gallery today is Kaitlin Morton, who’s my amazing admin assistant. She has some guests here in the gallery that have come to observe us on our last couple of days. They wanted to come for question period. With her are her parents, Randy and Marie Morton, and they’re from Oak Bay; as well as her friend, Trinity MacRea; and Trinity’s mom, Christine. Also with Trinity is her 12-year-old son, Jack, who, I’ve heard, is very inter- ested in hearing what happens in QP .

Again, I say he’s 12, and if all members could remember that when we head into question period. But would you join me in all making them very welcome. M.

Dean: Today I was privileged to be part of a round table hosted by the Premier to launch our commitment to 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. [1:40 p.m.] It was my honour to be joined by Chastity Davis from the Minister’s Advisory Council on Indigenous Women; Ninu Kang from MOSAIC; Angela Marie MacDougall from Battered Women’s Support Services; Linda Amy from the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre; Karen Martin from the Dis- ability Alliance of B.C.; and Elba Bendo from West Coast LEAF . They’re all in the gallery now. Would everybody please make them very welcome. Hon. J.

Sims: It’s my pleasure to welcome into the House — I know all of you will join me — Jasbir Dhaliwal, Avatar Sahota and Rashpal Kaur Atwal. These three amazing women are here because they’ve dealt with some pretty sig- nificant issues. They’ve had an amazing journey. They’re here to keep their daughter company and to be here to witness the 16 days of action for gender-based violence. I’m hoping all of you will welcome them. They’re very proud of their daughter Ninu Kang for the work she has done in this area. Hon. G.

Heyman: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of staff from the assistant deputy minister offices in the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, the information and records management team and correspondence unit. They’re here to watch all of us today and expecting us to be on our very best model beha- viour during QP . I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Waheema Asghar, Marilynn Quigley, Deborah Carroll, Sabrina Cousins, Chelsea Delaney-Spindler, Diana Ainsworth, Julia Fedoruk, Kirsten Hundza, Shawne 6829

Muller, Nick Pinheiro, Rebecca Westley, Jennifer Verge, Jelene Baker and Sara Nicoll. J. Rice: Today from the Y ahgulaanaas clan of the Haida Nation, Tamara Davidson, or Laanas, is in the House. Tamara has over two decades of experience working with the federal government and two decades of experience work- ing with First Nations relationship-building with all levels of government. She has much experience with policy and planning, advisory work, and she’s the former visitor exper- ience manager of the Gwaii Haanas National Park. Tamara has recently moved to Victoria.

I would like the House to please make her feel welcome. Hon. C. Trevena:They’re not in the gallery at the moment but will be coming in shortly, and some have already been through this House. We have, in the precinct today, 36 stu- dents from Carihi, one of the two secondary schools in Campbell River. They are grade 10 students who are here with their teacher, Matt Moore, learning about the way that our government works from practice. Hopefully, when they come in, they will be able to observe the intrigues of question period and learn something a bit more about government.

I hope the House will make them all very welcome. S. Furstenau:I’m absolutely delighted to introduce two young women who are here today in the gallery and, indeed, spending the day here at the Legislature to learn more about it. Lena Price and Juliet Watts are second-year political sci- ence and public administration students at UVic. They’ve come to learn about this place more. I know it seems like I’m being generous with my time by having these young people shadow me.

In fact, it’s their gen- erosity that helps me, because it really gives me so much hope to meet young people who are so engaged and so inves- ted in making a better future for this world. Would the House please make them feel welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL M223 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 J. Sturdy presented a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2018. J.

Sturdy:I move that a bill intituled Miscellaneous Stat- utes (Passenger Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now. British Columbians are disappointed that the NDP appear to be setting up ride-sharing to fail in this province.

This bill, in contrast, paves the way for ride-sharing in British Columbia to thrive, thus providing more choice and con- venience for consumers. [1:45 p.m.] It allows for a level playing field for existing and new operators, including driver’s licence and vehicle standards, insurance requirements and service and supply flexibility; standardized provincial licensing; safety, enforcement and consumer protection requirements; removal of red tape and overlap within the system, which will save all drivers money; removal of restrictions related to supply so that the number of providers on B.C. roads from both existing and new operators would be determined by consumer demand; removal of boundary restrictions so that drivers have the same access to provide services wherever and whenever a passenger needs a ride; removal of local gov- ernment ability to require chauffeur permits, business licences and other restrictive requirements; and provisions to ensure availability for accessible services.

This bill would also provide a framework for replacing class 4 driver’s licence requirements with a class 5 require- ment for drivers of both existing and new operators and ensuring that a level playing field is in place that supports consumer and driver safety, including a minimum of 19 years of age for drivers and a possession of an unrestricted driver’s licence, criminal record checks, driver record checks and vehicle inspections.

As well, this bill would facilitate the provision of auto- mobile insurance for all new operators, allowing for the pos- sibility of such insurance to be provided by private sector operators in a timely manner, all the while ensuring a level playing field related to insurance coverages and costs for both existing and new operators. It’s time to welcome ride-sharing to British Columbia and to do so now with this bill — not years from now, if ever, with the government bill. Mr.

Speaker:Members, the question is first reading of the bill. [1:50 p.m.] Bill M223, Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2018, introduced and read a first time on the following division: YEAS — 44 Furstenau Olsen Cadieux de Jong Bond Polak Wilkinson Lee Stone Coleman Wat Bernier Thornthwaite Paton Ashton Barnett Y ap Martin Davies Kyllo Sullivan Isaacs Morris Stilwell Ross Oakes Johal Redies Rustad Milobar Sturdy Clovechok Shypitka Hunt Throness Tegart Stewart Sultan Gibson 6830 British Columbia Debates Monday, November 26, 2018

Reid Letnick Thomson Larson Foster NAYS — 41 Chouhan Kahlon Begg Brar Heyman Donaldson Mungall Bains Beare Chen Popham Trevena Sims Chow Kang Simons D’Eith Routley Ma Elmore Dean Routledge Singh Leonard Darcy Simpson Robinson Farnworth Horgan James Eby Dix Ralston Mark Fleming Conroy Fraser Chandra Herbert Rice Weaver Glumac J. Sturdy: I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M223, Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2018, ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25B) DAYS OF ACTIVISM CAMPAIGN AGAINST GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE M. Dean:Y esterday marked the beginning of the United Nations 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. Everyone has the right to feel safe in their home and their community.

Y et I know, from my own experiences and the stories of countless others, that women and trans- gender and non-binary people continue to face gender- based violence in every aspect of their life. In B.C. alone, there are over 1,000 physical or sexual assaults against women every week. We know that Indigen- ous people, people of colour, immigrants, people with disab- ilities and LGBTQ2S individuals are significantly more likely to be the target of gender-based violence, harassment and discrimination.

It is our responsibility to ensure that their voices are acknowledged and heard and to do all we can to make our communities safer. I’m proud to be part of a government that’s working to advance gender equity and provide the sup- ports people need and to see the investments we’ve made in programs and services for people who have experienced violence. We know that having a safe place to turn is vital. No one should ever have to decide between staying in an abusive relationship or being homeless.

That’s why we’re working with community partners to build 1,500 new homes for women and children who are seeking a refuge from violence. We couldn’t do this work without our partners. I want to thank everyone who has stepped up to fight gender-based violence in all its forms. To all who have experienced gender-based violence, you are not alone. We hear you. We believe you, and we will con- tinue the fight. Together we can end gender-based violence. HAZEL PIETILA J. Sturdy: I am pleased to rise today to recognize a woman in my community who is truly inspirational.

Hazel Pietila of Pemberton is more than a centenarian. She recently just turned 102. I was honoured to join Hazel and her family and friends for a celebration of her birthday. The afternoon of cake and stories was hosted by the Pem- berton Valley Senior Society. [1:55 p.m.] Hazel moved to the west coast from Ontario in the early ’70s as a young parent, with her late husband, Bill, and their first son. The family settled first in D’ Arcy, more than an hour north of Pemberton on the shores of Anderson Lake.

