Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 188

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Tim Boutin

Hon. K. Conroy

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M222 — Adoption Amendment Act, 2018

D. Barnett

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Racism and multiculturalism

R. Kahlon

Support for Sikh community in Kelowna

N. Letnick

Dundarave Festival of Lights

B. Ma

Williams Lake child development centre

D. Barnett

Operation Red Nose safe ride program

A. Kang

Bill Mustaklim

R. Sultan

Oral Questions

Ride-sharing services

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Thornthwaite

Government action on climate change and role of training and technology

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mark

Hon. B. Ralston

Activities of communications contractor

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

J. Johal

Government recordkeeping policies

G. Kyllo

Hon. J. Sims

L. Throness

S. Bond

M. Polak

Tabling Documents

Report on multiculturalism, 2017-18

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government Services Committee, Budget 2019

consultations

B. D’Eith

D. Ashton

S. Furstenau

Tabling Documents

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report

18-06 , Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, designated filer:

Catherine Holt, September 18, 2018

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report

18-01 , lobbyist: John Heaney, October 10, 2018

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018

(continued)

J. Yap

A. Wilkinson

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. C. Trevena

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation

Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. Trevena

Bill 56 — Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. M. Mungall

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

S. Furstenau

E. Ross

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018 (continued)

D. Clovechok

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

A. Weaver

S. Bond

S. Thomson

B. Stewart

N. Letnick

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2018

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Heyman: November is B.C. Lung Month. B.C. Lung Association staff and volunteers are

here today to talk to us about the work of the association to save lives by

improving lung health and preventing lung disease, and the negative effects of the

forest fires on our air quality and lung health.

[1:35 p.m.]

The Lung Association head office is in my constituency, and I want to

welcome today the members of the association who are in attendance: Christopher

Lam, Peter Paré, Kelly Ablog-Morrant, Gernail Bindar, Richie Gage, Michael Ellis

and Scott McDonald. Will the House please join me in making them very, very

welcome.

E. Ross: Today in the House we have some guests. Gary Biggar, regional director with

the Métis Nation, could not make it today but sends his regrets. We also have

Thomas Sewid, the ecotourism operator, guide and host of the Sasquatch Island

television series. He’s actually a sasquatch Bigfoot researcher. We also have Ken

Pearce, who is co-chair of the Pacific Balance Pinniped Society.

Last but not least is Roy Jones Jr. He’s a good friend of mine from Haida

Gwaii. He’s a Haida Gwaii elder as well as a chief. He’s a great advocate and a

great believer in science and facts and loves B.C. He is here to take a number of

meetings. Would the House please make him welcome.

N. Letnick: I’d like to join with the Minister of Environment to welcome the B.C. Lung Association members here. We had a great meeting this morning and look forward to working with them in the months ahead.

I’d also take this opportunity to welcome Alana DeLong. Alana was a Member of the

Legislative Assembly in Alberta, now lives on the Island and was very involved

with the PNWER group — and, indeed, is a bright light on Vancouver Island. Please

make Alana truly welcome.

Hon. J. Sims: Visiting us and sitting in the gallery today are some friends of ours from the Lower Mainland. They live in Richmond, but they’re good friends to the MLAs from Surrey. We see them at many of our events.

We know that they’ve had a huge engagement in the political process back in the Punjab and

are very, very active here, to build a good life for themselves. We have with us

today Mr. Sukhinder Singh Mansahia, Neenu Mansahia and their beautiful

daughter-in-law Megha Goyal, who has just been called to the bar here in British

Columbia. I want all of you to join me in welcoming them to this House.

D. Routley: I’d like to welcome, along with the House, a dear friend, John Middleton. John was born in Sarnia in…. Well, never mind. He came to B.C. in 1973, and B.C. has never been the same. John has been a carpenter all his life. He was part of the Carpenters Union, and he tells me he was an on-again, off-again horse-flogger. I’m generously assuming that that means selling horses.

John has two girls and one boy. He was a single dad way back when, when that wasn’t at all a common thing. He works hard for Fair Vote. He’s volunteered for the NDP for a long time, and for me. I’m gratefully thankful for that. John is living the dream as a farmer in Cobble Hill.

Welcome, John.

M. Stilwell: Today seated in the gallery up behind me, I understand, are 24 amazing

grade 11 students from Ballenas Secondary School in my riding. Please wave at

them. I said I would, but I can’t see them.

Among them are Matthew, Emma, Leo, My Huy and Tananger, who actually

presented to the Finance Committee in Campbell River for the B.C. budget

consultation. I greeted them with their teacher Olivia Hill in the Memorial

Rotunda this afternoon to tell them about what goes on in the House and what the

responsibilities of an MLA are. Now they get to witness it for themselves here

today. Please join me in giving them a very parliamentary welcome.

L. Reid: We’re joined in the gallery today by two lovely souls who guided the work

of the establishing of the Fallen Paramedics Memorial on the south lawn of the

Legislature. Gentle-handed Lynn Klein guided that work, and Deborah Price

chronicled the entirety — basically, from the moment the idea came to fruition to

it actually coming to life on the back lawn. Please welcome Lynn Klein and Deborah

Price.

R. Kahlon: I want to recognize some respected elders from North Delta, who took advantage of the free ferry ride today to come see us all in action. I’d like the House to make welcome Gurmeet Singh Sandhu, Daljit Singh Raj and Surjeet Singh Deol. I want to welcome them to the House here today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: It’s my pleasure to introduce Kevin Wong, who’s a constituency assistant at

my MLA office in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. He’s a second-year student studying

political science at the University of British Columbia. Would the House please

join me in welcoming my special guest.

J. Thornthwaite: I have some special guests today from the Hope for PTSD Symposium, which I

actually attended on October 4. They want government to recognize PTSD and outline

best practices for all professionals treating this disorder and aid people through

the recovery process.

My introductions to the House are for Dr. Michael Sors­dahl, Mike

Annan, Janelle Breese Biagioni, Alana DeLong, Andrea Zoric, Josh Crawford, Crystal

Bouche, Dr. Connie Alsop and Trish Schooler. Could the House please welcome them

to the House. They’re right there.

Welcome.

J. Martin: It’s a great pleasure to introduce a very close friend of mine and a longtime acquaintance of yours, Mr. Speaker. All the way from beautiful downtown Kelowna, please welcome John Shandalla to the gallery.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would like to introduce a young student, a grade 5 student, from Cloverdale Traditional School in my constituency who is here with us, I believe, visiting the Legislature — or the gallery, certainly — for the first time. Her name is Sophie Wilkinson. She’s here with her grandmother, Sharon Wilkinson, who is the president of the Premier’s executive council. I would ask the House to make both of these guests most welcome here today.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery today is a delegation from Italy, representing the region of Emilia-Romagna, led by the Regional Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Simona Caselli. For those of you who don’t know Emilia-Romagna, it is a leading jurisdiction in cooperative enterprise, both in agriculture and many other sectors.

This is the minister’s first visit to British Columbia. She’ll be meeting with me and a number of other ministers to discuss matters of mutual concern between our respective jurisdictions.

Would the House please make the minister feel welcome.

T. Shypitka: I’m happy to see in the gallery today members from HeliCat Canada. Formed in 1978, HeliCat Canada is a not-for-profit association registered under the B.C. Societies Act. They advocate for safe and fun recreation and are a welcome component to our tourism industry. House, please welcome the guests today.

R. Leonard: Today visiting the gallery and the Legislature are 40 students from Mark R. Isfeld, under the tutelage of Ms. Zirkl and Heather Beckett. I asked specifically why, because this is the second or third time that these teachers have brought students to the Legislature. They say grade 10s love to learn by experience. So when they do come into the House, I hope that everyone gives them a great experience. Please join me in welcoming them here to Victoria today.

R. Singh: I would also like to welcome the members of HeliCat Canada: Ross Cloutier, Chris McNamara, Christopher Nicolson and Walt Judas. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

A. Kang: Today, for the first time, my legislative assistant, as well as the legislative assistant for the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission and the MLA for Surrey-Fleetwood, is here. It has been a long time since she’s been in the gallery. I want to make her feel very special.

She has been one of the longest-serving staff here at the Legislature. She was the CA to Penny Priddy, who was a former Minister for Education and Health. Then she moved on to become a family justice counsellor, and now she’s back here again as an LA.

She has been a mom to me and a family, a very caring, thoughtful friend. As well, I love her smiles and cooking and her wonderful advice for fashion and life advice. Her name is Gurbrinder Kang. Would the House make her feel very welcome.

Thank you, Gurbrinder.

[1:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I figure we’d give the gentlemen a trifecta here. It was a wonderful opportunity to meet with Walt Judas, Ross Cloutier, Chris Nicolson and Chris McNamara last night.

Thank you very much for coming and taking the time to talk with me about adventure tourism and the importance that it has in the British Columbia economy.

Here is the trifecta. Welcome, gentlemen, to the House.

Tributes

TIM BOUTIN

Hon. K. Conroy: I rise today with some sad news, the passing of a constituent, Capt. Tim Boutin of the Trail Fire Fighters Local 941. Many members will remember Tim for his many years advocating here at the Legislature on behalf of firefighters provincewide. He had worked for the Kootenay Boundary Regional Fire Rescue, Station 374, for 26 years.

He passed away on November 14 from occupational cancer. He leaves behind his wife of 36 years, Lorraine; his two children, Kyle and Sam; their spouses, Karen and Kate; and his four granddaughters. He will also be deeply missed by his mom, Blanche, and his extended family.

He was born in Montreal and had lived many places across Canada before coming to B.C. He was a devoted husband and father and loved coaching his boys’ hockey and soccer. After he retired, he really loved being a grandpa and woodworking. Tim had a great sense of humour and will be remembered by family and friends for his ability to make you laugh no matter what the situation.

There will be a celebration of Tim’s life on Monday, November 26. I ask the House to join me in sending an expression of sympathy to Tim’s family, his friends and his firefighter family.

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: I also wanted to echo my greetings for my legislative assistant, Gurbrinder Kang.

I also wanted to mention that today I was very pleased to be able to spend some time with her brother, Harinder Singh Mann. He’s a farmer from Amritsar, Punjab. He’s here with Gurbrinder’s nephew, who’s a civil engineer who’s also working right now on the farm, growing pears and guavas. His name is Harbakshish Singh Mann. They were here, as well, today to see the Multiculturalism Week proclamation, which was great timing.

I just wanted to have a big welcome to our guests from India.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M222 — ADOPTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

D. Barnett presented a bill intituled Adoption Amend­ment Act, 2018.

D. Barnett: I move that the bill entitled Adoption Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill removes the legislative stipulation that disqualifies adults over the age of 19 from formally being adopted if these individuals were not supported as children by their prospective adopter.

The bill increases the ability for consenting adults to have the freedom to define their family relationships and have them recognized by the state without the unnecessary and arbitrarily restrictive legislative exclusions currently present in the Adoption Act. This bill will allow consenting adults who enter adoptions the ability to have equal access to state benefits afforded to families.

