Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 26, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 192

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

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill M223 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger

Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2018

J. Sturdy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Days of Activism campaign against gender-based

violence

M. Dean

Hazel Pietila

J. Sturdy

Fire hoses and safe driving

J. Routledge

Sexual consent

J. Thornthwaite

Leonard Krog

D. Routley

An Evening for the Animals SPCA fundraiser

S. Bond

Oral Questions

Role of Attorney General Ministry in legal advice

on administrative leave motion

A. Wilkinson

Hon. D. Eby

S. Bond

Excavation in Shawnigan Lake area and permit

application

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

Role of Attorney General Ministry in legal advice

on administrative leave motion

J. Johal

Hon. D. Eby

Legislature investigation and legal advice on

administrative leave motion

L. Throness

Hon. D. Eby

T. Stone

M. Stilwell

P. Milobar

M. Lee

M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

Budget 2018, second quarterly report

Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, annual report,

Petitions

P. Milobar

D. Ashton

Standing Order 35 (Deputy Speaker’s

Ruling)

Request to debate a matter of urgent public

importance — administrative leave for Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Powers and role of Finance Committee

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Human

Rights Commissioner

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act,

2018 (continued)

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Sturdy

A. Olsen

T. Stone

T. Shypitka

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 57 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act,

2018 (continued)

J. Sturdy

Point of Order (Chair’s Ruling)

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act,

2018 (continued)

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

T. Stone

A. Olsen

Hon. L. Beare

J. Thornthwaite

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 47 — Health Sector Statutes Repeal

Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act,

2018 (continued)

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

A. Olsen

T. Stone

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 54 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act,

2018 (continued)

J. Sturdy

T. Stone

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. C. Trevena

A. Olsen

Reporting of Bills

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act,

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act,

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 57 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act,

2018 (continued)

J. Yap

Hon. D. Eby

A. Weaver

M. Lee

Bill 47 — Health Sector Statutes Repeal

Act

Hon. A. Dix

J. Isaacs

N. Letnick

Bill 54 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act,

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

A. Weaver

Bill 52 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment

Act, 2018

I. Paton

Hon. L. Popham

D. Davies

B. Stewart

M. Bernier

M. Hunt

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Darcy: We’re very fortunate to have a family visiting from New Westminster

today — their first trip, I think, with their children to the Legislature.

Andrea Spence is a Crown counsel lawyer with the B.C. prosecution service

currently working in the Richmond courthouse, and Devin Schellenberg is the

head of the radiation oncology department at the B.C. Cancer Agency in

Surrey. With them are their two children, Cora Schellenberg, who’s in grade

2 at École Herbert Spencer Elementary, and Emery Schellenberg, who is in

preschool.

They visited the B.C. museum yesterday. Today they’re here in the

Legislature because they want to introduce their children to how government

works. I will ask the entire House to please make them very welcome and hope

that we show them the best of what happens in this chamber today and not the

worst.

Hon. J. Horgan: If the members will indulge me, I have an embarrassment of

introductions today.

Firstly, of course, I was joined this morning by the consul general

for Ireland, Frank Flood, who was bringing greetings from the Emerald Isle.

We talked about a range of issues. He’s welcoming everyone here to visit

Ireland anytime soon, and I encourage members from the opposition to do that

in the next number of days. The rest of us, wait until the House is

recessed.

I also want to introduce His Excellency Thomas Winkler, the ambassador

to the Kingdom of Denmark, who’s with us in the gallery today. Of course,

members will know that we have an outstanding relationship with Denmark.

They will be playing in the World Junior Hockey Championship right here in

Victoria and Vancouver, over the Christmas break. I look forward to talking

to the ambassador about that as we meet this afternoon.

I also want to acknowledge, and all members will join me in this….

Shane O’Grady from protective services and his wife, Alicia Hardy, welcomed

Cora, 6 pounds 14 ounces, on October 1. Shane is one of the people who do

diligent work for all of us here in the Legislature. I know that members

will want to congratulate the arrival of Cora.