Hazel and Bill had 11 children in all — seven boys and four girls — and Hazel is now the proud matriarch of more than 100 grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great- grandchildren. Over the many years that Hazel has lived in Pemberton, she’s been heavily involved in the legion, the Ladies Auxiliary and the church. Hip surgery and a bad knee have recently slowed Hazel down a bit, but she gets around well with the aid of a walker and lots of help from her family and friends. Travel and family reunions have been part of ensuring the large family stays connected.

I was pleased that Hazel was willing to participate in the recent Remembrance Day ceremony in Pemberton, where she laid the wreath on behalf of the province of British Columbia. Hazel attributes her longevity to working really hard for most of her long life, in combination with family, which sounds like a great formula, and of course, living in a small, connected community like Pemberton has helped. “Y ou couldn’t wish for a better place. It’s just wonderful, a wonder- ful place to be, ” said Hazel. Hazel, as a Pemberton resident myself, I know that Pem- berton is a great place, in no small part because of you.

FIRE HOSES AND SAFE DRIVING J. Routledge:Well, it happened again. This time in Burn- aby. This time on Halloween night. Vehicles drove over a fire hose charged with water while firefighters were battling a second-alarm structure fire. In fact, five vehicles drove over that same hose that night. One driver even tried to justify it by saying: “Well, I just live over there. ” That’s no excuse. The dangers of driving over fire hoses have gotten a lot of Monday, November 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6831

media coverage, but for anyone who missed the story, let me summarize. Driving over an uncharged line could damage the internal water jacket, making the hose useless. Charging the damaged hose could result in catastrophic failure, rup- turing it, possibly injuring firefighters or bystanders as well as delaying getting water to the fire — or worse. In January, a Vancouver firefighter was knocked off his feet by a fire hose that was dragged under a car that was leaving the scene. He ended up in the hospital, and he is still off work almost a year later.

Driving over a fire hose that is fully charged with water is even more dangerous. It can cause the hose to whip around with tremendous force, leading to serious injury to first responders and to bystanders. Y ou might even dam- age your vehicle. The fire hose is the firefighter’s lifeline. When you drive over the hose, you could be cutting off their water supply. Any disruption to the water supply puts in danger the lives of both firefighters and the people they are rescuing. Let’s make a commitment to be good citizens. Let’s not be in such a hurry to get to where we’re going.

Let’s pay atten- tion when we see emergency vehicles. Let’s not be tempted to ignore the barriers and the orange cones or the instructions of the firefighters. Let’s save ourselves the $81 fine. But most importantly, let’s save some lives. SEXUAL CONSENT J. Thornthwaite:Y esterday started the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. This year’s theme is #myac- tionsmatter. It’s a call to action that asks everyone to take concrete steps to question, call out and speak up against acts of gender-based violence. What can you do? Listen, believe, speak out, intervene or act.

Two very special young women in my life have chosen to act. They want to meet the Minister of Education to help develop policies about consent in our high schools. They congratulated our government’s work on sexual assault policies in the post-secondary system, but they said that that is far too late. Some boys have already learned what they can get away with by that time, in grade 8, so at a minimum, it’s got to start there. I quote one of the young women. “I lost my virginity at 14. I didn’t know what was happening to me. He told me if I loved him, I had to have sex with him. I said no. He did it anyway.

I didn’t know at the time that I was raped. ” She went on to say that young people are not educated on what con- sent is, that you can be raped when you are in a relationship. [2:00 p.m.] Tea and Consent is a powerful PSA by the British Thames police that really drives home, in simple terms, what consent is. In less than three minutes, the video explains that even if you invite a guest over for tea and they agree to join you, if they change their mind and say they don’t want tea, then don’t force them to drink tea — and certainly don’t pour it down their throats when they’re unconscious.

Unconscious people don’t want tea. They can’t answer the question, “Do you want tea?” because they are unconscious. If they say they don’t want tea, they don’t want tea. Don’t make them drink tea if they say they don’t want to. The law is clear. Sex without consent is rape, and consent is everything. I hope the minister will meet with these two brave young women so that not one more girl has to live through being forced to drink tea with someone they didn’t want to, even if they agreed to the tea party to begin with. LEONARD KROG D.

Routley:It gives me great pleasure and honour to stand and speak about my dear friend, the member for Nanaimo. The member for Nanaimo — his grandma Euphrates brought him into politics, exposed him to the ideas and democratic socialism that he so was committed to. His fath- er, Doug, died when he was four, in a workplace accident. He drowned. His mom, Eileen, raised four kids on her own. The member for Nanaimo was the youngest. His wife, Sharon, a lawyer — they shared a practice. His son, Parker, a lawyer now in the family business. And Jessica, their daughter, is a student at Vancouver Island University.

The member comes from Coombs, a small town where he says he grew to understand poverty — the injustice — and made a commitment to fight that. He’s won five provincial elections and now has won a landslide victory as the new mayor of Nanaimo. His story reads like an historical novel of Nanaimo. His characteristics are those of steadfastness. He’s a bridge build- er, he’s loyal, he’s selfless, he’s consistent, and he’s devoted. This is testimony. As Deputy Whip when we were in opposition, I grew to respect the versatility and talents of the member for Nanaimo.

We all — those of us lucky enough to witness him in those days — could understand how he could stand up at a moment’s notice and give a half-hour dissertation on recycling legislation and draw the obvious connection back to the Magna Carta. This was the style of the member for Nanaimo as a legislator. He’s an encyclopedia. He’s a historian. He could also reach into the language of the sawmill green chain. If you crossed swords with the member for Nanaimo in public debate, it would take time for you to understand just what a Krog critique meant. His insults came with footnotes.

In fact, those who were dispatched by the member would go away to do research to understand just how severe the rapier dispatch was. We all, here, represent. Some of us, the best of us, come to be representative. We’re all part of our communities, but some of us become part and parcel. Leonard belongs to the people of Nanaimo. He’s theirs, not just one of them. So it 6832 British Columbia Debates Monday, November 26, 2018

is with my friend. He echoes the grace and eloquence of bygone days, keeping principles relevant always. Thank you, Leonard Krog. AN EVENING FOR THE ANIMALS SPCA FUNDRAISER S. Bond: We recently had the privilege of attending the BC SPCA north Cariboo district’s third annual An Evening for the Animals. The evening would not have been possible without amazing sponsors like the Hart Family Veterinarian Clinic, Northern Dynamic Metalworks, Jack and Jill Embroidery and many more community supporters, not to mention the hard work of the BC SPCA staff and dedicated volunteers.

We were very pleased to be joined by Craig Daniell, CEO of the BC SPCA, who gave us an update on the exciting agenda for Prince George and our region. The gala was a major fundraiser, and it did not disappoint, with almost $63,000 being raised during the evening. Perhaps the most touching part of the night was a look back at the incredible efforts that were undertaken to sup- port animal evacuees during another summer of devastating wildfires.

It is hard to capture in words the extraordinary work that was done by the BC SPCA and other animal rescue organizations to ensure that hundreds of animals were cared for in a loving way. [2:05 p.m.] Not only was that important for the animals, but for their families as well. Often one of the first questions heard at the evacuation centre was about the well-being of a beloved fam- ily pet. The large number of animals evacuated meant that the BC SPCA had to open a second temporary shelter to accommodate a variety of animals.

Every day an army of volunteers supported the staff by walking, feeding and cuddling when required. Many others stepped up and generously donated supplies and food. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to everyone who was involved in this critical part of the wildfire response. By any measure, the BC SPCA winter gala was a success. We certainly look forward to supporting it again next year. Oral Questions ROLE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL MINISTRY IN LEGAL ADVICE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE MOTION A. Wilkinson:The events of the past week have been unprecedented, certainly, in this building and in this province.

We’re not aware of any precedent anywhere else in the world for the events of the past week. These events cried out for careful legal consideration, and our questions today will be entirely about government min- istries involved in providing that legal advice. It is, of course, up to the Speaker to decide whether to recuse himself from these questions, because the factual basis is entirely connec- ted to the Speaker’s conduct. These questions are not about the ongoing police investigation, and they are not about the special prosecution.

On the evening of November 19, the Speaker recommen- ded to the three House Leaders that a motion be moved to put the Clerk of this House and the Sergeant-at-Arms on administrative leave. The question comes up to the Attorney General. Did the Ministry of Attorney General receive any request for legal advice related to this matter from the Speaker prior to the meeting on the evening of November 19? Hon. D. Eby: Now, I know that the member knows that there is an active police investigation. I know that the mem- ber knows that special prosecutors have been appointed.