This bill aligns British Columbia with other Canadian jurisdictions that already have allowances to adulthood adoption in place, such as Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, among others.

This bill allows for the same protective safeguards against abuse of the adoption process granted to adoption of minors to remain in place for adults by allowing the courts to determine the validity of the motivations of prospective adult adoptions.

This bill has been brought forward due to the fact that in my constituency, I have adults who wish to be adopted, and under the system, it is difficult.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

[1:50 p.m.]

D. Barnett: 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 M222, Adoption Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and 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)

RACISM AND MULTICULTURALISM

R. Kahlon: This year marks the 25th anniversary of B.C.’s Multiculturalism Act. In 1993, when the act was first created, residential schools remained open in Canada. A ban preventing Sikhs from wearing turbans in the RCMP had only just been lifted. The provincial cabinet included just one person of colour.

We have made significant strides in 25 years. However, like many of you, I feel and observe an unsettling change in our society. This change is occurring in daily life both off and on line.

People’s symbols of faith are being challenged in Quebec. A new Canadian political party is using issues of public safety and immigration to stir up hate. Here in B.C., we have seen people targeted on public transit for who they are or how they dress. And sadly, racism has led to recent horrific hate crimes south of the border as well as here in our own country.

This is a critical moment in our society. It’s up to us as individuals, as human beings, to build these bridges. Tolerance is no longer enough. Instead, we must strive for equity, acceptance and inclusion.

Our government takes this responsibility seriously. We have re-established a B.C. Human Rights Commission with the power to address systematic discrimination in our society. As part of our commitment to true and lasting reconciliation, we will be fully adopting and implementing the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

These are just first steps, but they won’t be the last. This Multiculturalism Week, our pledge as a government is to meet hate and intolerance head-on for the sake of our beautifully diverse province. I ask all British Columbians to do the same.

SUPPORT FOR

SIKH COMMUNITY IN KELOWNA

N. Letnick: Earlier this week a Sikh gurdwara in Kelowna was the target of hateful graffiti. For many years, my colleagues and I from Kelowna have visited the Sikh community on Davie street. They have become more than our neighbours. They’ve become our friends.

The bigotry reflected in these crimes is not representative of the people of Kelowna or

British Columbians as a whole. We are a proud multicultural society, and we are

all the better for it. The attitudes of those responsible for these acts

against the Sikh community have no place in our province. No one is born with

hate in their heart, and we must stand together to condemn this type of learned

behaviour.

Every spring I organize a walk up Knox Mountain for world peace. Families come out, and we

make a real effort to teach the values of tolerance, acceptance and peace. Many

Sikhs attend. Today I rise in this House to extend our sympathies and support

those affected by this bigotry. We stand in solidarity with the Sikh community

in condemning this hateful act and ask that anyone with information on

vandalism please contact the Kelowna RCMP.

Together we must oppose racism and intolerance of any kind and strive to create the kind of society where crimes such as these are a thing of the past. I ask all members of this House to join me in saying Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh .

DUNDARAVE FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

B. Ma: “It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.” Those are the words of Michael and Mary Markwick, two West Vancouver residents who organize the annual Dundarave Festival. This winter celebration of arts and culture in West Vancouver features four Saturdays of absolutely free, jubilant and heartwarming concerts. It’s cherished across our region.

The true heart of the Dundarave Festival is the forest of miracles, an outdoor display of

hundreds of Christmas trees purchased by donors with the aim of, in the words

of the festival, ending homelessness beautifully. The Dundarave Festival’s

forest of miracles has raised over $400,000 in charitable donations for the

Lookout Society’s life-changing work on the North Shore.

Earlier this year the Dundarave Festival and Lookout Society were able to announce that

with the money raised through years of hard work and community support, the

Lookout Society has purchased a unit of permanent housing for a homeless North

Shore senior.

[1:55 p.m.]

It was because of their dedication to this important work that I was honoured to have Dr. Markwick join me on November 13 at Chelsea Gardens, where the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, along with the Premier, added to their success by announcing the construction of 4,902 affordable rental accommodations for seniors, families and individuals alike, with 196 units to be built right there in our home on the North Shore.

In using arts and culture to create meaningful dialogue about the housing crisis and powerful action to end homelessness one person at a time, the Dundarave Festival shines with the best spirit of our community and the true spirit of the season. It is my honour to invite all members to join me for the launch of the tenth annual Dundarave Festival on Saturday, December 1.

WILLIAMS LAKE

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

D. Barnett: The mission statement of the Williams Lake Child Development Centre is

“to provide an accessible regional hub of services that support children, youth

and their families.” Taking an integrated service approach, their vision is to

make a positive difference in the lives of everyone in the community by

providing vital support to children and youth.

The Williams Lake Child Development Centre is primarily supported by the

province through the Ministry of Children and Family Development. However, the

centre also enjoys the support of the Williams Lake Bingo Association, the

Variety Children’s Charity, parent fees and, from the generous contributions of

individuals and business donors, foundation funding and corporate

sponsorship.

The centre has been in operation since 1974 and has grown over the years

in scope, under the auspices of the CEO, Nancy Gale. Over 600 children and

their families in Williams Lake and the surrounding area received support from

the centre in 2016 and ’17.

In 2015, the CDC Cariboo autism centre was officially opened. It

provides individual programming to clients and their families in order to make

life better for everyone. One of the goals of the CDC’s Autism Centre is to

learn more about the experiences of families in rural and remote communities

with someone living with autism spectrum disorder.

This is an amazing organization that provides much-needed services to

families throughout the region: occupational therapy, physiotherapy, parent

support groups and much more. Every year the community comes together in

Williams Lake and holds an annual fundraising Christmas Wish Breakfast. I

invite everyone to come to Williams Lake on the 12th of December, 6:30 a.m.,

for a great breakfast with myself and the centre and families.

OPERATION RED NOSE SAFE RIDE PROGRAM

A. Kang: As the winter holidays draw near, Operation Red Nose is gearing up. Operation Red Nose is a national safe-drive program. It is a non-profit, community-based program that helps drivers get home safely during the holidays. The service is free, but drivers may make donations, which then get donated to local youth and amateur sports charities. Its mission is to make sure that anyone who has been drinking or is too tired does not drive.

The program and its volunteers operate on most Friday and Saturday nights from November 30 to December 31. For those who are tech-savvy, you can download the Operation Red Nose mobile app. Operation Red Nose is available in many cities, including Abbotsford, Mission, Burnaby, Chilliwack, Delta, Richmond, Kamloops, New Westminster, North Shore, Prince George, Maple Ridge, Tri-Cities and Williams Lake. As well, ICBC has been a proud partner of Operation Red Nose since it began in B.C. in 1996.

The success of Operation Red Nose depends on its volunteers. It’s a great way to give back to communities while helping to keep our roads safe over the holidays. In 2017, approximately 3,300 dedicated volunteers across B.C. gave 4,700 rides to get people and their vehicles home safely, while raising over $137,000 for the local charities. Businesses can also get involved by supplying many things that keep the program and volunteers running, such as phones, food, advertisements and gifts for the volunteers.

[2:00 p.m.]

Operation Red Nose hopes that by offering a completely safe, free and confidential way to get home, lives will be saved on our roads. Remember, only Santa has a magical vehicle. The driver is safer when the roads are dry. The roads are safer when the driver is dry.

Think of the future. Think of your date. Think before you make that fatal mistake. Don’t drink and drive. Call Operation Red Nose at 1-877-604-NOSE.

BILL MUSTAKLIM

R. Sultan: My constituent Bill Mustaklim describes himself as competitive, always trying to improve. He believes physical and mental fitness go hand in hand, and most experts would agree.

Bill takes full advantage of the North Shore Mountains in our backyard — Grouse, Cypress and Seymour, two of them provincial parks. He hikes, does mountain biking, snowshoeing, and in particular, he runs.

Last year at the B.C. Seniors Games in Kimberley-Cranbrook, he won a gold in the 4 x 100 relay, a bronze in the 50-metre sprint and a fourth in the 100 metre. Next year the 55+ games are in Kelowna, and Bill will be there too.

Bill uses sports to help fundraise for important causes. He helped organize the Glotman-Simpson Cypress Cycling Challenge, a mountain climb criss-crossing my riding boundary as it reaches the mountaintop, raising funds for the B.C. Cancer Foundation. This year 770 cyclists took the challenge and raised over $400,000 for pancreatic research.

Bill finished second but confesses there were only two other competitors in his age group. Did I mention he’s in the age 75-to-79 category?

Congratulations, Bill Mustaklim. You are a role model for the growing number of very active seniors in our province.

Oral Questions

RIDE-SHARING SERVICES

A. Wilkinson: We all know that Vancouver is now the largest centre in North America

without ride-sharing services. Sadly, we’ve seen the introduction of

legislation, put together, presumably, with the connivance of the Third Party

and their secretariat, that has the effect of obstructing any foreseeable

modernization of the taxi industry or permission of ride-sharing.

I’ve now received close to 10,000 emails expressing distress over this.

Clearly, there is a public wave of dissatisfaction with the legislation

recently introduced.

This is what Ride-Sharing B.C. had to say about this yesterday: “We are

bewildered. We are absolutely stunned. It completely defeats the purpose of

ride-sharing, which is driven by the consumer.”

The obvious question is: why is this Transportation Minister obstructing

the development of ride-sharing with this completely backward

legislation?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The Leader of the Opposition was also in the former government and knows that for the four years he was in the former government, nothing happened, although ride-sharing was available at that time.

We know that Uber approached the former government. In fact, the present Opposition House Leader was Transportation Minister when Uber first started to want to operate in B.C. That was back in 2012. But we have nothing.

We have brought in a bill that is going to bring in ride-sharing for the people of B.C. It’s going to modernize the taxi industry, and it’s going to provide safe transportation options for people who really want to be able to travel around our province.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The Minister of Transportation either has conveniently forgotten or didn’t bother to ask about the miscellaneous statutes passenger transportation services amendment act of 2017, which has accomplished exactly the task that she pretends didn’t happen under the prior government. Can the minister explain…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order, please.

[2:05 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Did the minister ever see this draft act that’s two years old, or is she misleading the House?

Hon. C. Trevena: The previous government had five years to bring in legislation. The Leader of the Opposition may have draft pieces of legislation which are still draft. We have real legislation. And if the Leader of the Opposition says it accomplishes the same thing that their draft legislation did, which wasn’t introduced to the House in the five years that they had the opportunity to do it, I anticipate they will fully support our bill.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, we now see the minister playing games. She denies the existence of pre-existing legislation, comes here with her magic bullet. This is like “Jack and the Beanstalk.” We’re suddenly told that there is the magic pill that will solve the problems.

The problem is that the draft legislation the minister has put on the table blocks the needed changes in insurance. It blocks the opportunity to introduce ride-sharing in British Columbia. And we have close to 10,000 people writing in to say that this legislation accomplishes absolutely nothing except to stall, delay and obstruct.