Lastly, I want to speak about the James Bay Elementary child care

group; 27 people not bigger than this were by, in my office today. They were

sitting out in the rain eating their snacks, and I thought I’d bring them in

out of the cold. We had a delightful chat about: “What was that flag? What

was that flag?” Among them was the grandson of my best friend; Desi Finnerty

was here today. Would the House please congratulate Desi for getting into

the building assisted.

And to all the others who are with us today, would the House please

make them very, very welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: As we all know in this House, we all have incredible staff, and I’m no

different. In the gallery today is Kaitlin Morton, who’s my amazing admin

assistant. She has some guests here in the gallery that have come to observe

us on our last couple of days. They wanted to come for question

period.

With her are her parents, Randy and Marie Morton, and they’re from Oak

Bay; as well as her friend, Trinity MacRea; and Trinity’s mom, Christine.

Also with Trinity is her 12-year-old son, Jack, who, I’ve heard, is very

interested in hearing what happens in QP. Again, I say he’s 12, and if all

members could remember that when we head into question period. But would you

join me in all making them very welcome.

M. Dean: Today I was privileged to be part of a round table hosted by the

Premier to launch our commitment to 16 days of activism against gender-based

violence.

[1:40 p.m.]

It was my honour to be joined by Chastity Davis from the Minister’s

Advisory Council on Indigenous Women; Ninu Kang from MOSAIC; Angela Marie

MacDougall from Battered Women’s Support Services; Linda Amy from the

Victoria Sexual Assault Centre; Karen Martin from the Disability Alliance of

B.C.; and Elba Bendo from West Coast LEAF. They’re all in the gallery now.

Would everybody please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure to welcome into the House — I know all of you will

join me — Jasbir Dhaliwal, Avatar Sahota and Rashpal Kaur Atwal. These three

amazing women are here because they’ve dealt with some pretty significant

issues. They’ve had an amazing journey. They’re here to keep their daughter

company and to be here to witness the 16 days of action for gender-based

violence.

I’m hoping all of you will welcome them. They’re very proud of their

daughter Ninu Kang for the work she has done in this area.

Hon. G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of staff from the

assistant deputy minister offices in the Ministry of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy, the information and records management team and

correspondence unit. They’re here to watch all of us today and expecting us

to be on our very best model behaviour during QP.

I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Waheema Asghar, Marilynn

Quigley, Deborah Carroll, Sabrina Cousins, Chelsea Delaney-Spindler, Diana

Ainsworth, Julia Fedoruk, Kirsten Hundza, Shawne Muller, Nick Pinheiro,

Rebecca Westley, Jennifer Verge, Jelene Baker and Sara Nicoll.

J. Rice: Today from the Yahgulaanaas clan of the Haida Nation, Tamara Davidson,

or Laanas, is in the House. Tamara has over two decades of experience

working with the federal government and two decades of experience working

with First Nations relationship-building with all levels of government. She

has much experience with policy and planning, advisory work, and she’s the

former visitor experience manager of the Gwaii Haanas National Park. Tamara

has recently moved to Victoria. I would like the House to please make her

feel welcome.

Hon. C. Trevena: They’re not in the gallery at the moment but will be coming in

shortly, and some have already been through this House. We have, in the

precinct today, 36 students from Carihi, one of the two secondary schools in

Campbell River. They are grade 10 students who are here with their teacher,

Matt Moore, learning about the way that our government works from practice.

Hopefully, when they come in, they will be able to observe the intrigues of

House will make them all very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce two young women who are here

today in the gallery and, indeed, spending the day here at the Legislature

to learn more about it. Lena Price and Juliet Watts are second-year

political science and public administration students at UVic. They’ve come

to learn about this place more.

I know it seems like I’m being generous with my time by having these

young people shadow me. In fact, it’s their generosity that helps me,

because it really gives me so much hope to meet young people who are so

engaged and so invested in making a better future for this world. Would the

House please make them feel welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M223 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(PASSENGER

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

J. Sturdy presented a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes

(Passenger Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2018.