So I struggle to understand why the member doesn’t understand how important it is that that proceed in all of its elements without interference from this place. With that said, I won’t be making any further comment on this matter. Mr. Speaker:The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. A. Wilkinson:This is becoming a quickly tired line of response from this government. The public are greatly dis- tressed about the events of the last week, particularly involving the man in the chair and the conduct of the people in his office. The public are entitled to know the facts about what happened last week.

Saying that the investigation itself by the police and the involvement of the special prosecutor somehow puts a complete cloak over this and makes it impossible to answer questions is a complete evasion of the responsibility of this government. That’s why we have this House. That’s why we have a parliament to provide for accountability for everyone in the room: because we represent 4.9 million British Colum- bians, and they are expecting some answers on this.

To have the Attorney General stand up and say, “Nothing will be answered because of activity outside this House, ” com- pletely evades the issue of accountability of the govern- ment for the events from 8 p.m. on November 19 to 11 a.m. on November 20. These events have nothing to do with the special prosec- ution, nor the police investigation. They have to do with the conduct of this government. It is somewhat alarming that the members opposite deem themselves to be above the con- duct of this House and above the accountability that this House exists for.

If we cannot have meaningful answers to these questions, which are entirely in order, one has to won- der why we’re here at all. I’ll try again with the Attorney General. Was the Ministry of Attorney General or Attorney General himself aware that the Speaker sought outside legal counsel on his own initiat- ive to advise him on the motion to suspend the Clerk and Monday, November 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6833

Sergeant-at-Arms? This has nothing to do with the special prosecution, nor the RCMP investigation. Hon. D. Eby: Simply because the Leader of the Opposi- tion says it has nothing to do with the police investigation or the special prosecutors does not make it so. I am disappoin- ted that he persists in this line of questioning. The police are separate from government for a reason. The special prosec- utors are separate from government for a reason. I won’t be making any comment on this at this time. [2:10 p.m.] Mr.

Speaker:The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental, and I assume it’s a different question. A. Wilkinson:Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I think you should hear the question before you anticipate a ruling. Mr. Speaker:Member, I was simply advising you. Please proceed. A. Wilkinson:I’m to proceed, correct? Mr. Speaker:Y es, thank you. A. Wilkinson:Did the Speaker seek legal advice from lawyers at the Ministry of Attorney General in regards to the motion — not the criminal investigation, nor the special prosecution — at any time before the motion was introduced in the House on November 20?

Let’s keep in mind here that the reason we have special prosecutors and the police at arm’s length from government is so that they are able to operate completely independently of this House. The functions of this House remain account- able in this room. I will ask the Attorney General once more. Did the Speaker seek legal advice from the Ministry of Attorney General at any time in regards to the motion on the morn- ing of November 20? Hon. D. Eby:Now the member asks about legal advice.

Y ou know, I don’t understand why the member thinks it would be appropriate for me to stand up and share legal advice and waive privilege over that. I don’t understand why he thinks that it would be appropriate for me to stand up and speculate on the activities that are now the subject of a police and special prosecutor–overseen investigation. I do not understand where he is coming from on this. But I can tell him the same answer that I gave the media in the hall and that I advised colleagues in this House, which is: don’t comment on this matter until the investigation is com- plete.

I would give the member the same advice, but I sus- pect he won’t listen. S. Bond: Well, to be clear, the questions being asked are not about a criminal investigation. In fact, they’re about the administrative duties and responsibilities of this Attor- ney General, this Solicitor General and the government of British Columbia. It is incumbent on the government to ensure that correct procedures and competent legal advice was followed. My question is within the administrative responsibility of this Attorney General.

Was he or his ministry aware of the lawyer that was advising the Speaker, and did he agree to the retainer for that lawyer? Hon. D. Eby: The member knows, as do all members in this place, that when members ask about indemnities, when they ask about lawyers that are hired for members, they get the same answer from me that they’re getting today, which is that that’s not an appropriate topic for the House because it’s a potential waiver of privilege. The member knows that. If you’re waiving the retainer…. The member said…. Y ou know what, hon. Speaker?

The best course of action for all members in this matter, which is incredibly delicate…. I’ll say it again to this member, as I said to the leader of her party: the best approach is to refrain from commenting until the investigation is complete. I urge that on all members of this place, and I hope they listen. Mr. Speaker:The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental. S. Bond: What I do know is that we passed a motion in this Legislature. The public is entitled to know the truth about the events of last week, and there is a great deal of information missing.

With all due respect, through the Speaker to the Attorney General: did the Speaker’s legal counsel consult with lawyers from the Ministry of Attorney General before proceeding with the motion? We’re not asking for the advice to be shared. It’s a straight- forward, factual question that relates to a motion debated in this House. Did the Speaker’s legal counsel consult with lawyers from the Ministry of Attorney General before proceeding with the motion? Hon. D. Eby: The member puts me in an awkward posi- tion. She knows that I can’t talk about these things, and she keeps asking the same questions.

I would urge all members in this place to refrain from commenting on the events of the past week until the invest- igation is complete. I don’t understand what’s so difficult about that. EXCAV ATION IN SHAWNIGAN LAKE AREA AND PERMIT APPLICATION S. Furstenau:In 2008, GT Farms began digging a hole on their property in Kingburn, near Shawnigan Lake. 6834 British Columbia Debates Monday, November 26, 2018

[2:15 p.m.] Nearby residents began to express concern as the hole steadily increased in size, ultimately looking like a whole lot like a quarry. However, Ministry of Mines and Ministry of Agriculture agreed that this was not a quarry; it was “an irrigation pond. ” Y et like a quarry, rock was being removed by dump trucks travelling down a narrow road through this residential neighbourhood.

When the residents raised concerns in 2009, they were informed by Ministry of Mines that the property had no per- mits in place for mining or quarrying and issued a cease- and-desist order, which was soon rescinded, and the activity continued. Here we are, ten years later, and the hole on this property very much appears to be a quarry, a quarry that has operated without a permit for over a decade. What is the Ministry of Energy and Mines’ solution to this? Give the landowner an opportunity to apply for a permit ten years after he has apparently begun quarrying.

My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Pet- roleum Resources. Does she think it’s appropriate for her ministry to reward rule-breaking by issuing permits after quarrying has taken place on a property without permits for years on end? Hon. M. Mungall:Thank you to the member for the ques- tion and for raising this issue, which is important to her con- stituents. As she pointed out, in 2009, the government of the day determined that the activities of the site were for agricul- tural purposes.

Then, in 2016, as the operations had expanded, the gov- ernment — again, of the day — took another look and con- cluded that yes, a Mines Act permit was required. In 2017, the company sent in their application for the proper permit. We received that on June 10, 2017. We asked the committee to revise that application, and we received the revised applic- ation on March 9, 2018. Since then, we have been working to ensure that the public is involved and that they have their opportunity to comment. We’ve referred the issue to other agencies, as well as First Nations, for consultation, and that consultation is ongoing.

We will make sure, as we must do, that the appropriate per- mits are in place and regulations are, indeed, followed. Mr. Speaker:The House Leader, Third Party, on a supple- mental. S. Furstenau:I’m concerned that the message that this sends is that rules don’t actually matter. If you break them, we will fix them for you. Local residents have identified several serious shortfalls with the permit application, including: stating that the pro- ject started “with approval”; claiming that the project is not within a community watershed, which it is; and submitting inaccurate hand-drawn maps.

Residents have also raised concerns about lack of public consultation and have serious and ongoing concerns about the safety and reliability of their drinking water, which is drawn from an aquifer they worry is being impacted by these quarrying activities. My question is again to the Minster of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Can she commit to addressing the ser- ious concerns raised by the residents of the Kingburn area and commit to a public meeting as part of the permitting process for this application? Hon. M. Mungall:It is a statutory decision–maker who oversees this process.