Perhaps the minister can answer the question. Why is the minister oblivious to the needs of consumers, creating a high-handed, centralized bureaucracy and ignoring the needs of the taxi industry for more flexible insurance?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, I’d like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that as a member of the previous government, he knew that there was a great opportunity, a great demand for ride-sharing for five years. Since 2012, since Uber first came into the market in Canada, there’s been a huge opportunity, a huge demand.

As a critic, I was getting a lot of emails. As the minister, I’m getting a lot of emails. People want change. We’re bringing change, but we are bringing change that is going to be safe. We are ensuring that people who get into a car that they’re paying for, for their ride, will be safe.

I know the Leader of the Opposition agrees with this, because he said, just this summer: “The issue is how you make sure there’s a safe environment in which drivers can operate and passengers, in particular, can operate.” That’s exactly what we’re doing, and I anticipate that he will fully support our bill.

J. Thornthwaite: Despite receiving one email every five seconds, the minister

continues to thumb her nose at consumers. Here’s just a sample of

hundreds of comments I’ve received from my constituents in the last 24

hours. Joanne writes: “I cannot understand why the government is being

so difficult and dictatorial.” Joe writes: “They have failed to bring

one of the best tech services…”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.

J. Thornthwaite: “…to citizens. It’s a disgusting mess.”

My question is to the minister. Why is this government introducing

a bill that will effectively block Joanne, Joe and the rest of British

Columbia from ever getting ride-sharing?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, I think we all get a lot of emails from people who want to have options for transportation. I accept that, and I know that it is absolutely unacceptable to have to be waiting for a long while to get a cab. People are really frustrated, which is why, after five years, there is finally legislation in this House that will bring in ride-sharing for people.

[2:10 p.m.]

I mean, even Uber — we use this as the generic for ride-share — has acknowledged that they approached the government in 2012. The spokesperson here in B.C. says: “Timelines are a big question to British Columbians. There are people who’ve been waiting for this service since 2012.”

The opposition was in government in 2012. The opposition was in government until 2017. They did nothing. We have brought in legislation that will bring it about.

Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: The NDP government promised ride-sharing in 2017. They promised it in 2018. Now we have it at 2019. Maybe ’20, maybe not. Maybe never. Ride-sharing means customer-driven service, and my constituents want it now. Brenda writes: “I’m sorry. I just don’t believe the delays are driven by legitimate concerns for the public.” Greg writes: “What’s the holdup? This is crazy. Every other major city in Canada has it.”

Again, Brenda, Greg and the rest of British Columbians….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has the floor.

J. Thornthwaite: My question, again, is to the minister. Brenda, Greg and the rest of British Columbians want to know: why is this minister blocking ride-sharing?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I have stated several times, there is a bill in the House. We have legislation here which is going to enable app-based ride-hailing — enable it, not block it.

We know that people want options for transportation. They know they want safe options. They want affordable options. That is what we’re going to be providing. We’ve also been able to, in the time that the opposition, when they were in government, didn’t bring in anything….

The only advantage to that, apart from frustrating constituents, is that it means that we have been able to learn from other jurisdictions where they have found there were massive problems when ride-share was brought in. For instance, in New York City, they are now bringing in caps on the number of vehicles.

A ride-hailing expert from the University of Toronto has said about our approach to

ride-hailing…. Shauna Brail said, on our approach to ride-hailing: “They,”

meaning B.C., “skipped right over ride-hailing 1.0, and they’re at ride-hailing

2.0.”

It’s going to be good legislation.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

AND ROLE OF TRAINING AND

TECHNOLOGY

S. Furstenau: In just a few decades, the carbon drawn down over many tens of millions of years and stored in the oil, gas and coal reserves of today is being released back into the atmosphere. If global emissions do not start to dramatically decline in the next few years, millions of people, including British Columbians, will be at risk from heat waves, droughts, floods, storms and wildfires. Small communities across our province, already hit by increasing natural disasters like wildfires and floods, will need more and more resources to cope.

We need to train and educate our workforce today with the skills that will be needed tomorrow. We need to focus skills training on technology and innovation that will help us to be more resilient and adaptable in the face of a changing world.

To the Minister of Advanced Education: what are the greatest climate change–related risks

and opportunities facing your ministry, and how are you prepared to deal with

both?

Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member opposite for the question. We are taking climate action seriously. It is, in fact, one of the greatest challenges for our generation. I think about Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, the president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who says that we need to all embrace climate action and its challenges.

I am confident that the 25 public post-secondary institutions are up for the challenge. They have the capacity to deliver. They are training the leaders of tomorrow in climate policy and climate research, and we are going to build up the next generation for the green economy.

One of the key pillars of our ministry’s government is to work with Indigenous people — truth and reconciliation in action. I had the opportunity to visit the Penticton Indian Band, who’s working in partnership with the Nicola Valley Institute. They are training up the next generation of stewardship for their land. I’m very proud of those partnerships.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. M. Mark: I’m also really proud of our ability to promise on the 2,900 seats that are investing in tech and, finally, to deliver on student housing, Passive House standard.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

[2:15 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: The current state of B.C.’s climate is not “the new normal,” as many were saying this summer under a cloud of smoke. Normal implies a plateau and consistency. We are not on a plateau. We are on a steep trend towards increasingly extreme events. I’m sad to say this is just the beginning, and it pales in comparison to what we have in store.

Climate change poses an opportunity for B.C. to be at the forefront of developing an economy that is part of the solution. We’ve seen the tech industry in B.C. blossom. Over 100,000 people work in local tech, accounting for over 5 percent of B.C.’s total workforce. Ensuring that our workforce is prepared for the vastly different economic landscape and the job market of a changed climate will require an all-of-government approach.

To the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology: what are the greatest climate

change–related risks and opportunities facing your ministry, and how are you

prepared to deal with both?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. We recognize the challenge before all of us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to make meaningful steps while investing in a sustainable economy.

Climate change presents, obviously, a number of risks that could impact all sectors of our economy and our ability to trade with other countries. As a coastal province, for example, our ports and other trade infrastructure are particularly susceptible to rising sea levels and more extreme weather. Some of our key economic sectors…. Forestry — we’ve seen the fires just in the last two summers — mining, agrifood, seafood, transportation and tourism will all be greatly impacted by a changing climate.

We are taking real action on climate change to grow our economy and create good jobs for people. As the global economy shifts to greener, low-carbon products and services, we’re ensuring traditional industries innovate to remain competitive.

As the member mentioned, we launched the emerging economy task force to identify how B.C. can remain globally competitive and support our people in the future. The task force will help us understand the emerging impact of climate change, understanding the nature of business and the economy.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Ralston: They just don’t want to hear what we’re doing, clearly. I know the people of British Columbia do.

ACTIVITIES OF

COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTOR

P. Milobar: According to the Minister of Citizens’ Services and her repetitious, canned answers, the “no records” response from Marie Della Mattia in the Premier’s office was on account of the nature of her work. Well, Della Mattia became a contract employee in January and was required to produce, according to her own contract, “a monthly written report to the deputy minister.” A monthly written report.

Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain why no monthly written reports exist?

Hon. J. Sims: That particular person has worked on contract for government and in a variety of roles. She provides advice. She worked for us for a while when we first came into government. I can tell you she did her work and carried out her duties.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: Let’s be very clear. This is a nine-month period we’re referencing when Mrs. Della Mattia was on contract and was required under her contract to provide written reports. When asked under FOI for these reports, this government could only produce a handful of Della Mattia invoices over that same period of nine months. They aren’t monthly, and they certainly aren’t reports. They’re bills.

That’s right — not one written report, only invoices that show she cashed her cheques at a rate of $150 an hour, totalling just north of $35,000. But still no reports.

[2:20 p.m.]

This government fired a civil servant after falsely accusing him of not producing any reports. Will the minister fire Della Mattia for breach of contract?

Hon. J. Sims: I do not have the specifics. I will report back.

J. Johal: Well, let me provide some specifics. On September 25, three hours for “FOI.” The same thing on August 18, July 23 and on two other occasions — 15½ hours for FOI at $150 an hour, plus GST. That’s nearly $2,500.

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, why is Della Mattia billing taxpayers $150 an hour

to go through her own Gmail?

Hon. J. Sims: I will take this under notice and report back.

GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING POLICIES

G. Kyllo: Let’s look at this email again. It was sent on December 21 of 2017, and it reads: “Don” — this is the deputy minister, Don Wright — “did want to maintain the policy that has been implemented from the previous administration for political staff to not delete sent items.”

Had this policy been maintained, as Don Wright wanted, none of the “no records” issues would have actually occurred. But they did, and British Columbians deserve to find out who is responsible.

To the minister, what justification did the Premier have in overruling Don Wright and directing staff to delete sent emails?

Hon. J. Sims: I am proud of the fact that we are practising good records management. Let me tell you. We’re going to take no lessons from people who, when they sat on this side of the House, were a government of triple deletes and “win at all costs.” I can tell you that we have put training in place that is ongoing. We want to get this right, and we’re following the policies that exist for records management. Those that are transient are deleted. Those that need to be kept are kept. That is good practice, and we’re going to continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemental.

G. Kyllo: That is very rich. On May 17, the Premier said: “The deputy minister of my office is ensuring that best practices are being observed.” Clearly, Deputy Minister Don Wright felt that best practice was to retain all sent emails.

Did Geoff Meggs overrule Don Wright and order senior staff to delete all sent emails?

Hon. J. Sims: I think my colleague must really have been searching for a question to ask today. Let me tell you that we on this side of the House…. We need to know that our Premier committed to this. We did have some transitional problems right at the beginning. We corrected those. We put training in place, both for staff and for ministers. And you know something else? We are following the practices and policies that exist. Transient emails are deleted, and those that need to be kept are kept. We’re going to continue to do that, because good records management is exactly that, and we are committed to it.

L. Throness: We’re going to continue to raise this concern. Last spring and this fall we raised concerns about the mass deletion of emails by NDP staff. The Premier initially responded with his profound disappointment, and then he fobbed it onto his deputy, Don Wright, to do some kind of a review for political cover.

[2:25 p.m.]

It could have been addressed very simply if the minister were simply to have instructed ministers and staff to retain all sent emails.

My question to the minister is this. Did Don Wright ever recommend this solution, to retain all sent emails?

Hon. J. Sims: We are following good records management practices. As committed, training was given to staff. It is ongoing training. And like any good records management, those records that need to be kept are kept, and those that are transitory are deleted. We will continue to follow the practice.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: We have an email here that’s a year old, from the office of Don

Wright to the Premier’s office. The email reads…. I quote from it: “Don”

— that is Don Wright — “did want to maintain the policy that has been

implemented from the previous administration for political staff to not

delete sent items.”

Why did the minister or the Premier overrule the advice of B.C.’s

most senior public servant in order to delete all sent

emails?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to remind my colleagues that the records management practices, the policies, are exactly the same now as they were when the other side sat on this side of the House.