J. Sturdy: I move that a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger

Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been

given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time

now.

British Columbians are disappointed that the NDP appear to be

setting up ride-sharing to fail in this province. This bill, in

contrast, paves the way for ride-sharing in British Columbia to thrive,

thus providing more choice and convenience for consumers.

[1:45 p.m.]

It allows for a level playing field for existing and new

operators, including driver’s licence and vehicle standards, insurance

requirements and service and supply flexibility; standardized provincial

licensing; safety, enforcement and consumer protection requirements;

removal of red tape and overlap within the system, which will save all

drivers money; removal of restrictions related to supply so that the

number of providers on B.C. roads from both existing and new operators

would be determined by consumer demand; removal of boundary restrictions

so that drivers have the same access to provide services wherever and

whenever a passenger needs a ride; removal of local government ability

to require chauffeur permits, business licences and other restrictive

requirements; and provisions to ensure availability for accessible

services.

This bill would also provide a framework for replacing class 4

driver’s licence requirements with a class 5 requirement for drivers of

both existing and new operators and ensuring that a level playing field

is in place that supports consumer and driver safety, including a

minimum of 19 years of age for drivers and a possession of an

unrestricted driver’s licence, criminal record checks, driver record

checks and vehicle inspections.

As well, this bill would facilitate the provision of automobile

insurance for all new operators, allowing for the possibility of such

insurance to be provided by private sector operators in a timely manner,

all the while ensuring a level playing field related to insurance

coverages and costs for both existing and new operators.

It’s time to welcome ride-sharing to British Columbia and to do so

now with this bill — not years from now, if ever, with the government

bill.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

[1:50 p.m.]

Bill M223, Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger Transportation

Services) Amendment Act, 2018, introduced and read a first time on the

following division:

YEAS — 44

Furstenau

Olsen

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

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

NAYS — 41

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

Weaver

Glumac

J. Sturdy: I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M223, Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger Transportation Services)

Amendment Act, 2018, ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DAYS OF ACTIVISM CAMPAIGN

AGAINST GENDER-BASED

VIOLENCE

M. Dean: Yesterday marked the beginning of the United Nations 16 Days of

Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. Everyone has the right to feel

safe in their home and their community. Yet I know, from my own

experiences and the stories of countless others, that women and

transgender and non-binary people continue to face gender-based violence

in every aspect of their life.

In B.C. alone, there are over 1,000 physical or sexual assaults

against women every week. We know that Indigenous people, people of

colour, immigrants, people with disabilities and LGBTQ2S individuals are

significantly more likely to be the target of gender-based violence,

harassment and discrimination.

It is our responsibility to ensure that their voices are

acknowledged and heard and to do all we can to make our communities

safer. I’m proud to be part of a government that’s working to advance

gender equity and provide the supports people need and to see the

investments we’ve made in programs and services for people who have

experienced violence.

We know that having a safe place to turn is vital. No one should

ever have to decide between staying in an abusive relationship or being

homeless. That’s why we’re working with community partners to build

1,500 new homes for women and children who are seeking a refuge from

violence.

We couldn’t do this work without our partners. I want to thank

everyone who has stepped up to fight gender-based violence in all its

forms.

To all who have experienced gender-based violence, you are not

alone. We hear you. We believe you, and we will continue the fight.

Together we can end gender-based violence.

HAZEL PIETILA

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to rise today to recognize a woman in my community

who is truly inspirational. Hazel Pietila of Pemberton is more than a

centenarian. She recently just turned 102. I was honoured to join Hazel

and her family and friends for a celebration of her birthday. The

afternoon of cake and stories was hosted by the Pemberton Valley Senior

Society.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hazel moved to the west coast from Ontario in the early ’70s as a

young parent, with her late husband, Bill, and their first son. The

family settled first in D’Arcy, more than an hour north of Pemberton on

the shores of Anderson Lake. Hazel and Bill had 11 children in all —

seven boys and four girls — and Hazel is now the proud matriarch of more

than 100 grandchildren, great-grandchildren and

great-great-grandchildren.