That individual has assured myself that he’s committed to working with all partners and taking pub- lic feedback into account as he works through the process on this permit. I want to make sure that the member knows that we are committed to making sure that she and her staff are fully informed and are fully kept up to date so that she can con- tinue advocating for her constituents on this issue. ROLE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL MINISTRY IN LEGAL ADVICE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE MOTION J.

Johal:Y ou know, I find it interesting that the Attorney General is asking members not to speak about events that actually occurred in this House. British Columbians need to know what due diligence the Attorney General and the Solicitor General did between the Monday meeting and the movement of the motion to suspend the Clerk and the Ser- geant-at-Arms. Did the Solicitor General seek legal advice from the Attor- ney General after the Monday meeting and prior to introdu- cing the motion? Hon. D.

Eby: Members can talk about whatever they want, but I am recommending to them that they refrain from speaking about this until the investigation’s done for good reason — to allow the police and to allow the special prosec- utors to do their work. [2:20 p.m.] The member may or may not agree with that. That’s his business. He’s in this place representing his members. This is my recommendation to him. I’ll take my own advice, and I won’t be commenting on that. Mr. Speaker:Richmond-Queensborough on a supple- mental. J.

Johal:The questions we are asking, that my colleagues have asked and I have asked, pertain to the conduct of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General. We’re not talk- ing about the special prosecutor’s office. We’re not talking about the police investigation. It’s the role of the Ministry of the Attorney General to provide legal advice to the government. Did the Attorney Monday, November 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6835

General seek the legal advice of his ministry after the Monday meeting and prior to the introduction of the motion the following day? Hon. D. Eby: The situation remains the same as it was in the previous question — that is, that these things are all tied together. Y ou can’t speak about one without speak- ing about the other. The issue here is that the member wants me to speak about a matter that’s under active police investigation, with special prosecutors appointed, and I will not do so today. LEGISLATURE INVESTIGATION AND LEGAL ADVICE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE MOTION L.

Throness:Really, all we’re asking for is some transpar- ency from the government with respect to its involvement in this matter last week — its involvement, not the police involvement. If the government will not tell us even whether it has received legal advice, let’s ask about the knowledge of the ministers themselves. When did the Solicitor General first learn of the police investigation, and when did he learn about the Speaker’s investigation? Hon. D.

Eby:I’ve made the recommendation to all mem- bers of this place that they refrain from commenting on a matter of active police investigation where special prosec- utors are appointed. It’s incredibly serious. I keep hearing the questions. I don’t understand why the members don’t understand how serious this is. I would recommend to all members — it’s up to them, of course — that they refrain from commenting on this. Mr. Speaker:The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a sup- plemental. L. Throness:What is serious is the government not revealing to the people of B.C. about matters that are under their control.

I ask the Premier: when did the Premier first learn of the police investigation, and when did the Premier learn about the Speaker’s investigation? Hon. D. Eby: Maybe I’ll assist the member here by advising him that my advice on this, to refrain from com- menting on an active police investigation where special prosecutors have been appointed, is a very serious matter that extends to all members of the government, including the Minister for Public Safety and the Premier. So he won’t be hearing comment from the government on these mat- ters today. T.

Stone: We know that a lawyer was present at the November 19 meeting, and that lawyer provided legal advice on the motion to put Clerk Craig James and Sergeant-at- Arms Gary Lenz on administrative leave. Can either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General confirm the identity of this lawyer, and can either explain the lawyer’s role in providing legal advice in regards to this motion? Hon. D. Eby: This is quite a display, to be frank.

I don’t understand what the members opposite don’t understand, first of all, about the response, which is that the government won’t be commenting on a matter of active police investiga- tion where special prosecutors have been appointed. I don’t understand what they don’t get about that. Personally, I don’t understand why they are not consid- ering for themselves whether or not they should be openly speaking about this matter that is so sensitive. I mean, it’s their own call, of course. But it is very unusual. In any event, I won’t be speaking about this sensitive matter today. Mr.

Speaker:The member for Kamloops–South Thomp- son on a supplemental. T. Stone:Well, what’s unusual in this discourse here today is that we’re asking questions that relate to a number of items that have nothing to do with the work of the special prosec- utors and police investigations. So I will afford the Attorney General an opportunity to address this question again. There was outside legal counsel who advised the Speaker on the motion to suspend the Clerk and the Sergeant-at- Arms.

Very simply, who was this lawyer, what was this law- yer’s role in relation to the role of government lawyers employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General, and why won’t the Attorney General provide the transparency on the internal operations of this Legislature that British Columbi- ans are demanding? [2:25 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: If this isn’t about the police investigation, the fact that special prosecutors have been appointed, I’m not sure what it is about. I cannot talk about these matters. They’re incredibly sensitive. Police are investigating. Spe- cial prosecutors have been appointed.

I won’t be comment- ing on it. M. Stilwell:The questions that we’re referencing today are not in regards to the criminal investigation or the prosec- utors. The question I have today is about the administrative responsibility of the Solicitor General. Will the minister confirm who initiated the investigation? Was it actually the police, or was it the Speaker and his spe- cial adviser? Hon. D. Eby: Did the member just say: “This isn’t about the police investigation. Let me ask about the police invest- igation”? It’s bordering on farce at this stage.

It’s clearly about the police investigation and special prosecutors. 6836 British Columbia Debates Monday, November 26, 2018

We won’t be talking about that today. We won’t be talking about that tomorrow. Until the investigation concludes, I’ d recommend that to all members in this place. Mr. Speaker:The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental. M. Stilwell:The public needs to know the nature of what due diligence, if any, was done by the Attorney Gen- eral and the Solicitor General within their administrative responsibilities. When was the Solicitor General informed of the investig- ation by the Speaker and his special adviser? Hon. D.

Eby: These are matters directly related to the police investigation and the appointment of special pro- secutors. I won’t be answering any questions related to that today. P . Milobar:The questions today are meant to try to estab- lish a better understanding of when the Attorney General and Solicitor General vetted the information as the motion came forward to the House that we dealt with on Tuesday in this House. We’re not asking for any detail as to what was involved in those conversations with outside counsel or inside legal counsel. We’re simply asking for timelines of when discussions took place.

British Columbians need to know…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you. P . Milobar:British Columbians need to know what the Attorney General did or didn’t do to vet the legal advice that came from this outside counsel. They need to know that cor- rect procedures were followed. When did the Attorney General become aware that the Speaker was receiving outside legal counsel on the motion to suspend the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms, and what did he do with that information? Hon. D. Eby:These are matters related to an active police investigation.

Special prosecutors have been appointed. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on this. Mr. Speaker:The member for Kamloops–North Thomp- son on a supplemental. P . Milobar:I think the public is having trouble under- standing the Attorney General. As a layperson myself, when the Attorney General has had no problem through all of Mr. German’s reports and of all those processes — processes when, one would assume, ongoing investigations were hap- pening — and having regular updates with the media and holding court…. We are asking very simple questions about very basic timelines.

For the Attorney General to say that he can sud- denly not answer those basic questions is a disservice to all British Columbians. The lack of information and the absence of answers about the role and actions of the Attorney Gener- al undermine public confidence. On what date did the Attorney General become aware of the lawyer advising the Speaker? Who agreed to the retain- er of the lawyer? Not how much was the retainer, just who agreed to the retainer. Hon. D.

Eby:I mean, on the first part, the member is right to draw a distinction between how our government is hand- ling the issue of money laundering and how their govern- ment handled the issue of money laundering — and unfor- tunately, I have to say today, as well, a difference between how our government is handling an active police investiga- tion where special prosecutors have been appointed and how their opposition is handling it. I won’t be commenting on it. M. Lee: All members of this House have the right to ask the questions that are being asked here today.

They are ques- tions to address the confidence that British Columbians should have in the integrity of this House. [2:30 p.m.] Given the motion that was passed last Tuesday, November 20…. There was information that this House did not have at the time that motion was passed, in the rushed nature that this was brought on, between the time that the House Lead- ers met, at 8 p.m. on November 19, and the time that the motion was raised on the morning of November 20. The role of the Speaker’s special adviser, Alan Mullen, raises many important issues.