What we do and what is good practice is to keep records that should be kept, and transient emails are deleted. We have given training. We’re going to continue to give more training, because we know best practices is what we want to model here.

We are committed to good records management, unlike the other side, who were a government of triple deletes. And when they got caught, they misled the public.

S. Bond: Well, the minister can keep repeating the same answer, but let’s try the question one more time. It is not that complex — a pretty straightforward question.

Here’s what we know. We know that the deputy minister, Don Wright, wanted to maintain the policy requiring all ministers and their staff to retain their sent emails. Pretty straightforward.

Was the decision to overrule Don Wright documented, and will the minister, today, answer the question and commit to release those documents?

Hon. J. Sims: As I have said a number of times, we will continue to follow good practice for records management, and we will continue to provide the training to staff and other people as needed.

You know something? That policy is all about good records management and making sure those

records that need to be kept are kept and transitory records and superfluous

records are deleted.

It’s very hard to listen to my friends across the way being so sanctimonious, knowing their own past record.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: What’s hard is to listen to this minister continually duck, dodge and weave her responsibility. Let’s be clear. She is responsible for the Freedom of Information Act as well as the chief records officer and records management of the province.

Let’s ask this question. What conversations did this minister have with Don Wright related

to the policy of retaining sent emails? Not all about the answer she’s given

before. What conversations did she have in reaction to Don Wright’s request

that she direct ministers to keep their sent emails?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. Let me tell you. We are

following…. I know she’s not going to like the answer, but it’s the same answer

as I gave before.

[2:30 p.m.]

There are policies that guide records management, and in my ministry, we

have the responsibility for that. We take it seriously. We provide training,

and we’re going to continue to do that to make sure we have good practice. I’m

not going to take any lessons from people on that side, knowing their

deplorable record for records management.

M. Polak: Let’s place the issue squarely before us. When the minister took her

position, there was an existing policy. It was already in place. There was an

existing policy that required that all ministers and senior staff in their

office, their ministerial staff, retain all of their sent items. That was the

existing policy.

At some point, someone had to make the decision to change that policy.

It’s clear it wasn’t the Deputy Minister to the Premier that gave that advice.

We haven’t heard whether it was Geoff Meggs, whether it was the Premier’s

office.

Maybe the minister could try to answer this question. In terms of making

the decision to end that practice, whose advice did she follow?

Hon. J. Sims: Records management sits in my ministry. We have policies and guidelines for good records management. We give training. That is ongoing.

We follow the policies that are in there. So do our staff. That is: you keep records that

are meant to be kept, that have to do with government decisions or that are

connected with them. Transitory emails are deleted. That’s basic hygiene in the

email world; otherwise, you would just bung up the whole system.

Let me be clear. There is written policy. We’re following the policy, unlike the people on

that side when they were in government — triple-delete, mislead and

destroy.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. L. Beare: I rise to table the 2017-18 Report on Multiculturalism .

Reports from Committees

FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT

SERVICES COMMITTEE

B. D’Eith: I have the honour to present the Select Standing Committee on Finance

and Government Services report on the Budget 2019 consultation.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

B. D’Eith: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

B. D’Eith: In moving adoption of the report, I’d like to make some brief comments.

As members know, each fall the Finance Committee has the privilege of hearing

from British Columbians about what they believe should be the priorities in the

next provincial budget.

This year, for the Budget 2019 consultation, we took some steps to renew

our approach in an effort to encourage broader participation. We reached out

directly to Indigenous organizations in the community-based groups and

refreshed our communications and promotional activities. We also held the

public hearings in community-oriented spaces, such as recreation centres,

libraries and universities.

In total, we heard 267 presentations at 14 public hearings in

communities across the province and received 253 written submissions and 472

responses to the on-line survey.

We were particularly pleased to be able to travel to Haida Gwaii for the

first time. We learned how important it is for our committee to visit remote

areas like this so that it provides us with a more fulsome picture of the needs

of all British Columbians.

This report provides a comprehensive and detailed

summary of what we

heard and makes 100 unanimous recommendations for the next provincial

budget.

Four key themes emerged during the consultation and shaped our

deliberations: reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, inequality, climate

change and the economy. These themes are reflected in many of our

recommendations, and the challenges and opportunities they present need to be

addressed in the next and subsequent provincial budgets.

[2:35 p.m.]

I would also like to highlight the ongoing impact of climate change on

our province — including the increased impact of wildfires, flooding and

invasive species — and the need for significant investments to improve

prevention, mitigation, adaptation, response and recovery efforts. On behalf of

the committee, I’d like to thank all of the individuals and organizations that

took the time to participate. Their thoughtful, detailed input was immensely

valuable, and our report and recommendations are very much rooted in their

input.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the committee

members — especially the Deputy Chair, the member for Penticton — for their

diligence and hard work in this process, their attention and engagement during

the consultation and excellent discussions during the deliberations.

On behalf of the committee, I would also like to acknowledge and extend

our appreciation to a number of staff for all of the work they do in supporting

this consultation. From the Parliamentary Committees Office, thank you to

Jennifer Arril, the Clerk of the committee; Stephanie Raymond; Mary Newell;

Mariana Novis; Karan Riarh; Nicki Simpson; and Willi Fahning. From Hansard,

Mike Baer, Amanda Heffelfinger, Steve Weisgerber, Simon DeLaat and the entire

broadcasting, transcribing and publishing team.

I believe that this report sets out a very good

summary of what B.C. is

thinking in terms of priorities on the myriad of issues facing our province. I

invite the ministers to consider the recommendations — making this all-party

committee as informed for the next public budget.

I wanted to thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for the chance to present

this.

D. Ashton: As the Deputy Chair, I, too, would like to issue many, many thanks to

the citizens who responded and came out to address the committee. Their input

is incredibly invaluable. Also, many thanks to the incredible staff of the

Clerk of Committees and Hansard, the backbone of all the committees in this

House, the people’s House, and also to my peers on the committee, especially

the Chair, from Maple Ridge–Mission, who did an incredible job.

As you heard, it was a unanimous report. That makes a big difference.

Many people, unfortunately, only see question period in this House of the

people. With the committees of both sides of the House, the Third Party

included, we all show that we can work together. When a report like that can

come forward, it makes a really big difference. Those are the kinds of things

that the people of British Columbia should really notice of what goes on in the

people’s home here.

Last but not least, I would like to pre-thank the Finance Minister and

her incredible staff for the attention that will have to be addressed to the

issues that are brought forward. Hon. Speaker, thank you, and thank you to all

my peers on the committee for doing an incredible job.

S. Furstenau: I want to echo the comments. Thank you to the Chair. Thank you to the

Clerk’s office, to Hansard and to all of the people that made this possible. It

was indeed an enormous privilege to be on this committee, to travel across the

province to hear from people across so many communities and to recognize that

there is so much more that not only unites us in this House but that unites us

across this province. We saw that time and again.

I do want to say that as the lone Third Party member, I was indeed not

lonely at all. I felt great pleasure to be working with colleagues on both

sides of the House. The congeniality, friendliness and warmth of our time on

that committee, I think, really does need to be noted, and I thank all of the

members, the Chair, the vice-Chair, for making this such a wonderful

experience. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present investigation reports 18-06 and

18-01 from the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British

Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 55, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. In

Section A, I call continued committee on Bill 45, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

[2:40 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

J. Yap: It’s an honour and a privilege to carry on with debate on Bill 55, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. I appreciate the opportunity to continue my remarks after yesterday evening’s opportunity to begin my remarks.

I want to start out by, first of all, saying that this bill that’s before this House and that we’re debating here in second reading is, quite frankly, a great disappointment. It’s a great disappointment because this was an opportunity for the government, this minister, to bring forward ride-hailing to British Columbia. Today, as we’ve heard over and over again, we are the last jurisdiction in Canada to have ride-hailing. Greater Vancouver is the only remaining major metropolis in the entire continent of North America that is without ride-hailing.

This is very disappointing because this bill, while it is intended or is packaged and is

marketed as a bill to bring in ride-hailing, is, in fact, a mirage. It does not

do that. It only enables the introduction of ride-hailing to the province of

British Columbia. This is very disappointing. Hundreds of thousands of British

Columbians share in this disappointment.

My constituency office has been receiving, overnight, a tremendous number of emails and messages from very disappointed constituents. I am sure that all members of this House, both sides and the Third Party, have been receiving these messages of disappointment. Let me share for the record, with this House, some of the messages from very disappointed constituents that were really looking forward to something more from this government.

Let me begin with some feedback from commentators who have been following this topic with great interest. I quote some of the comments from journalists. We’ll start, first of all, with Rob Shaw from the Vancouver Sun . This is a direct quote: “NDP Legislation Pushes Ride-Hailing in B.C. to Late 2019.” Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Province : “Not an Encouraging Start to Ride-Hailing in B.C.” Vaughn Palmer from the Vancouver Sun : “B.C. Bill Just Delays Ride-Hailing Even More.”

My constituents have this to say. This is from my constituent Elon. He has this to say: “My wife cannot work a full-time job because of the health of our kids. Even part-time jobs with a

schedule can be challenging for us. But something like Uber will allow her to work when she can. We are now struggling financially. This would really help.”

From my constituent Roxanne: “It’s ridiculous that a major city like Vancouver does not have ride-sharing. I have travelled all over the world and have used ride-share in the smallest towns. More importantly, I have a daughter who has been stranded on more than one occasion in downtown Vancouver because cab drivers refused to drive her home to Steveston. So I consider it a safety issue. Do your job and serve the people who elected you.”

[2:45 p.m.]

Another constituent, Steve, says: “As a long-time resident of Richmond and user of Uber in many other cities, I remain frustrated and dumbfounded that we do not yet have the option of Uber here in B.C.” Let’s have one more, from my constituents Ed and Donna: “Why all the delays? We need ride-sharing now. My wife and I are seniors who do not drive and have been waiting patiently for ride-sharing for the last two years. We have used ride-sharing in Toronto, Honolulu and Los Angeles and found it very convenient.”

Clearly, British Columbians are disappointed that this government, this minister and the

Premier, overpromised and now are underdelivering with this sham of a bill,

which purports to introduce ride-sharing to the province of British Columbia —

when, in fact, it is just another delay tactic, kicking this file down the

road, perhaps another year and perhaps beyond. Who knows?

Some of the aspects of this bill that we’ve already heard about include regulations that will make it so onerous for potential entrance into this industry that it’s almost like this government does not want ride-hailing to come to British Columbia.

For example, insisting that a commercial licence, a class 4 licence, be required is making

it so difficult and creating a high barrier for ordinary citizens who would

like to participate in a program like ride-hailing to earn a little extra

income. Whether it’s a senior on fixed income or a student attending college,

an opportunity to drive as part of a ride-hailing service to earn a little

extra income would be disallowed, unless citizens would be willing to go

through the hoops and to go through the significant investment of time and

training to get a class 4 licence.