Over the many years that Hazel has lived in Pemberton, she’s been

heavily involved in the legion, the Ladies Auxiliary and the church. Hip

surgery and a bad knee have recently slowed Hazel down a bit, but she

gets around well with the aid of a walker and lots of help from her

family and friends. Travel and family reunions have been part of

ensuring the large family stays connected.

I was pleased that Hazel was willing to participate in the recent

Remembrance Day ceremony in Pemberton, where she laid the wreath on

behalf of the province of British Columbia.

Hazel attributes her longevity to working really hard for most of

her long life, in combination with family, which sounds like a great

formula, and of course, living in a small, connected community like

Pemberton has helped. “You couldn’t wish for a better place. It’s just

wonderful, a wonderful place to be,” said Hazel.

Hazel, as a Pemberton resident myself, I know that Pemberton is a

great place, in no small part because of you.

FIRE HOSES AND SAFE DRIVING

J. Routledge: Well, it happened again. This time in Burnaby. This time on

Halloween night. Vehicles drove over a fire hose charged with water

while firefighters were battling a second-alarm structure fire. In fact,

five vehicles drove over that same hose that night. One driver even

tried to justify it by saying: “Well, I just live over there.” That’s no

excuse.

The dangers of driving over fire hoses have gotten a lot of media

coverage, but for anyone who missed the story, let me

summarize.

Driving over an uncharged line could damage the internal water

jacket, making the hose useless. Charging the damaged hose could result

in catastrophic failure, rupturing it, possibly injuring firefighters or

bystanders as well as delaying getting water to the fire — or worse. In

January, a Vancouver firefighter was knocked off his feet by a fire hose

that was dragged under a car that was leaving the scene. He ended up in

the hospital, and he is still off work almost a year later.

Driving over a fire hose that is fully charged with water is even

more dangerous. It can cause the hose to whip around with tremendous

force, leading to serious injury to first responders and to bystanders.

You might even damage your vehicle.

The fire hose is the firefighter’s lifeline. When you drive over

the hose, you could be cutting off their water supply. Any disruption to

the water supply puts in danger the lives of both firefighters and the

people they are rescuing.

Let’s make a commitment to be good citizens. Let’s not be in such

a hurry to get to where we’re going. Let’s pay attention when we see

emergency vehicles. Let’s not be tempted to ignore the barriers and the

orange cones or the instructions of the firefighters. Let’s save

ourselves the $81 fine. But most importantly, let’s save some

lives.

SEXUAL CONSENT

J. Thornthwaite: Yesterday started the 16 days of activism against gender-based

violence. This year’s theme is #myactionsmatter. It’s a call to action

that asks everyone to take concrete steps to question, call out and

speak up against acts of gender-based violence. What can you do? Listen,

believe, speak out, intervene or act.

Two very special young women in my life have chosen to act. They

want to meet the Minister of Education to help develop policies about

consent in our high schools. They congratulated our government’s work on

sexual assault policies in the post-secondary system, but they said that

that is far too late. Some boys have already learned what they can get

away with by that time, in grade 8, so at a minimum, it’s got to start

there.

I quote one of the young women. “I lost my virginity at 14. I

didn’t know what was happening to me. He told me if I loved him, I had

to have sex with him. I said no. He did it anyway. I didn’t know at the

time that I was raped.” She went on to say that young people are not

educated on what consent is, that you can be raped when you are in a

relationship.

[2:00 p.m.]

Tea and Consent is a powerful PSA by the British Thames

police that really drives home, in simple terms, what consent is. In

less than three minutes, the video explains that even if you invite a

guest over for tea and they agree to join you, if they change their mind

and say they don’t want tea, then don’t force them to drink tea — and

certainly don’t pour it down their throats when they’re

unconscious.

Unconscious people don’t want tea. They can’t answer the question,

“Do you want tea?” because they are unconscious. If they say they don’t

want tea, they don’t want tea. Don’t make them drink tea if they say

they don’t want to.