On Wednesday, November 21, the day after the motion was put forward by the government, as a government motion in this House, this special adviser told the media that he was retained in January of 2018, in part to address the Speaker’s concerns about the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms. My question is: was the Solicitor General ever told details of the special adviser’s role in this matter prior to these com- ments being made in the media? Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Speaker, no one is disputing the mem- ber’s right to ask whatever questions he wants in this place.

All I’m saying is that when there’s an active police invest- igation, when special prosecutors have been appointed, at a very sensitive time on a very sensitive matter, my recom- mendation to all members in this place would be to refrain from commenting on that matter, and I will refrain from commenting on that matter. Mr. Speaker:The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental. Monday, November 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6837

M. Lee: With respect, earlier the Attorney General indic- ated that members of this House can ask whatever questions we deem appropriate. Under the circumstances, given the gravity and the sensitivity of this matter, the confidence that British Columbians have in the integrity of this House is being questioned. Each of us, as members of this Legislative Assembly, have participated in that motion on short notice, on short order.

It is appropriate for members of this House to be asking the important questions around what procedural steps and due diligence steps were taken by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General as cabinet ministers in this gov- ernment. They have the responsibilities and the duties to this government.

When they became, particularly, in pos- session of that information, based on the Monday night meeting and any time before that, we as members of this House need to know what occurred — what occurred before that Monday meeting and what occurred, particu- larly, between the Monday night meeting and the Tuesday morning motion. Alan Mullen told the media that he was speaking on behalf of and with the full authority of the Speaker. Further, Mr.

Mullen stated that the concerns came from the Speaker and that, as an experienced investigator, he had been involved in investigating the concerns raised since he was retained back in January. Was the Solicitor General informed of the special adviser’s role at any point during the seven-month investigation? Hon. D. Eby: The member, surely by this point in ques- tion period, knows that these matters are tied together. They’re all related to an active police investigation. The appointment of a special prosecutor is an incredibly sens- itive matter.

I know the member is one of the newer mem- bers to this place, but it’s tradition and for good reason that government refrains from commenting on active police investigations. The appointment of a special prosecutor should be a sig- nal. The reason special prosecutors are appointed is to give the public assurance that this is separate from politics. It should be a signal to members in this House to exercise great caution around such matters. I would urge that caution on all members in this place and urge them and encourage them to refrain from commenting on this.

Of course, the mem- ber can ask whatever questions he wishes. That’s his political judgment. But I would recommend against it in a sensitive matter like this, and I will not be commenting on it. M. de Jong:The government chose to introduce a motion to suspend the two most senior non-partisan officials that serve in this chamber, and it sought the support of all of the members of this chamber when it did so.

The passage of that motion led to the spectacle of those officials being marched out of this building in the most demeaning and humiliating manner possible. [2:35 p.m.] Members supported the government motion, but they did so, I would suggest, on the assumption that the legal and investigative branches of government had exercised the due diligence necessary to satisfy themselves that the basic principles of procedural fairness and natural justice had been followed. The question does remain.

Having asked for the support of this chamber, when did the Attorney General become aware of and what steps did he take to independently assess the actions initiated by the Speaker and his adviser and the legal advice that the Speaker had received? Hon. D. Eby: Now, the member who spoke before the member for Abbotsford West has a defence: he’s relatively new in this place. The member who just asked this ques- tion…. I mean, he used to be Attorney General, so he knows that police are separate from government when they do an investigation.

He knows that when special prosecutors are appointed, there’s a reason for that — to keep the process independent of government. When he says the “investigative arms of government, ” I don’t know why he would conflate that, because he knows the difference. The difference is exactly why it’s so important that members in this House think very seriously about com- menting on this matter. It’s an active police investigation. Special prosecutors have been appointed.

I urge all members, including very exper- ienced members, to think very carefully about how they speak about this matter. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Hon. C. James:I’m pleased to rise to table government’s Second Quarterly Report, 2018-19, as required by

section 10 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Mr. Speaker:Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the2017 Annual Report from the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Petitions P . Milobar:I rise to present a petition from a very brave mother in Kamloops who, in April of this year, lost her son at the Peterson Creek Bridge in Kamloops. It is calling for the installation of suicide prevention measures on the Peterson Creek Bridge, similar to what we have on other provincial bridges across the province. D.

Ashton:I rise today to present a petition to the House from over 1,600 individuals asking that B.C. Timber Sales not log in the Carmi recreational area above Penticton. Mr. Speaker:I’ll call on the Deputy Speaker. 6838 British Columbia Debates Monday, November 26, 2018

[R. Chouhan in the chair.] Standing Order 35 (Deputy Speaker’s Ruling) REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE — ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE FOR CLERK AND SERGEANT-AT-ARMS Deputy Speaker:Hon. Members, earlier today, at the request of the Speaker, I took the chair to hear and to con- sider an application by the member for Abbotsford West.

Under Standing Order 35, the member sought adjournment of the House in order to discuss a matter of urgent import- ance — namely, the conduct of this House with respect to the events and facts that led to the motion on Tuesday, Novem- ber 20, with regard to two permanent officers of the House. While Standing Order 35, subsection (2), states that a member “shall rise and state the measure briefly, ” the Chair allowed the member for Abbotsford West to explain his application in detail so that concerns with regard to this most serious matter could be placed on the record.

I thank the member for his submission, as well as the Gov- ernment House Leader and the Leader of the Third Party for their comments. The Chair recognizes the very difficult circumstances that formed the basis of members’ concerns regarding the events that transpired last week. It is my understanding that the Speaker addressed some of those questions earlier today in a letter addressed to all three House Leaders.

As acknowledged by the Gov- ernment House Leader and the Leader of the Third Party, the important fact that should frame the approach by the House is that an active criminal investigation is underway with respect to this matter. [2:40 p.m.] Thesub judice principle is an important convention long recognized in this House and other parliamentary institu- tions. By way of this self-imposed restraint, the House does not enter into debate on matters before another body — typ- ically, a court of law — in order to refrain from prejudicing, in any manner, proceedings not before this House.

I find that in this unique and difficult circumstance, the principles of the convention must be applied with even more caution, as the events and facts of the active investigation touch upon this very institution. Were the application to proceed, a Chair would be placed in a particularly untenable position. The Chair could preside over a debate while con- currently assessing and determining which facts, matters or comments within the debate may or may not impede or pre- judice an active investigation.

In addition, on April 13, 2010, Speaker Barisoff ruled that a matter under investigation by the police, while notsub judice in a strict sense, has, by precedent, not been discussed in this House. Speaker Barisoff noted that it is a matter of courtesy to the investigation to avoid debate in parliament. Further, it has previously been held in this House that an application under Standing Order 35 cannot involve the normal administration of justice.

In a decision of Speaker Barnes rendered on June 17, 1994, he stated, in part, that “Standing Order 35 was never intended to provide a vehicle for interference in the normal administration of justice. ” While the Chair does not suggest that it would be the intention of the House to interfere with the normal admin- istration of justice, due to the circumstances, there is a very real and substantial concern in this regard.

I conclude that because the active investigation focuses on two permanent officers of this House, the risk to offend the spirit and intent of thesub judice convention is more heightened in this instance. For these reasons, I find that the application made under Standing Order 35 cannot proceed. A. Wilkinson:Mr. Speaker, having heard your ruling, there remain widespread, grave doubts throughout the pop- ulation of British Columbia about the conduct of the Speaker in the last week… Deputy Speaker:Member. Member. A. Wilkinson:…about the manner in which the motion came before the House. This cannot be allowed to lie.

This House must address the issues at some point. Deputy Speaker:Member, this is not debatable. Orders of the Day Motions Without Notice POWERS AND ROLE OF FINANCE COMMITTEE Hon. M. Farnworth:By leave, I move motions that have been distributed to both the Opposition House Leader and the Third Party House Leader. [That further to the motion adopted on February 26, 2018, that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered to consider and make recommendations on the budget of the following statutory officer: Human Rights Commissioner.] Leave granted. Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO APPOINT A HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER Hon. M. Farnworth:By leave, I move: [That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a Human Rights Commissioner, pursuant to theHuman Rights Code (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210). Monday, November 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6839

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative As- sembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legis- lative Assembly. The said Special Committee is to be composed of the following Mem- bers:Raj Chouhan (Convener),Mitzi Dean, Stephanie Cadieux, Greg Kyllo, andAndrew Weaver.] [2:45 p.m.] Leave granted.