When we look at the requirement, which this bill will require, that there would be an arm of government that would regulate the geography of where ride-hailing can happen, the supply of participants in ride-hailing, this goes completely against the whole intent and spirit of ride-hailing as an opportunity for a market-driven, consumer-driven service that would serve the needs of consumers, of customers.

Those are examples of the key flaws in this legislation. I hope, as we progress past second reading and get into committee stage, that the government would be open to some suggestions, perhaps amendments, that would help to make this legislation what it’s purporting to be, which is to introduce ride-hailing to the province of British Columbia. In its current form, it just does not do that.

It’s another broken promise of this government, another broken NDP promise on bringing

ride-hailing to the province, when this bill, as it’s presently written, will

not do that. I cannot support this bill in this current form, and I know that

colleagues from this side of the House share the same views. This does not do

what it purports to do, which is to bring ride-hailing to our province — a

needed service for customers throughout the province, especially in urban

areas, as we’ve heard.

We hope that the government will be open to changing it so that it will do what it’s intended to do, which is to bring greater Vancouver, bring the province of British Columbia, into the 21st century and to have ride-hailing in our province. In its current form, it does not do that.

A. Wilkinson: Of course, we’re here on Bill 55, which is the unfortunate piece of legislation brought on by the government — apparently with the cooperation of the Third Party, since they worked with their secretariat — which has the result of dismally failing the ridership and drivers of British Columbia.

[2:50 p.m.]

By failing to address the key issues related to ride-hailing and modernizing our taxi system in any significant way, this bill does nothing more than delay and obstruct and create totally unnecessary bureaucratic structures for something that should be managed out of a smartphone, not out of a building somewhere in Victoria filled with bureaucrats.

The issues involved were dealt with fairly substantively and thoroughly in a bill that was prepared in December of 2016. It’s, I think, stunning that the Minister of Transportation denies knowledge of this. The bill, which was referred to earlier today, known as the miscellaneous statutes passenger transportation services amendment act, 2017, is a fully substantive bill which was processed through the necessary drafting committees of the Legislature, through the legislative review committee, fully prepared by Attorney General’s ministry lawyers and ready to go. The Minister of Transportation has denied its existence.

This is either wilful blindness on her part or a derogation of her duty. The minister has an obligation to this House to be forthright about what has happened in her ministry, and she apparently overlooked the existence of substantive legislation that accomplished these goals two years ago — something that she flatly denies.

That bill, which I’ll call the 2017 act, created a level playing field, exactly what the industry’s been calling for. It dealt with insurance. It dealt with licensing. It dealt with zones. It dealt with the consumer demand–driven issues. And the minister pretends it doesn’t exist.

In the spring of 2017, there was a fully prepared revision to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia’s insurance products to provide for exactly what we’re talking about here — insurance for ride-hailing. That was a bill in March 2017. It was actually announced on March 7, 2017, when that minister was sitting on this side and the Leader of the Third Party was sitting in this House. All were fully aware of it, and all of them have been denying its existence.

This calls for a great deal of clarification and also a great deal more honesty from the Minister of Transportation. This is a more substantive point. We rise to the issue of whether there’s an element of hypocrisy going on here….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Leader. The minister seeks the floor.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I’d like to reserve my right on a point of privilege.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

A. Wilkinson: The hypocrisy of the members opposite and the government opposite and

the Green Party, when they are fully aware of this pre-existing legislation, is

ram­pant. It is inexcusable.

This, of course, goes to the issue of whether there is an opportunity

for this government to redeem itself by making clear that these pieces of

legislation were actually available to them, by telling the truth in the near

future.

The core of this, of course, is to focus on the customer, on improving

the industry in the face of technological change. That’s exactly what needs to

be done in this kind of legislation in the very near future.

The wave of technological change is not going away. Ride-hailing,

ride-sharing, the applications on smartphones are not about to disappear

because of the whim of the government opposite and the Minister of

Transportation, who is wilfully blind to the fact that everywhere else in the

industrial world these services are widely available, including everywhere else

in North America. Now we have a piece of obstructive legislation that is going

to block the modernization of the taxi industry.

In terms of the consumer, we have to think of the demand being

necessarily driven off the smartphone. This is where the demand will be

measured, where it will come from, and it will not be determined by a

ministerial committee operating out of the Ministry of Transportation. What the

minister has introduced in legislation provides for an over-weaning,

heavy-handed, state-run, ineffective mechanism for adjustment of a rapidly

adaptive line of work and a field in which technology is now driving the

future.

Instead, we get this state-driven approach driven out of the Ministry of

Transportation which will not have any significant effect for years to come.

We’re looking at, at least a two-year delay before any meaningful change will

occur in the industry. So what we see is an effective bill from 2017 that has

been transformed into a bureaucratic nightmare with top-down command and

control of a service that, essentially, should be driven by the

customer.

There is no need for the heavy hand of government in this line of work.

There is no need to cripple the taxi industry by keeping it in the Dark

Ages.

[2:55 p.m.]

We have to think primarily, of course, of the things that need to be

addressed — a flexible insurance product. That was anticipated in the 2017 act

that was available in March of 2017. Why don’t we have insurance that’s only

available on weekends? Why don’t we have daily coverage insurance? And most

critically, why can’t it be kilometre-based? Why can’t it be, particularly,

provided by the private sector?

Instead, we have the ongoing dead hand of the state-run monopoly run out

of the Minister of Transportation’s office, which will have the effect of

crushing enterprise, denying that spirit of entrepreneurship that is available

to everybody in British Columbia if only the Minister of Transportation would

provide some kind of modernized bill rather than put the dead hand of the state

onto enterprise.

We have a second issue, of licensing. The minister has provided that

anyone entering this line of work has to have a class 4 licence. This is a

totally unnecessary, bureaucratic, costly hurdle. When we think of the people

in this line of work — I rode with two of them yesterday — these people have

challenges in life. They’re working off-hours. They’re working very hard, night

shifts through the night to 6 a.m., to try and get ahead. There are many of

them immigrants, just as I was an immigrant when we came to this country, and

they’re looking to get ahead in British Columbia.

Instead of being able to say, “Here’s my class 5 licence. I’d like to

get a few upgrades and some safety checks and get a class 5A licence,” or the

kind of licence that already exists under class 5, with a type 7 endorsement

for trailers without air brakes…. These are readily available today. It’s a

minimal pathway to get it done, minimal obstacles for someone to go out and get

ahead in life. Instead, we have the Minister of Transportation saying: “Forget

it. Your dreams of getting ahead, those little incremental gains of a few

hundred dollars a month, will not be available to you until you have a class 4

licence.”

This is crushing the spirit of enterprise and telling people who are

trying to get ahead in life that they need not bother because there’s someone

wiser in their world, and her name is the Minister of

Transportation.

We also have to make sure that we understand where the demand comes

from. It doesn’t come from a government ministry. It doesn’t come from some

hallway in Victoria. It comes off the smartphones of consumers. That’s the

modern world. The idea that you have to phone or use some completely

inefficient app or somehow be in contact with one of the taxi companies is

obsolete, and everyone knows it.

The taxi industry is very keen on modernizing their dispatch system.

They’re working on the issue of getting uniform applications that will apply to

the entire industry. That should be respected. This legislation should

anticipate that change, accommodate it and facilitate it, rather than obstruct

it.

What we have here is a bill that is designed to paralyze the ride

industry in British Columbia, to obstruct transformation in the taxi industry,

to make it more expensive and more difficult to be a taxi driver — all because

the state knows better. The NDP, in all of their wisdom, know better how to

arrange a 5,000-taxi fleet and know better how to crush the dreams of

entrepreneurs who have very little in the way of means and who are just trying

to get ahead with a class 5 licence. And the Minister of Transportation grins

from ear to ear as she laughs at their prospects.

We have a chance here to send a very clear message to this government

and to our society that this legislation is hopelessly backward-looking and

ineffective, and it should be voted against. We cannot vote to support this

oppressive, inefficient, backward-looking system that is designed to lock in

the status quo at the expense of consumers and to cripple the future

development of the taxi industry.

We’ll be providing amendments to this legislation that will address

these very issues we’ve described. We’ll provide a private member’s bill that

will comprehensively address the issues. And, of course, the invitation is to

the Third Party to rise to the occasion, review the private member’s bill that

is coming and to make it clear that they support a forward-looking, modern taxi

industry, not the archaic, backward-looking, 20th-century industry that the

Minister of Transportation is trying to keep in place.

It’s time for us to endorse a bill equivalent to the miscellaneous

statutes passenger transportation services act of 2017. This has been fully

reviewed in all the necessary vehicles in government, and it’s ready for entry

into this room to be considered as legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

Of course, the question is: why wasn’t this considered as part of the

current Bill 55? More importantly, since the members of the Third Party were

here during that spring of 2017, why are they prepared to tout an obsolete and

ineffective piece of legislation in the hands of the Transportation Minister,

rather than to look into the future, rather than to address the interests of

consumers, rather than to make for a more efficient taxi and ride-sharing

service?

Rather than embrace the future, we’re going to grip onto the past and

try to preserve the status quo. Why? Because the Minister of Transportation’s

concept of the future looks an awful lot like the past.

I’m pleased and proud to pass on a notice of this bill, which will be

the miscellaneous statutes passenger transportation services amendment act,

2018. I’m now prepared to hand that to the Clerk so that we can get on with

modernizing our taxi fleet and our ride-sharing services, so that we can

embrace the future and live in the next decade, not stick ourselves into the

past of 20 years ago.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve sat through the opposition’s various creations of various myths

about what is and isn’t going to be happening with our legislation, what did

and didn’t happen when they were in government for 16 years. Admittedly, in

those 16 years, ride-hailing apps were not part of the whole 16 years, but they

were part of five years.

At the end of the rather hyperbolic rant by the Leader of the Official

Opposition, he tabled a piece, a private members’ bill, which he says he had as

a draft, the opposition had as a draft, when they were in government. It brings

to the very heart the question. If it was there as a draft, it was there as a

draft in the fall of 2016 into 2017. Why wasn’t it tabled, if there was

legislation there? The opposition had five years in which they could table

legislation.

The member for Langley, now the Opposition House Leader, met with Uber.

She said at that stage, back in 2012, that it was going to cost $75 to ride in

Uber. A bit steep. I know people anticipate to have cheaper rides. I’m sure

that under our model, with the Passenger Transportation Board setting their

fares and making sure we get that in place, the rides, when we get app-based

ride-hailing, will be much cheaper.

I have to say the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition talking

about how they had something ready to go…. They had every opportunity to bring

it in. They were government for five years when there was app-based

ride-hailing.

Now the Leader of the Opposition is talking about turning to private

insurance to deal with app-based ride-hailing. I’ve got to say I think it’s

outrageous if the opposition believes that undoing decades of a public

insurance model in this province is going to be faster than creating a new

product under the existing model. That is what we’re going to be

doing.