The law is clear. Sex without consent is rape, and consent is

everything.

I hope the minister will meet with these two brave young women so

that not one more girl has to live through being forced to drink tea

with someone they didn’t want to, even if they agreed to the tea party

to begin with.

LEONARD KROG

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure and honour to stand and speak about my

dear friend, the member for Nanaimo. The member for Nanaimo — his

grandma Euphrates brought him into politics, exposed him to the ideas

and democratic socialism that he so was committed to. His father, Doug,

died when he was four, in a workplace accident. He drowned. His mom,

Eileen, raised four kids on her own. The member for Nanaimo was the

youngest.

His wife, Sharon, a lawyer — they shared a practice. His son,

Parker, a lawyer now in the family business. And Jessica, their

daughter, is a student at Vancouver Island University.

The member comes from Coombs, a small town where he says he grew

to understand poverty — the injustice — and made a commitment to fight

that. He’s won five provincial elections and now has won a landslide

victory as the new mayor of Nanaimo.

His story reads like an historical novel of Nanaimo. His

characteristics are those of steadfastness. He’s a bridge builder, he’s

loyal, he’s selfless, he’s consistent, and he’s devoted. This is

testimony.

As Deputy Whip when we were in opposition, I grew to respect the

versatility and talents of the member for Nanaimo. We all — those of us

lucky enough to witness him in those days — could understand how he

could stand up at a moment’s notice and give a half-hour dissertation on

recycling legislation and draw the obvious connection back to the Magna

Carta. This was the style of the member for Nanaimo as a

legislator.

He’s an encyclopedia. He’s a historian. He could also reach into

the language of the sawmill green chain. If you crossed swords with the

member for Nanaimo in public debate, it would take time for you to

understand just what a Krog critique meant. His insults came with

footnotes. In fact, those who were dispatched by the member would go

away to do research to understand just how severe the rapier dispatch

was.

We all, here, represent. Some of us, the best of us, come to be

representative. We’re all part of our communities, but some of us become

part and parcel. Leonard belongs to the people of Nanaimo. He’s theirs,

not just one of them. So it is with my friend. He echoes the grace and

eloquence of bygone days, keeping principles relevant always.

Thank you, Leonard Krog.

AN EVENING FOR THE ANIMALS

SPCA

FUNDRAISER

S. Bond: We recently had the privilege of attending the BC SPCA north

Cariboo district’s third annual An Evening for the Animals. The evening

would not have been possible without amazing sponsors like the Hart

Family Veterinarian Clinic, Northern Dynamic Metalworks, Jack and Jill

Embroidery and many more community supporters, not to mention the hard

work of the BC SPCA staff and dedicated volunteers.

We were very pleased to be joined by Craig Daniell, CEO of the BC

SPCA, who gave us an update on the exciting agenda for Prince George and

our region. The gala was a major fundraiser, and it did not disappoint,

with almost $63,000 being raised during the evening.

Perhaps the most touching part of the night was a look back at the

incredible efforts that were undertaken to support animal evacuees

during another summer of devastating wildfires. It is hard to capture in

words the extraordinary work that was done by the BC SPCA and other

animal rescue organizations to ensure that hundreds of animals were

cared for in a loving way.

[2:05 p.m.]

Not only was that important for the animals, but for their

families as well. Often one of the first questions heard at the

evacuation centre was about the well-being of a beloved family pet. The

large number of animals evacuated meant that the BC SPCA had to open a

second temporary shelter to accommodate a variety of animals.

Every day an army of volunteers supported the staff by walking,

feeding and cuddling when required. Many others stepped up and

generously donated supplies and food. I want to express my heartfelt

gratitude to everyone who was involved in this critical part of the

wildfire response.

By any measure, the BC SPCA winter gala was a success. We

certainly look forward to supporting it again next year.

Oral Questions

ROLE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL MINISTRY

IN LEGAL ADVICE ON

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE MOTION

A. Wilkinson: The events of the past week have been unprecedented, certainly, in

this building and in this province. We’re not aware of any precedent

anywhere else in the world for the events of the past week.