Motion approved. Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 55, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. In Sec- tion A, I call committee on Bill 57, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act. Committee of the Whole House BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 55; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 2:49 p.m. On

section 3(continued). Hon. C. Trevena:Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add that we have staff with me here again today, many of the same staff who were here on Thursday. We’re also now joined by Nina Bindra from the Ministry of Attorney General.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. [2:50 p.m.] J. Sturdy:Division 4, “Reports of the Board, ” is being added to the Passenger Transportation Act. Doesn’t, in fact, the board already deal with this through the annual report of the Passenger Transportation Board, and if so, why would we be adding it? Hon. C. Trevena:The board has sometimes published an annual report, but not every year. So this really formalizes that, with the expansion of its functions, with the growth with the TNSs. This and the growing work that it will be doing — this really just formalizes the need to have an annu- al report. J.

Sturdy:Is the board receptive to any directions received from the minister to review, recommend and report on any particular aspect? It just appears as if there’s a certain redundancy here. Is the board receptive to direction from the minister? Just to reiterate, this is a formalization of a requirement to generate an annual report by the Passenger Transportation Board? Hon. C. Trevena:At the moment, there is no require- ment, so this sets down the fact that there will now be a requirement to produce an annual report. Previously, it’s been up to the will of the board.

Now, it’s saying: “Please, every year produce an annual report. ” J. Sturdy:Could the minister tell us how many times there has been an annual report? Do we know? Recently? In the last five years? Why has this come up? Hon. C. Trevena:The board produced one in 2016-17. They haven’t produced one yet for ’17-18. We can check how many years the board has produced one, if the member really wants to do that. We can provide that to him in writing afterwards. A. Olsen:I’m just wondering if there’s any requirement under this

section where these reports would be made public. Hon. C. Trevena:At the moment, when they are doing reports, they do post them to the website. So the assumption is it again will carry on being public. A. Olsen: Would the recommendations to the minister contemplated under the newly added

section 22.2(

a) consti- tute any advice to cabinet? Hon. C. Trevena:It would be regarded as advice to the minister, not advice to cabinet. T. Stone:In relation to this new

section 22.1, “ Annual reports, ” where it references: “(

c) other information the min- ister may require. ” I’m wondering if the minister could elab- orate on what other types of information she and her min- istry would be contemplating that would be driven by the need to have this

section (c), which is rather nebulous, as it’s currently written. [2:55 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:Sections 22.1(

a) and 22.1(

b) are very 6840 British Columbia Debates Monday, November 26, 2018

specific on what would be included in the annual report. So (

c) allows for more broad information, whether it is any change that may have happened within the industry, any- thing that is information on decision-making, on issuing licences, some information that is sort of assessment of data — anything that isn’t actually in the quite, sort of, defined sections (

a) and (b). So it gives that scope for more informa- tion than

section (

a) and

section (

b) provide. T. Stone:With respect to

section 22.2, which provides for a requirement for the board to make recommendations to the minister when directed to do so…. Then it does provide subsections (

a) and (b), which provide some sense of how those recommendations would be fed back to the minister. I’m just wondering if the minister could indicate whether or not…. Again, much like the question that was asked moments ago from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, would any request of the minister of the board to provide recommendations on a matter be made public so that the public would know that the board has been asked to do this? And would there be any timelines associated with the timeliness of response that the board would be expected to provide these recommendations back to the minister?

Seeing as, from an annual report perspective, there are some timelines provided for here, I’m wondering if timelines have been contemplated with respect to this request for recommendations from the board. [3:00 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:Well, I think it’s — we’ve just been dis- cussing this — interesting. It really is going to be on a case- by-case basis. It depends what it is. If it’s an issue of security or safety or if there’s an investigation, it wouldn’t be public.

It could be public for the sake of transparency for request- ing something more generic — for instance, something about the long-distance bus service. So it’s going to be on a case-by-case basis, and because it’s on a case-by-case basis, the timing and the time for the response required would likewise be on a case-by-case basis. I don’t think we can put into legislation something quite as specific as exact timing on direction and requests that we don’t know what they’re going to be but are likely to be com- ing forward. J. Sturdy:Back to item 22.1(a).

In the reporting, the board is required to set out briefly “all applications made for a licence that include special authorization. ” I wonder if the expectation of the minister is that not just the list of the applications but the decisions on those applic- ations would also be included, and whether there would be reasons for a decision in there? Hon. C. Trevena:Y es. J. Sturdy:So that would be similar to…. For example, in the Ministry of Environment on an environmental assess- ment, there’s an assessment, there’s a list of conditions, and there’s a reason for a ministerial yea or nay.

So there would be a rationale either way for the affirmative or the negative on an application. Hon. C. Trevena:Y es.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. A. Olsen:I just want to canvass the minister here for a few minutes on the use of the potential use of various driver’s licences, if I may. This is to the driver of the car, not to the licence of the operator. But this is the driver’s licence. It’s been a point of contention, I think — the suggestion that’s made that an operator needs a class 4 licence. I just want to ask some questions around this. I’ll start with the broadest question and just the minis- ter’s rationale behind using, as has been stated publicly, a class 4 licence — that all ride-hailing drivers should have a class 4 licence. Hon. C.

Trevena:I know the member is very concerned about the licence designation here. It is obviously something that some people have been picking up on. I know the mem- ber is also aware that under this section, we’re not talking about the driver’s licences. It is the licence for the vehicles, but not the driver’s licence. That being said, I have talked a lot about the class 4 licence, because it’s commercial licence, and we’re going to have people who are going to be earning money by driving people around.

Somebody is going to be making profit from it, and they’re going to run a commercial operation or be working for a commercial operation. As such, I believe that there is the requirement and the expectation from the public that those people who are driving for profit are licensed to the highest designation they can be. [3:05 p.m.] In this case, it is a class 4 licence. I think everybody is aware, it’s a tougher licence. Y ou’ve also got a medical exam, and you’ve got to also be able to inspect your vehicle. There are certain sorts of strictures there to have that licence, to be qualified for that licence.

People don’t get it on the first time. I mean, if you do a quick search on the Inter- net, you see people who do driver’s classes, driver’s train- ing on how to get through to the class 4, how you’re going to make sure. So there is that extra due diligence and extra strictures on it. So for the matter of public safety, I’ve been very committed to the class 4 licence. A. Olsen:Thank you for the response.

Just further to that, are there regulations in this bill that would allow the minis- ter to require additional training, safety certificates, criminal record checks and other forms of an enhanced safety regime for any operator under this act? Monday, November 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6841

Hon. C. Trevena:Y es, there is. Under

section 30, it talks about the criminal record checks that we’re looking at. A large part of this bill is to make a provincial regulation. I know that in certain jurisdictions, some drivers have to have, when it comes to cabs at the moment, a criminal records check,

whereas in other jurisdictions, they don’t. This will make sure that provincewide there will be criminal record checks. And that’s in

section 30. A. Olsen:The reason why I’m asking is because…. Could we not use class 5 as a base and then through regulation require — sort of like a class 5 plus — commercial operators who are operating a ride-hailing vehicle commercially to have additional requirements, such as additional training, safety certificates, criminal record checks and other forms of an enhanced safety regime? Hon. C. Trevena:I appreciate the member’s question. The class 5 plus, or a new form of licence, wouldn’t come under the Ministry of Transportation. It would come under the Ministry of Solicitor General.

PSSG is responsible for the driver licensing. So as my ministry, working with what is available, we are working on the class 4, which is the com- mercial driver’s licence. As I say, this section, as the member is aware, is about vehicle licences, not drivers’ licences. A. Olsen:I do acknowledge that. I’m kind of looking…. I recognize that there’s a narrative that’s out there and a line of questions or concerns that have been raised, certainly, around the licensing. So with the blessing of the minister, I just wanted to canvass this area so that at least this area of questioning has been asked and responded to.

Let’s put it that way. My understanding is that the provisions that apply, the national safety code, to the taxi industry are separate from the broad requirements of the class 4 licence. Is that true? [3:10 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:Most commercial vehicles are under the national safety code, but it isn’t linked to the driver’s licence. So while the vehicles are under the national safety code, driver’s licensing is separate. Most commercial drivers in B.C. have a class 4 or higher licence. A. Olsen:How many other provinces apply the national safety code to the taxi industry? Hon. C.