Given the mess that the previous Transportation Minister left ICBC in,

it is going to take a little time. We have a $1.3 billion hole, thanks to the

previous government. I’ve got to say the opposition really don’t like to

remember that they were a government up until just over a year ago, 16 months

ago, and they have a responsibility for what hasn’t happened.

We have the draft legislation, which the previous government

inadvertently forgot to bring in, even though it had gone through all the

various stages it needed to go through to bring it in. They didn’t bring it in.

They decided they weren’t going to bring it in.

Now, a bit like Neville Chamberlain, they’re waving it in the air,

saying: “This is a solution. This is the solution.” I think that the public

realized that that is not the solution. Even the former minister talked about

the laborious approach needed to get to this stage. What did they do? They

actually forgot to bring in their bill.

I think that the members of the opposition forget their own history with

app-based ride-hailing. They do forget their own history. Even back in 2016,

the member for Kamloops–​South Thompson, the then Transportation

Minister, said that at some point in the future, companies like Uber might be

here, but not any time soon. That was back in 2016.

[3:05 p.m.]

By the end of 2016, they were thinking they’re going to have an election

issue. Maybe they needed to get something ready — didn’t get it tabled. They

got their draft legislation — didn’t get it tabled. Now they’re waving it

around.

I think that what they were planning, what they had five years to do,

what they finally got together but forgot to table in this Legislature, forgot

to bring it to the House whenever they got it ready — we have done it. We have

before us a piece of legislation that will ensure that we get app-based

ride-hailing as well as modernizing the current system.

I heard the member for Surrey South asking: “What is so unique about

B.C.? Why is it taking so long?” Well, why is it taking so long? I mean, she

was part of the government that, you know…. As her colleague says, it was a

laborious process.

We also have the Passenger Transportation Board. We look at it

provincially, and that’s what this legislation does. It looks at it

provincially. We have ICBC, a provincial model, which, obviously, the Leader of

the Opposition wants to take apart, because he thinks that having private

insurance is the way forward.

I think this is going to be very interesting to debate as we go

forward.

the member for False Creek. That will be addressed through our legislation by a

fee per ride in app-based ride-hailing.

I heard also from members opposite that our reputation is going to be at

risk. B.C.’s reputation is going to be at risk. I’m concerned, obviously, about

B.C.’s reputation. We are a wonderful province. We are a leader around the

world for many, many things. But my role as Minister of Transportation…. While

I want to enhance B.C.’s reputation, I also have to look out for the safety of

the people of B.C. That is my prime role here.

I know that in London, England, a major market where they’ve had black

cabs, they’ve had minicabs and they have app-based ride-hailing, they are

really concerned about what has been happening in London. There is the question

of safety of passengers, and attacks.

I heard the member for Chilliwack-Kent say that safety is driven by

consumer demand. I would disagree. I think safety is driven by good regulation,

and that’s what we’re going to be doing.

I heard, also, a very interesting, throughout the debate — the

opposition making parallels with proportional representation. I find it’s very

interesting that they’re making parallels between our referendum on

proportional representation — which I think that they had wanted to see too,

but yes, it’s our referendum on proportional representation — and then making

parallel analogies with this legislation.

What was very strange was that the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky,

my critic, was talking about all these locations where there is app-based

ride-hailing: Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia and a number of other places. Syria, I

think he mentioned, though I’m not going to count Syria because there has been

a dreadful civil war in Syria for the last six years. So I’m not going to count

Syria in this, and Iraq has its own problems. But I do know that at least in

Iraq and Afghanistan and very likely Russia, we do actually have proportional

representation.

It’s a strange analogy that these places have ride-hailing but they also

have proportional representation. I’m not quite sure what the member was trying

to drive at in his quotes. Maybe I shouldn’t press him on it.

While that logic really doesn’t follow, I’d like to compare. We heard

from the Leader of the Opposition about the fact that, basically, Vancouver is

the last major North American community without app-based ride-hailing. We’ve

got to realize that these jurisdictions that have app-based ride-hailing have

faced problems. They acknowledge they’ve faced problems. An urban planner in

Toronto says that we’ve actually skipped over app-based ride-hailing 1.0. We’re

at app-based ride-hailing 2.0, because we’ve learned from others’

mistakes.

In Boston, we’ve heard that…. A study has found that ride-hailing is

adding new cars on trips and really exacerbating congestion on the

roads.

[3:10 p.m.]

In Denver, the usage of app-based ride-hailing has increased vehicle

miles travelled by 85 percent — again, massive congestion from it. In San

Francisco, a 50 percent increase in congestion there, from 2010 to 2016, was

found to be the result of the ride-sharing cars. In fact, a report from San

Francisco by the transportation authority questioned: “Do TNCs affect

congestion?” The answer is, very simply, yes — a 51 percent increase in delay;

in number of miles travelled, a 47 percent increase by app-based ride-hailing

cars.

In New York, we are seeing a major change. We’re seeing that New York is

wanting to…. Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York, has been looking at caps on

the numbers of ride-hailing cars and having everything data-driven, as we are

doing, and also ensuring that there is a minimum wage of $17.22 an hour for

those who are driving these app-based vehicles.

When the member for Kamloops–North Thompson talked about his trip to New

York, I’m sure he was very well aware that with 100,000 new cars on the road

and having to fix the system it already has, New York is now looking at a

system similar to that that we are going to be introducing in B.C. through this

piece of legislation.

We have a demand-driven system. We are using data, and we are going to

ensure that people actually have the opportunity for a safe ride.

I’m very pleased that we’ve been having this debate. We have moved in a

way that the previous government did not move. We have legislation on the floor

of this House that will make a major change for the people of B.C. It will

enable the start of app-based ride-hailing. As I’ve mentioned before, we’re

looking at having this in. We’re looking at 2019. I know people want it sooner.

We are doing it — making sure that we will have it there.

I think that when we finish the debate, we’ll have full support of it. I

know that the opposition, who have now tabled a private member’s bill that has

been lying around for a long while and never actually got to the floor of the

House before, will be very eager to show that they want to see change in B.C.,

that they want to give their constituents the same choice we want to give our

constituents and the whole of everybody in B.C., which is the opportunity that

if they so choose, they can use their smartphone to order a ride wherever they

want.

I look forward to committee stage. With that, I move second

reading.

[3:15 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 55 approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 43

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 41

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 55, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 56, Oil and Gas Activities Amendment

Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

BILL 56 — OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that Bill 56 be now read a second time.

I am pleased to present the Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018.

Bill 56 is proposing to amend provisions in the Oil and Gas Activities Act to

support an equivalency agreement with the federal government regarding methane

regulations and to provide a legal framework for off-site environmental

mitigation.

I know that this particular bill is not going to be capturing as many

headlines as the previous bill, Bill 55, but I would argue that it is equally

important to British Columbians because we are all committed to reducing our

impact on climate change. One of the ways that we are able to do that is by

reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and methane is a greenhouse

gas.

On the agreement with the federal government, they are putting in

regulations to reduce methane emissions in the upstream oil and gas sectors all

over Canada by 40 and 45 percent. The province has committed to going to that

higher level of 45 percent. We want to be reducing methane emissions by 45

percent. In order for the federal requirements to not apply here in British

Columbia, the provincial approach must be considered equivalent in terms of

emission reductions.

I know that all of us here in the House value our place in Confederation

and that we appreciate the laws that the federal government puts together and

those laws that apply to us as provinces. But we also appreciate our own

ability to make laws and govern our own land base.

That’s why we wanted to step forward with a made-in-B.C. approach and

make sure it was equivalent so that we also had the jurisdiction to oversee the

actual regulations that will be put in place and the implementation of those

regulations; then also to be able to respond over time, as things may need to

be changed; but also seeking to always achieve that federal goal of 40 percent

to 45 percent — us, we’ve chosen 45 percent — reduction in methane

emissions.

To achieve that equivalency, we need to do two things in legislation,

and that’s what this bill does. We need to have regulations that generate at

least the same reductions as the federal approach, which we are doing. And we

need legislation that allows the public to request an investigation of any

alleged contraventions of methane emission regulations and require government

to investigate. That is what we are doing with this bill.

[3:25 p.m.]

The proposed amendments will support a made-in-B.C. approach, as I said,

to methane regulation by creating the complaint mechanism under the Oil and Gas

Activities Act.

I think it’s also important that…. I see that there are some students up

in the gallery today. You might be wondering: how it is that the federal

government can even make laws that apply to the province in this respect? Well,

I would bring their attention to

section 1 of the British North America Act:

“Peace, Order, and good Government….” The federal government is able to make

laws for anything that it desires throughout the country. That being said, we

have a constitution that defines provincial and federal

jurisdiction.

Generally, provinces have jurisdiction over managing the land base. That

is why we want to retain that jurisdiction and be able to ensure that we are

the primary lead, as governing body, on protecting our environment, as well as

ensuring that the work that’s done on the land base in the upstream of our oil

and gas sector…. For those who don’t know where that is, that’s generally in

the northeast of British Columbia. And for the members in the gallery, you’re

going to be hearing from a member from that part of the province. He’ll be able

to tell you all about how important that sector is for his region in

particular.

That’s the portion of this legislation that looks at methane reduction.

But while we are looking at this act, we also wanted to take the opportunity to

look at how we do environmental mitigation. So this act is looking at an

off-site environmental mitigation. What started this is the province’s current

plan, in conjunction with the federal government, to recover boreal caribou and

achieve self-sustaining populations. Part of this plan is a habitat offset

policy. Where habitat has been lost for boreal caribou, we’re looking to

reclaim that habitat and restore it so that our populations for caribou can

grow again.

Just so people understand what’s happening with the different caribou,

there are woodland caribou, and there are boreal caribou, but all of our

caribou are at risk right now. In my riding, the caribou population has gone,

in a very short period of time, from over 100 to three — three females at that.

So the herd in my riding is considered extinct.

I have watched that over the time that I’ve been an MLA. In a very short

period of time, we’ve lost that entire herd of caribou. This is a very, very

delicate species, and we need to do what we can to make sure that it is

sustained as it was able to do for millennia. We need to make sure that the

activity that we have on the land base is not further destabilizing our caribou

populations.

One of the things that we need to do is make sure that we’re restoring

their habitat. This act allows for that to take place. However, we’re not

limiting it solely to caribou. The off-site environmental mitigation policies

that are coming through this legislation would also be open to apply to any

type of environmental mitigation. That can include habitat restoration for

moose, badgers, frogs — any type of wildlife that we need to ensure that their

habitat is sustained.

We could look at other issues. For example, working with First Nations

on some of the issues that they might find are necessary for their land use.

Water reclamation. Whatever we see, as a government going forward, that we

might want to use this type of policy for to ensure stronger environmental

protection and reclamation as a result of industrial use of land, we’d be able

to do that.

To be a bit more technical, the policy from this legislation would

require permit holders to mitigate their impact from their activity by treating

or restoring previously disturbed land elsewhere, outside of their operating

area. In this case, it’s for caribou, so we would require permit holders to

mitigate their impact on caribou habitat by treating or restoring previously

disturbed caribou habitat outside of their operating area.