These events cried out for careful legal consideration, and our

providing that legal advice. It is, of course, up to the Speaker to

decide whether to recuse himself from these questions, because the

factual basis is entirely connected to the Speaker’s conduct. These

questions are not about the ongoing police investigation, and they are

not about the special prosecution.

On the evening of November 19, the Speaker recommended to the

three House Leaders that a motion be moved to put the Clerk of this

House and the Sergeant-at-Arms on administrative leave.

The question comes up to the Attorney General. Did the Ministry of

Attorney General receive any request for legal advice related to this

matter from the Speaker prior to the meeting on the evening of November

19?

Hon. D. Eby: Now, I know that the member knows that there is an active police

investigation. I know that the member knows that special prosecutors

have been appointed. So I struggle to understand why the member doesn’t

understand how important it is that that proceed in all of its elements

without interference from this place. With that said, I won’t be making

any further comment on this matter.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: This is becoming a quickly tired line of response from this

government. The public are greatly distressed about the events of the

last week, particularly involving the man in the chair and the conduct

of the people in his office. The public are entitled to know the facts

about what happened last week. Saying that the investigation itself by

the police and the involvement of the special prosecutor somehow puts a

complete cloak over this and makes it impossible to answer questions is

a complete evasion of the responsibility of this government.

That’s why we have this House. That’s why we have a parliament to

provide for accountability for everyone in the room: because we

represent 4.9 million British Columbians, and they are expecting some

answers on this. To have the Attorney General stand up and say, “Nothing

will be answered because of activity outside this House,” completely

evades the issue of accountability of the government for the events from

8 p.m. on November 19 to 11 a.m. on November 20.

These events have nothing to do with the special prosecution, nor

the police investigation. They have to do with the conduct of this

government. It is somewhat alarming that the members opposite deem

themselves to be above the conduct of this House and above the

accountability that this House exists for. If we cannot have meaningful

answers to these questions, which are entirely in order, one has to

wonder why we’re here at all.

I’ll try again with the Attorney General. Was the Ministry of

Attorney General or Attorney General himself aware that the Speaker

sought outside legal counsel on his own initiative to advise him on the

motion to suspend the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms? This has nothing to do

with the special prosecution, nor the RCMP investigation.

Hon. D. Eby: Simply because the Leader of the Opposition says it has nothing to

do with the police investigation or the special prosecutors does not

make it so. I am disappointed that he persists in this line of

questioning. The police are separate from government for a reason. The

special prosecutors are separate from government for a reason. I won’t

be making any comment on this at this time.

[2:10 p.m.]

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

and I assume it’s a different question.

A. Wilkinson: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I think you should hear the

question before you anticipate a ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Member, I was simply advising you.

Please proceed.

A. Wilkinson: I’m to proceed, correct?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, thank you.

A. Wilkinson: Did the Speaker seek legal advice from lawyers at the Ministry of

Attorney General in regards to the motion — not the criminal

investigation, nor the special prosecution — at any time before the

motion was introduced in the House on November 20?

Let’s keep in mind here that the reason we have special

prosecutors and the police at arm’s length from government is so that

they are able to operate completely independently of this House. The

functions of this House remain accountable in this room.

I will ask the Attorney General once more. Did the Speaker seek

legal advice from the Ministry of Attorney General at any time in

regards to the motion on the morning of November 20?

Hon. D. Eby: Now the member asks about legal advice.

You know, I don’t understand why the member thinks it would be

appropriate for me to stand up and share legal advice and waive

privilege over that. I don’t understand why he thinks that it would be

appropriate for me to stand up and speculate on the activities that are

now the subject of a police and special prosecutor–overseen

investigation. I do not understand where he is coming from on

this.

But I can tell him the same answer that I gave the media in the

hall and that I advised colleagues in this House, which is: don’t

comment on this matter until the investigation is complete. I would give

the member the same advice, but I suspect he won’t listen.