Trevena:B.C. is really at the forefront. We are the only province that does this. A. Olsen:Can the minister outline exactly what the NSC, the national safety code, adds to motor vehicle safety, and why it’s important that it apply to the passenger transporta- tion sector, specifically ride-hailing and taxis? Hon. C. Trevena:As I mentioned to the member, this is the highest level of safety. We’re the only province to actually have taxis under the national safety code. We are literally the leaders in this.

What it entails is that the carrier has to take responsibility for the safety of the fleet — got to have a safety plan. A carrier has to monitor hours that people are working — so make sure that people aren’t tired, aren’t fatigued, are driving safely — and that they have records of being inspected. If the vehicle is out of service, that has to be reported. This is all monitored by the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement branch. The carrier is responsible, also, for reporting to CVSE — for instance, when vehicles are out of service.

But it is something we should be very proud of — that taxis and commercial vehicles are in here and that they are…. This is, as I say, the highest level in the country. A. Olsen:Okay, thank you for that. Some of the most significant components that the NSC requires are concerned with vehicle inspection and upkeep.

Why does it make sense to require a ride-hailing operator who, based on the data from other jurisdictions, only uses their vehicle for ten to 20 hours a week for passenger trans- portation to meet the same requirements of a vehicle that is exclusively, 24-7, used as a commercial vehicle? [3:15 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:The reason is that the vehicles are oper- ating for hire. A taxi is inspected every six months, and we honestly don’t know how often or how regularly the app- based ride-hailing vehicles will be used. Some may only be doing a few hours a week, but some may be operating full time.

Y ou do see in certain jurisdictions where people are trying to make a living from doing app-based ride-hailing. I don’t think we can really pick and choose. If we are mak- ing sure, as responsible policy-makers in a government, that we have designations for vehicles that are driven for hire — that there are certain vehicle safety and driver expectations — I don’t think we can pick and choose which one should win and which shouldn’t have certain requirements. A.

Olsen:Dan Hara, the consultant that was hired by the government to review the modernization of the taxi industry and produce a final report, recommended that a class 5 licence be permitted for the entire taxi sector, with addition- al requirements put in place for safety and training. Why has the government opted not to follow this recom- mendation from Mr. Hara? Hon. C. Trevena:As I mentioned to the member previ- ously, and I’ve been very public about this, passenger safety, public safety has to come first. A class 4 licence is a licence for people who are driving commercially.

Whether it is a taxi or other service, you need a commercial licence because you are earning money from transporting people from A to B. We want to make sure that people on our roads are as safe as possible, both the drivers and those who get in vehicles 6842 British Columbia Debates Monday, November 26, 2018

that are for hire. That is why, when we are looking at the reg- ulations in the Motor Vehicle Act, we are not making any changes. We are keeping with a class 4 licence. A. Olsen:Thank you, Minister, for that response. I guess, from our perspective, the class 5 as a base is something that we feel is…. It’s not that we disagree that safety is an issue. We cer- tainly don’t want to be messing around with that. That is certainly not something that we want to be quibbling with. Passenger safety is of the utmost importance, as is the safety of the driver.

But in his report, Hara explicitly states that: “ A class 5 driver’s licence with a TaxiHost Pro certificate is arguably at least equally qualified as a class 4 driver is to drive a taxi. ” Again, I just want to make sure that I understand. What is so unique about a class 4 licence that the government feels it is uniquely able to address safety in this sector, especially despite numerous other actors suggesting alternatives? [3:20 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:I thank the member. We’re not unique in demanding a higher standard for people who are driving commercially.

We’ve got the same equivalent to class 4 in Alberta, Quebec and Nova Scotia. They all demand that drivers, whether they are for app-based ride-hailing or for cabs, have a class 4 licence. I know that the tourism association of B.C. is happy that we are looking at keeping the class 4 licence. They think that there should be a minimum of class 4 licence. They’re look- ing at it as a matter of safety, a matter of reputation. It’s not something that we’re doing blindly. We’re not ignoring Dr. Hara. He’s been very helpful in formulating this. But on this piece of policy, which…. Again, I beg the mem- ber’s awareness.

He is aware that this

section doesn’t deal with drivers’ licences. It is a Motor Vehicle Act regulation, and I’m sure we’ll have lots of opportunity after this legisla- tion is passed to continue this conversation. We’re not unique in having that higher standard for people who are driving commercially. A. Olsen: Again, I thank the minister, and I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to canvass what I think is an important aspect of this.

I think it’s important for us in this House to canvass this aspect, but as well, it’s important for the public and for the potential operators — people who would like to operate — to understand why government’s making a decision. So I appreciate the opportunity. Again, I’ d like to reiterate that I and my caucus col- leagues are not in any way suggesting that safety is not a concern for us. It is paramount, and we appreciate the fact that the minister has safety as a primary concern.

But I think that it is also important to point out that safety, from a driver’s perspective, is only one aspect of what it is that we need to be looking at.

MADD, for example, comes out strongly in favour of a market, and ride-hailing in the marketplace, based on public safety, that we need to be providing people options to get home at night after having a few drinks — currently, in some centres around the province, finding, in fact, that the lack of ability to catch a cab or the lack of ability to use an app- based ride-hailing service is pushing people to more danger- ous options, including getting in their car and driving. What we’re concerned about is that obtaining a class 4 licence in this province can be a time-consuming, costly pro- cess.

It can dissuade people from doing it, from engaging in the business. It can be one obstacle and a significant barri- er to ride-hailing operating in the province. I’m thinking of some communities, like the ones that I represent, where it would take like a full day or multiple days in order to go and obtain your licence. Just one final question on this.

Is the minister willing to consider a class 5 plus or a class 5 plus the TaxiHost Pro regime for ride-hailing, where we use the basic class 5 as the base and apply, through regulation, the necessary restric- tions — like age, driving record, criminal record checks — while requiring and creating an enhanced safety regime, which could include some additional on-line training tools like others use? Hon. C. Trevena: I’m also very cognizant…. I think nobody wants to take the ground that they are the only people concerned about safety.

I know that there are many, many people concerned about safety — your colleagues, the opposition. Everyone says that they’re concerned about safety. We’re translating that as the class 4. I know that Mothers Against Drunk Driving is concerned about this, but the Vancouver police department has recom- mended to the select standing committee that we had back earlier this year that ride-hailing drivers be required to obtain a class 4 commercial licence, part of which is because it requires disclosure of certain medical conditions that could potentially jeopardize the safety of passengers.

So we have that. [3:25 p.m.] The member is very well aware that we are going to be having a committee to be looking at the regulations. We have a great opportunity then, I think, to be able to have a look at the driver’s licence part of that — at the committee that we’re going to be having, if this bill passes through this Legislature. T. Stone:I, too, would like to weigh in with a few ques- tions on this particular section.

First, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I think, was quite right in asking what is really different from the national safety certificate requirements and the require- ments that could be prescribed through a class 5 plus type of driver’s licence. For the purposes of some background, in the legislation that we developed a couple years ago and introduced today, we provide for the elimination of a class 4 requirement, not just on the ride-sharing side — so not just for new entrants Monday, November 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6843

— but also on the taxi side — so for existing participants. We came to that conclusion only after seriously and thoughtfully reviewing all of the related safety considerations, which we feel, and I’m certain that every member of this House feels, need to be there, both to protect drivers and, certainly, also to protect passengers. So we had provided for all of the same safety requirements that are currently a requirement of the national safety cer- tificate. Those safety requirements….

Our plan was to still require them but to do so outside of the national safety cer- tificate requirement and to attach it to, let’s call it, the class 5, 5A or 5 plus. Which, by the way…. There are numerous examples of these kinds of riders existing for other uses, be it air brakes or towing large trailers and vehicles, and those kinds of things. There are other types of licence riders that can be attached onto a class 5 licence. When we look at the national safety code…. I have the requirements in front of me.