[3:30 p.m.]

That would, therefore, ensure that we are building a strong habitat for

a particular species — in this case, the caribou — and ensuring that we’re able

to regain those populations.

With that, I look forward to the remarks from other members. Like I said

earlier, this might not be the most headline-grabbing piece of legislation, but

any time that we make forward movements to reduce our impact on climate change

in this province, we are showing leadership not just in Canada, but we are

showing leadership globally.

Any time we do it in a way that is in partnership and that works with

industry, that’s further leadership showing that it’s not the typical green

versus brown or the economy versus the environment — that these are actually

one and the same and that we must always be considering them in conjunction. To

me, I think that is very important — that that’s the type of path that we walk

and the leadership that we show the world.

M. Bernier: I thank the minister for her words in putting the bill forward. Maybe

I’ll start by acknowledging that she shouldn’t be selling herself

short.

I’m sure this will get headlines in some parts of the province, maybe

not in all parts of the province. I know that up in my area, this actually is

important, as the minister alluded to, because 99.9 percent of the activity

that’s referenced in this act and everything the ministry is doing around oil

and gas activity happens, actually, in the Peace region. So of course, it is

near and dear to my heart.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

To step back for a second, it’s acknowledging the prosperity that we

have in the province and how our natural resources are the foundation of what

they really bring to our province. Whether it’s mining, forestry, oil and gas

or agriculture, all of these industries help build our province. Again,

typically, in my part of the world, I’ve got all of those industries that are

at the forefront, employing a lot of families and bringing a lot of companies

to the region. You know, they depend on these industries. They depend on the

natural resources for a job and to raise their family.

One of the main issues that we want to make sure that we talk about in

this bill — because a lot of bills have been coming forward — is just making

sure we have that certainty. That certainty is really important, not only,

again, for the families but for the companies that are employing those people.

We support the goal that the government has in front of them.

Of course, as the minister mentioned a few times, it’s nice if we can

always look at a made-in-B.C. solution rather than it being a top-down-driven

policy from the federal government. If we have an opportunity to meet the

targets and be able to put our own regulations in place here — through

legislation, hopefully — that is always something that’s desirable and

something that we have.

I know we can’t capture it in this act, but one of the concerns or

issues that I have when we talk about methane reduction…. We’re going after an

industry in my corner of the province, and I’ll bet you if we looked at this,

they’re not the largest producers of methane. Yet we’re going to be tarnishing

them with these goals of reductions of 45 percent — albeit they have to play

their role, and they acknowledge that.

I’d also encourage…. I’m sure the person who might speak after me might

even acknowledge this fact. When you look at the amount of methane that is

released from municipal dumpsites, from other areas in the province that we

deal with in agriculture industries and others, this is not just about one

industry. I want to make sure that we in this House don’t think that there’s

one group that’s the silver bullet and we try to make sure that we go after

them for absolutely everything. That’s not fair to that sector as well. That

needs to be acknowledged.

Another concern that I have with this bill that we have in front of us

is the continual reliance on regulation that this government has. It creates

that uncertainty. When I talk with employers and companies in the area, it’s

one of the things that they are always looking for: “Let’s set down some rules.

Let’s set down the regulations. Let me know what hoops we have to jump through

or what guidelines we have to meet, and we will work with government on that

and do our part.”

[3:35 p.m.]

What’s really troubling for many is when

an act hits the floor and, once

again, it will be: “More details to come in the future.” I know the minister

will have an opportunity, because I’ll ask some questions around this when we

get to committee stage, but one of the challenges that we’ve had through this

session is that most of these bills that are hitting the floor are saying:

“More information to come at a later date.” I’m thinking this one might not

have 29 unknowns, like the proportional representation bill, but it does have

some unknowns in there. Typically, we ask: “Can you give us more information?”

And all we get is: “Dot, dot, dot.” Not too much to work with there.

Of course, we’re going to have questions as we go forward. The minister

is, in all fairness to her and government on this, being tasked to meet targets

that are put down again from the federal government, and they have to do this

policy. So I’m glad to see them doing that. The last thing I would want in my

area is government not taking control of this issue and then it being mandated

from a higher-up who really doesn’t understand what’s going on in our province

or in our area. So I do agree with the premise of this bill coming

forward.

When we talk about some of the fugitive emissions, some of the questions

I’ll be asking will be around that. Because when we talk about a 45 percent

reduction…. From where? From when? What are our targets going to be? Where are

we starting at? Governments in the past and present have been working with

industry to already…. We are already ahead of the curve, in a lot of ways, of

making sure there are regulations in place and policies for reductions, whether

it’s in flaring or fugitive emissions. I would say we’ve been the leader in

Canada in a lot of these areas.

We have to really be cognizant of how we will go after companies to try

to meet these targets, but I would also follow it up with saying we want to be

very careful on how we do the reporting aspect of this. The reason why I

flagged that is that there are some activist groups out there that will look at

what I’ll call reportable spills in the industry.

Well, we changed regulation years ago, where companies would have to

report the small…. Like four litres of oil gets spilled on a rig site, and they

have to report that. But without the quantifications there, some groups are

actually using that and saying: “Oh my god. This is horrible. Look at all the

numbers of spills that are happening out there.” But it’s not being broken down

to the legitimacy of what’s actually taking place within the industry and the

work — the great work, I’d say — that they’ve been doing. So how that will be

reported will be really important.

The other issue that we’ll want to really talk to the minister on later

is around what really designates an off-site mitigation zone. To me, that is

something…. I know her staff’s aware of this, and I’ll talk to her a little bit

further about that later.

When you look at the activity that’s in my area, there are already the

sensitivities, as the minister alluded to, around habitat and what we need to

be doing as a government, as a society, as individuals and as companies for the

protection of habitat, and especially in areas where there are very critical

numbers. Obviously, this side of the House supports that completely, but we

want to make sure that it’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of approach with this,

because there are many different factors that play into what the causes are for

habitat growth or reductions. We want to make sure that that’s taken into

place.

We’ll dig into a few of these topics as we go into the com­mittee

stage. Again, it’s maybe not going to be the headlines, as the minister said,

but it is important, nevertheless, that we have these discussions in here. We

need a strong resource sector, we need a strong oil and gas sector, and we need

to make sure that that’s done properly, with the proper environmental

protections in place. That’s a given. We all agree with that.

[3:40 p.m.]

Back to the point that we need to ensure we have certainty, companies

need that. I believe this House needs it. The citizens need it. When we have

the bar in place so that people know what they have to meet, it makes it a lot

easier for peo­ple to decide if they are going to invest in British

Col­um­bia or not, if they are going to invest in a certain

resource in a certain area or not. They need to have those

regulations.

As the minister also alluded to, I think it’s important to highlight the

resource sector and what it really does for our province — the amount of income

revenue that’s generated into our province to help with our social services,

our health care and with our school system. I mean, we’d all agree that every

child deserves a chance to soar. That’s going to happen when you actually have

a strong resource sector that’s helping fuel a strong economy that gives us the

revenue sources that we need.

Again, we’re going to support this bill. There are some critical

questions, probably just for clarification, that we want to make sure we bring

forward and challenge the minister on a few of these areas — to make sure not

only that we’re doing our job in opposition but that from an industry

perspective and from a perspective for the Peace region, this isn’t something

that will be put into place and will give comfort to the people in that area

that this is not going to hinder or slow down activity. It’s just going to make

it better and stronger.

With that, hon. Speaker, thank you very much.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 56, the Oil and Gas

Activities Amendment Act. Just to speak to one of the comments from the member

for Peace River South. Indeed, we agree very much with him that methane

emissions reductions — in fact, reductions of all greenhouse gases — need to be

considered by every ministry of government, which we have been reinforcing this

week in question period. We do need to recognize the true urgency of this task

and the dire implications of not stepping up to meet the serious and

significant challenges and threats posed by climate change. Reduction of

emissions is essential to that.

Directly speaking to this bill, the bill does two key things. First, it

is enabling legislation that allows for off-site mitigation activities to now

occur. Under this legislation, the minister will be able to determine if there

are special considerations that need to be accommodated and what such offset

measures might look like. The bulk of this bill is devoted to this

change.

Secondly, the bill includes changes that allow for citizen-initiated

investigations to occur if there is a suspected contravention related to

methane emissions. I want to speak to some aspects of this bill that I think

are warranted. For too long, in my opinion, the Oil and Gas Commission has had

widespread authority to do as it sees fit. As a result, I don’t think it has

done a particularly good job of regulating the oil and gas industry in our

province. It has been shrouded in secrecy, its operations often seemingly

clandestine.

In the last seven years, only one news release can be found on its

website, and there have been no information letters posted since 2010. I

remember a year ago raising questions in question period about the oversight,

or the lack of oversight, of earthen dams in the province, many of which were

outright breaking the law, while the Oil and Gas Commission seemed to have

turned a blind eye.

Critics have repeatedly raised valid concerns of the commission not

doing its job. Unauthorized storage dams for fracking, leaking natural gas

wells, pipelines approved without proper consultation from First Nations — all

concerns that were raised, once again, earlier this year. My confidence and, I

believe, the public’s confidence has been eroding steadily in the regulator

responsible for B.C.’s oil and gas industry, and the bill before us does little

to increase transparency and accountability of the commission.

However, I’m happy to see the provisions that allow for a citizen

complaint to trigger an investigation. Unfortunately, it only applies to

contraventions that relate to methane emissions, but it is a step in the right

direction — a step, I might add, that only exists because the federal

gov­ern­ment required it in order for our regulations to be

equivalent to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. One day, maybe, we’ll

see legislation that broadens this power to any contravention that a citizen

records with the oil and gas sector.

[3:45 p.m.]

With regard to the off-site mitigation activities that this bill will

allow for, they are also a potentially good step. They allow for the minister

to require that in order to receive a permit or to change a permit, additional

environmental mitigation measures may be necessary. At present, there is no

authority to direct companies to do offset activities in other places, so this

is potentially a good thing. But I must emphasize the word

“potentially.”

While the bill does give broad new powers to a minister to direct

industry in certain ways in specific circumstances, it is all up to regulations

that are essentially to be determined on a case-by-case basis at the will of

whatever minister happens to be in charge.

We may see good regulations come out of this, or we may not. We may see

good mitigation measures, or we may see greenwashing.

My colleagues and I will support this, as it is a potential step forward

and is legislation that helps with our overall pan-Canadian climate framework.

But I remain concerned, despite what appears to be steps in the right

direction, that the Oil and Gas Commission remains a regulatory body that needs

further oversight.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, and I thank the members for their

comments.

I look forward to our committee stage, where they’ll be able to ask

questions that are, no doubt, very important to be able to get clarification,

get further information on the record. That process is very important in terms

of making sure that people in the industry, people in the communities that are

impacted by the oil and gas sector in our province have a better understanding

of exactly the intention behind this bill and how it is to be

applied.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee

of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

I did get ahead of myself. I should have been moving second reading of

Bill 56. Do we want to do that again, or have we considered that we’ve moved

Bill 56 at second reading?