S. Bond: Well, to be clear, the questions being asked are not about a

criminal investigation. In fact, they’re about the administrative duties

and responsibilities of this Attorney General, this Solicitor General

and the government of British Columbia. It is incumbent on the

government to ensure that correct procedures and competent legal advice

was followed.

My question is within the administrative responsibility of this

Attorney General. Was he or his ministry aware of the lawyer that was

advising the Speaker, and did he agree to the retainer for that

lawyer?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows, as do all members in this place, that when

members ask about indemnities, when they ask about lawyers that are

hired for members, they get the same answer from me that they’re getting

today, which is that that’s not an appropriate topic for the House

because it’s a potential waiver of privilege. The member knows

that.

If you’re waiving the retainer…. The member said…. You know what,

hon. Speaker? The best course of action for all members in this matter,

which is incredibly delicate…. I’ll say it again to this member, as I

said to the leader of her party: the best approach is to refrain from

commenting until the investigation is complete. I urge that on all

members of this place, and I hope they listen.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–​Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: What I do know is that we passed a motion in this Legislature. The

public is entitled to know the truth about the events of last week, and

there is a great deal of information missing.

With all due respect, through the Speaker to the Attorney General:

did the Speaker’s legal counsel consult with lawyers from the Ministry

of Attorney General before proceeding with the motion?

We’re not asking for the advice to be shared. It’s a

straightforward, factual question that relates to a motion debated in

this House.

Did the Speaker’s legal counsel consult with lawyers from the

Ministry of Attorney General before proceeding with the

motion?

Hon. D. Eby: The member puts me in an awkward position. She knows that I can’t

talk about these things, and she keeps asking the same

questions.

I would urge all members in this place to refrain from commenting

on the events of the past week until the investigation is complete. I

don’t understand what’s so difficult about that.

EXCAVATION IN SHAWNIGAN LAKE AREA

AND PERMIT

APPLICATION

S. Furstenau: In 2008, GT Farms began digging a hole on their property in

Kingburn, near Shawnigan Lake.

[2:15 p.m.]

Nearby residents began to express concern as the hole steadily

increased in size, ultimately looking like a whole lot like a quarry.

However, Ministry of Mines and Ministry of Agriculture agreed that this

was not a quarry; it was “an irrigation pond.” Yet like a quarry, rock

was being removed by dump trucks travelling down a narrow road through

this residential neighbourhood.

When the residents raised concerns in 2009, they were informed by

Ministry of Mines that the property had no permits in place for mining

or quarrying and issued a cease-and-desist order, which was soon

rescinded, and the activity continued.

Here we are, ten years later, and the hole on this property very

much appears to be a quarry, a quarry that has operated without a permit

for over a decade. What is the Ministry of Energy and Mines’ solution to

this? Give the landowner an opportunity to apply for a permit ten years

after he has apparently begun quarrying.

My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. Does she think it’s appropriate for her ministry to reward

rule-breaking by issuing permits after quarrying has taken place on a

property without permits for years on end?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question and for raising this

issue, which is important to her constituents. As she pointed out, in

2009, the government of the day determined that the activities of the

site were for agricultural purposes.

Then, in 2016, as the operations had expanded, the government —

again, of the day — took another look and concluded that yes, a Mines

Act permit was required. In 2017, the company sent in their application

for the proper permit. We received that on June 10, 2017. We asked the

committee to revise that application, and we received the revised

application on March 9, 2018.

Since then, we have been working to ensure that the public is

involved and that they have their opportunity to comment. We’ve referred

the issue to other agencies, as well as First Nations, for consultation,

and that consultation is ongoing. We will make sure, as we must do, that

the appropriate permits are in place and regulations are, indeed,

followed.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I’m concerned that the message that this sends is that rules don’t

actually matter. If you break them, we will fix them for you.

Local residents have identified several serious shortfalls with

the permit application, including: stating that the project started

“with approval”; claiming that the project is not within a community

watershed, which it is; and submitting inaccurate hand-drawn

maps.