It says that the requirements of the national safety certificate are that operators must be in compliance with applicable regulations, including ensuring all drivers are appropriately licensed and including review of driver abstracts. All drivers operate in compliance with hours of service regulations. All drivers conduct pre-trip inspections. All vehicles operating under their safety certi- ficate are appropriately maintained. All vehicles have a val- id inspection every six months. Vehicles are registered and insured with ICBC.

Again, these are all requirements that would seem to be, practically, provided for in other ways, without requir- ing a national safety certificate — which seems to just represent an onerous restriction or a barrier to entry for new entrants to the market. Again, I’m wondering if the minister could highlight for us: what are those additional safety requirements that are attached to the national safety code provision that could not be provided in other ways to ensure the safe operation of all TNS vehicles, whether they be taxis or ride-sharing? [3:30 p.m.] [L. Reid in the chair.] Hon. C.

Trevena:The member references what was in the private member’s bill tabled today and legislation that, when the member was the minister, he seemed to forget to table in this House. We wouldn’t be having this debate today, I think, if the member had actually, as minister, tabled that legisla- tion and not waited until 16 months into opposition. The national safety code. To take the requirements out of the code means…. As I mentioned to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, there is fleet monitoring. So there would be no monitoring of fleets of vehicles. There would be no tracking of who was responsible.

Under the national safety code, we have the carrier who is responsible. We have it regulated by CVSE. We have being able to track through safety plans, through hours of service, and ensure that, hopefully, we don’t see the serious accidents that we see if they have the level of deregulation that the member so clearly wants to have. Our government wants to have regulations because it wants to make sure that everyone is safe. We believe that by deregulating on the national safety code, we would really be opening up some serious problems. T.

Stone:Well, the legislation, the private member’s bill which we introduced today, does provide a broad range of specified requirements on licensees, vehicles, drivers. With respect to the licensees, the responsibilities include ensuring the appropriate insurance, requirements around the vehicle types, so ensuring that there are vehicles to meet the needs of those with accessibility challenges. There are responsibilities around ensuring that drivers and vehicles meet requirements like minimum age, record checks, driver abstracts, vehicle inspections.

Likewise, there are driver responsibilities, which include obtaining record checks and abstracts, pre-trip and vehicle inspections, informing licensees if they’re charged or convicted of particular offences, and so forth.

The minister should just say that they’ve made the decision to keep the national safety code requirement there, even though it could be easily provided for in a more streamlined and efficient manner — all of the safety requirements contained therein — as is the case with our private member’s bill. [3:35 p.m.] The other reality is that what we’re really talking about here is a whole bunch of part-time drivers who will largely be driving for companies, on the ride-sharing side, as new entrants to the industry, but also a number of part-time drivers on the taxi side of the equation, as well, who will have a much more difficult time entering the market because of the maintenance of this unnecessary national safety code requirement.

This, as the minister rightfully pointed out, doesn’t exist in any other jurisdictions that we’re aware of in Canada — certainly not in North America — when it comes to the ride-sharing business. I’m wondering if the minister could provide some details as to what makes British Columbia so incredibly unique, so different from Alberta or any state in the United States that has had ride-sharing in different forms for months and, in many cases, years. In these hundreds of other jurisdictions, there’s no equivalent to a national safety code requirement — this requirement for a national safety code certificate.

All the while these jurisdictions have found other ways, in a more streamlined and efficient manner, to ensure that these important safety considerations, which we all support, as has been detailed in my previous question. The member for Saanich North and the Islands has as well. We all support maintaining strong safety requirements. Why do we want to be the lone jurisdiction in North America that continues to insist on this onerous national safety certificate requirement? Hon. C. Trevena:Unlike the member of the opposition, 6844 British Columbia Debates Monday, November 26, 2018

we don’t see it as onerous. We see it as a basic foundation for safety. We are very proud to be leading the way here in safety in this and having the highest standards countrywide. If it’s the case that they’re not seeing it in other jurisdictions, then maybe they’re the highest standard in North America. That’s something we should be proud of. We shouldn’t be trying to deregulate it and saying: “It’s far too complex. It’s far too onerous. ” By having the national safety code there, it does create that level playing field.

It is there for the taxi industry, and it will be there for the app-based ride-hailing companies. It’s for the companies, not the individual drivers, because we’re talking about fleets. It’s the company. If the member reads the legislation all the way through, he’ll see that we are talking about the app-based ride-hailing com- panies, through the term “TNS. ” We’re not talking about individual drivers; we’re talking about having companies dealing with it. J. Sturdy:Just for clarity, with regard to 5(2)(b), motor vehicle being operated under a “valid safety certificate. ” That’s a national safety code certificate?

Is it synonymous? Hon. C. Trevena:Y es. J. Sturdy: With regard to the class 4 versus class 5. I thank the minister for indulging in this particular con- versation. I recognize that it’s not necessarily identified in this section, but as the member for Saanich North and the Islands was able to begin to canvass this, I’ d like to take this opportunity as well. If the minister can explain to us the difference between a class 4 and a class 5 licence in terms of the driver’s exam, for example. What is the difference? What do you have to do for a class 4 licence that you don’t have to do for a class 5 licence? Hon. C.

Trevena:I’m glad that the member also recog- nized that this isn’t actually covered in this section. This is about vehicle licences and not drivers’ licences. Drivers’ licences, as the member is well aware, are covered under Motor Vehicle Act regulations, which are the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. [3:40 p.m.] However, I will inform the member that a class 4 is a commercial class of driver’s licence.

They do have a high- er level of prescreening criteria: you have to be at least 19 years old and hold a valid 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 licence or an equivalent licence with at least two years’ non-learner driving experience. The prescreening for a class 4 is that driving records must have fewer than four offences that resulted in penalty points in the past two years; have no motor vehicle–related criminal code convictions — or equivalent, if you’re not from B.C. — in the past three years.

There is also the medical monitoring, the medical exam, which is every five years until you’re 45 and then every three years from 45 until 65. The exam itself — there is both a writ- ten exam as well as a driver’s exam. There is also the proof that you know what you’re looking for when you’re checking your vehicle.

As I mentioned to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, if the member goes on line, he will find a number of companies and individuals who have failed their class 4 licence and talk about how surprised they were, because they thought it was going to be quite easy, and have either gone to have further training — there are training schools that work specifically on commercial vehicle driving instruction — or are working with such training organizations, have started themselves. I think the member would find it very interest- ing to have a look at that.

But as I mentioned before, and as I mentioned to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, this isn’t in this section. It is Motor Vehicle Act regulation. J. Sturdy:What I hear the minister say is that there are issues around age, the driver’s abstract, criminal code and medical with regard to a 4 versus a 5 but that otherwise, the difference is really just in a pre-trip inspection versus not doing a pre-trip inspection on the examination. Hon. C. Trevena:I know there’s a huge amount of interest in this.

That’s why I’m very glad that when this legislation is passed — hopefully in the next 24 hours or so — we’re going to be having this discussion at the committee, where we’re going to be looking at regulations, because we want to be transparent on regulations and moving along there. No, the member is incorrect. There is a harder test. Well, I understand it’s harder, having read about it and having talked with people. It’s a harder test, a harder written test. There is a driver’s test, and there is the vehicle inspection. So you do have another test. Y ou’re not just learning how to inspect your car.

Y ou do, do another test. J. Sturdy:Well, just in the interest of full disclosure, I do hold an unrestricted class 4 and have been through the test and know it to be exactly the same test bank — at least that was my experience — and the same requirements. Y ou either know how to pull in and out of traffic, or you don’t. Whether you have a class 4 or a class 5, the criteria is exactly the same. I would suggest to the minister that it’s not about driving skills. It is about the items that you identified earlier around abstracts, age, criminal code violations and medical.

Then, of course, there’s the pre-trip inspection. At least that certainly is my experience. Is the minister telling us, then, that there’s a different test bank and a different skill set required to pass that driving test when you take that test through ICBC? Hon. C. Trevena:With all due respect to the member, I know that there’s a huge amount of interest in this. It isn’t part of this section. We do have the committee that is going to be struck, when this legislation is passed, to talk about Monday, November 26, 2018

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20181126pm-Hansard-n192
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20181126pm Hansard n192
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	446e30faedd2dc6a84370532e7d36c12b7bef5a3

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