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 56, Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Mungall: I call that we go to Committee of the Whole for third reading of Bill

[3:50 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 51; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:55 p.m.

section 5 (continued) .

J. Rustad: The other day, when we had an opportunity, I’d asked the minister

about a definition of “Indigenous nation.” The minister, if I remember

correctly, mentioned that Indigenous nation was something that would

have to have been referred to out of the Indian Act, so there was no

definition provided here.

I want to expand a couple of questions with regards to that

directly in

section 5(1). The reason for asking these questions about an

Indigenous nation and what constitutes an Indigenous nation, of course,

is there are often disputes or factions within a nation with regards to

any particular position that a nation may have.

Where there is a case where there is a dispute, whether it’s a

large or smaller faction within a nation that decides to take some

action, how would the minister be able to consider a recommendation that

comes from an Indigenous nation without a definition of what constitutes

an Indigenous nation?

Hon. G. Heyman: As I’m sure the member is aware, this subsection (1) of

section 5

has to do with recommendations of individuals to facilitate disputes.

There may be a number of recommendations, which the minister might

consider, but in the development of regulations to give life and shape

to the dispute resolution process, we may choose to define how to deal

with that circumstance. Or should it become necessary at some point in

the future, the act does allow for

definitions to be created by

regulation — should it be necessary.

J. Rustad: To the minister, thanks for that. I do understand the process in

terms of making regulations, but the issue at hand and the question at

hand is: what’s going to drive those regulations? If there is an

Indigenous group that claims to speak for the nation and that may be in

a situation that puts forward a recommendation to the minister to create

this dispute panel, how is the ministry and how is this act going to be

guided in terms of the authority of that coming forward and the ability

to be able to create this dispute resolution mechanism?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Let me begin by saying — I think the member for Nechako Lakes will

know this, having at one point been a minister, a member of cabinet; in

fact, at that point, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

— that ministers, at times, will make decisions after considering

recommendations from one group or a number of groups.

I think the member’s comments or questions may actually be more

pertinent to

section 14, which refers to participating Indigenous nations. If

I’m incorrect in that, the member will clarify that, but I think here we’re

just talking about the appointment of somebody to facilitate the resolution of

the dispute, in respect to a matter referred to in subsection (2).

J. Rustad: Certainly, it leads to

section 14, and there will be some questions that

come forward under

section 14. Where I’m trying to drive at with this, in

particular, is the case, for example, of Lulu Island. During that case, there

was an individual who claimed to speak on behalf of the nation, who claimed to

be a hereditary chief, and was regarded as such by some individuals — some

individuals in this Legislature as well as others outside. Clearly, there was

no way to be able to reconcile that this individual had the authority to be

able to speak on behalf of the nation, so that becomes the question

mark.

If there’s a dispute between a process and you have an individual or

group that claims to be the spokesperson or represent an Indigenous nation,

versus other groups that also claim to speak on behalf of the Indigenous

nation, without a definition, it’s impossible to be able to determine who is

the official spokesperson or spokespeople for a particular Indigenous nation.

So it creates the potential issue that the minister is now in a situation where

they have to choose which side to believe or which presentation to be brought

forward.

This, of course, then becomes a subjective process, as opposed to an

objective process, which creates all kinds of challenges, as will be laid out

in further sections. This is why I’m asking, once again, to the minister: how

will regulations…? How will this minister look to implement this

section

without having a definition of what an Indigenous nation is and without the

ability to determine who is the official spokesperson for a particular

nation?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a little difficult to anticipate every eventuality or every

dispute. It’s a bit like asking me to determine in advance how I might

rule on a complicated environmental assessment, for instance, for a

project that’s yet to be actually proposed or defined. But what I can

talk about is that the purpose of this

section is specifically to

address the kind of issue that the member raises, where there is a

disagreement or a dispute between nations or members within a nation

regarding who is representing the Indigenous people.

Let me talk about dispute resolution generally. There are a number

of ways in which we might define who might be eligible to be a dispute

resolution facilitator through regulation. That might be by having a

roster or a list of people that generally have the support of Indigenous

peoples and government and potentially others beforehand. Or it might be

a number of other ways.

I can say that if the purpose is to find somebody to resolve a

dispute between parties — and my experience in this regard is that I have a lot

of practical experience from labour disputes — it doesn’t help to resolve a

dispute if two parties each have a preferred mediator or dispute resolution

facilitator and you choose one of them, rather than somebody that is entirely

independent and separate from the preferences of the parties and isn’t one of

the people that one of them has put forward at the expense of

another.

J. Rustad: Having some experience with dispute negotiations and processes as

well, that wasn’t the point to the question. I do understand the

challenges and issues.

The issue is, really, that you have something in here called an

Indigenous nation — it’s in

an act without a definition of it — and

multiple parties potentially claiming to be representing an Indigenous

nation. The action that a minister must take or may consider comes from

a recommendation, if any, of an Indigenous nation. That becomes the

challenge.

For example — and I would put this, as well, to the minister — you

have a situation where you may have hereditary chiefs asking for one thing and

an elected chief asking for another thing. Without a definition as to who

represents and who speaks on behalf of an Indigenous nation, once again, the

minister is in a situation where it becomes subjective in terms of a particular

perspective that’s brought forward.

If that’s the case, that’s fine. Then say that. The minister will

actually have to make a decision based on whatever information they have

available, I’m sure, with advice from staff. What I’m looking for is the

clarity as to whether or not there’s an intent to identify what an

Indigenous nation is and who would represent or speak on behalf of that

Indigenous nation or whether it will be subjective through this

process.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I think all I can say to the member is that this

section is around

the minister considering the recommendations, if any, of an Indigenous

nation in order to appoint facilitation or facilitators.

I think the real issue that the member is trying to get at is: who

is the correct participating Indigenous nation under

section 14, where

we’re actually getting to the meat of the issues to do with an

assessment? That’s precisely why we have dispute resolution to clarify

that: so that we can move forward.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

P. Milobar: Just a clarifying question for the minister around this. It really has

more to do with existing projects that are currently underway.

I’ve had a few people wondering what this new bill would mean to them. I

know, in the briefings, staff made it clear. But maybe just for the record and

Hansard , if we could get a recap of what will happen to existing

projects that are already in the stream and whether they will be subject to

this new act or the existing act, where the changeover piece will be —

especially in relation to the timelines of when the new regulations would be

coming in — and when that full implementation piece would actually

be.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question and wanting to get this

important question clarified in committee stage.

I can answer it now, or I can answer it when we address

section

78. As the member will note, we have a small amendment in

section 78

which will provide even greater clarity, I think. But I’m in the hands

of the member if he would like me to answer this now or under

section

P. Milobar: Well, my fear is, as we get rolling through the afternoon and

start to hit a wall of time, we may not actually get to any detail on

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, I think we will, given that there’s an amendment to be

moved. But I’ll answer the question now.

This is what

section 78 speaks to. Projects that are currently

being assessed or have received environmental assessment certificates

under the current act will be transitioned to the new act. Any proponent

may request that their project be brought into the new act if an

application has not yet been submitted.

Projects that have been issued a

section 11 or

section 14 order

under the amendment at the time the new act is brought into force will

proceed under the current act. It’s a transitional project for the

purposes of obtaining a certificate. Projects that have not received a

section 11 or 14 order under the current act will need to submit an

initial project description under the new act.

S. Furstenau: Could the minister also speak to how this section, along with

section 8,

would prevent a proponent from starting any work without an environmental

assessment certificate? Could he provide an example of how that would be

relevant, for example, with the Prosperity mine saga? Would this apply to that

kind of case?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. With respect to the

ability to undertake work in the absence of an environmental assessment

certificate, whether under

section 6 or

section 8, both the current act

and the new act are clear that work related to a reviewable project

cannot be undertaken in the absence of an environmental assessment

certificate.

Section 6 approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: May I just clarify my answer to the last question? When I said

“work,” I was referring to construction work related to the

project.

section 7.

P. Milobar: A question on (b). I know, I think, what the spirit and intent of

this

section is.

My concern, I guess, is the difference between what the government

may feel is an agreement that may require consent, in terms of an

agreement in an area between the government and an Indigenous nation,

and what an Indigenous nation may feel, if it’s Crown land — that they

automatically are required to provide consent and that, therefore, there

would automatically be an agreement with the government that any Crown

lands would require some form of consent. Can we get a little more

clarification from the minister?

I know the intention of this is supposed to be, if there’s a

specified area, that there has already been a prearranged document where

the government and the First Nations have said: “For any work to happen

in this area, it will require us to work together or consent.” However,

there are situations out there where many Indigenous nations do feel

that any Crown land would require their approval to do any work.

Therefore, they would feel, potentially, that they already have that

arrangement with the government. Can we get some clarification

there?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to the member’s question is that this

section refers to

an express agreement between the government of the province of British

Columbia and an Indigenous nation and is prescribed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

E. Ross:

Section 7 is a hot topic lately, especially when we’re talking

about

section 35 of the constitution versus UNDRIP. It’s causing a lot

of confusion because a lot of First Nations believe consent equals veto,

and that’s continually the push. But in reading certain sections of

this, I just want to clarify that we’re talking about an agreement

between government and a First Nation that allows the consent. But in

other sections, we’re talking about the decision of the minister that

can override consent, whether it be in favour of or against the wishes

of the First Nation.

My question to the minister is: was there any legal advice given

to the minister on whether or not this clause fetters the

decision-making powers of the minister or ministers in relation to a

consent clause even before there’s, let’s say, a statement of a claim

made — or maybe there are terms of reference made on an environmental

assessment — or any other agreement, apart from what you’re talking

about with the First Nation?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. Other sections of the

act — and I’m sure we will get to those — require the process, the

office and the minister to make every effort to achieve consent. But it

does allow the minister, potentially, in the absence of consent from all

participating nations, having made every effort to achieve consent, to

issue a certificate or, in some cases, to not issue a certificate

because the opposite may be true in the absence of consent.

This clause, however, is, in fact, an override of that and very

expressly defines those situations where the minister would not have

that discretion. That’s where there is a final agreement or where there

is a particular agreement with the government of British Columbia that

requires the consent and is prescribed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[4:25 p.m.]

Whether or not this clause was in here, that would be the case.

What this clause does is make it absolutely clear, in this act itself,

so there will be no misunderstanding that there is not that leeway for

the minister in that situation.

E. Ross: Thank you to the minister for that answer. But best efforts to

require consent, whether or not the Crown decides for or against a

project, are already there with existing case law.

That’s what the proponents have been doing for the last 16 years.

With LNG, for example, that’s what the government has been doing for the

last 16 years. They’ve been trying as much as they can to get consent.

They do it through protocols. They do it through funding agreements.

They do it through environmental agreements. So that’s not the

point.

My point is that when you’re talking about the ability of a

minister to protect