Residents have also raised concerns about lack of public

consultation and have serious and ongoing concerns about the safety and

reliability of their drinking water, which is drawn from an aquifer they

worry is being impacted by these quarrying activities.

My question is again to the Minster of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. Can she commit to addressing the serious concerns raised by

the residents of the Kingburn area and commit to a public meeting as

part of the permitting process for this application?

Hon. M. Mungall: It is a statutory decision–maker who oversees this process. That

individual has assured myself that he’s committed to working with all

partners and taking public feedback into account as he works through the

process on this permit.

I want to make sure that the member knows that we are committed to

making sure that she and her staff are fully informed and are fully kept

up to date so that she can continue advocating for her constituents on

this issue.

ROLE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL MINISTRY

IN LEGAL ADVICE ON

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE MOTION

J. Johal: You know, I find it interesting that the Attorney General is

asking members not to speak about events that actually occurred in this

House. British Columbians need to know what due diligence the Attorney

General and the Solicitor General did between the Monday meeting and the

movement of the motion to suspend the Clerk and the

Sergeant-at-Arms.

Did the Solicitor General seek legal advice from the Attorney

General after the Monday meeting and prior to introducing the

motion?

Hon. D. Eby: Members can talk about whatever they want, but I am recommending

to them that they refrain from speaking about this until the

investigation’s done for good reason — to allow the police and to allow

the special prosecutors to do their work.

[2:20 p.m.]

The member may or may not agree with that. That’s his business.

He’s in this place representing his members. This is my recommendation

to him. I’ll take my own advice, and I won’t be commenting on

that.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: The questions we are asking, that my colleagues have asked and I

have asked, pertain to the conduct of the Solicitor General and the

Attorney General. We’re not talking about the special prosecutor’s

office. We’re not talking about the police investigation.

It’s the role of the Ministry of the Attorney General to provide

legal advice to the government. Did the Attorney General seek the legal

advice of his ministry after the Monday meeting and prior to the

introduction of the motion the following day?

Hon. D. Eby: The situation remains the same as it was in the previous question

— that is, that these things are all tied together. You can’t speak

about one without speaking about the other. The issue here is that the

member wants me to speak about a matter that’s under active police

investigation, with special prosecutors appointed, and I will not do so

today.

LEGISLATURE INVESTIGATION

AND LEGAL ADVICE ON

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE MOTION

L. Throness: Really, all we’re asking for is some transparency from the

government with respect to its involvement in this matter last week —

its involvement, not the police involvement.

If the government will not tell us even whether it has received

legal advice, let’s ask about the knowledge of the ministers themselves.

When did the Solicitor General first learn of the police investigation,

and when did he learn about the Speaker’s investigation?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve made the recommendation to all members of this place that

they refrain from commenting on a matter of active police investigation

where special prosecutors are appointed. It’s incredibly

serious.

I keep hearing the questions. I don’t understand why the members

don’t understand how serious this is. I would recommend to all members —

it’s up to them, of course — that they refrain from commenting on

this.

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

L. Throness: What is serious is the government not revealing to the people of

B.C. about matters that are under their control.

I ask the Premier: when did the Premier first learn of the police

investigation, and when did the Premier learn about the Speaker’s

investigation?

Hon. D. Eby: Maybe I’ll assist the member here by advising him that my advice

on this, to refrain from commenting on an active police investigation

where special prosecutors have been appointed, is a very serious matter

that extends to all members of the government, including the Minister

for Public Safety and the Premier. So he won’t be hearing comment from

the government on these matters today.

T. Stone: We know that a lawyer was present at the November 19 meeting, and

that lawyer provided legal advice on the motion to put Clerk Craig James

and Sergeant-at-Arms Gary Lenz on administrative leave.

Can either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General confirm

the identity of this lawyer, and can either explain the lawyer’s role in

providing legal advice in regards to this motion?

Hon. D. Eby: This is quite a display, to be frank. I don’t understand what the

members opposite don’t understand, first of all, about the response,

which is that the government won’t be commenting on a matter of active

police investigation where special prosecutors have been appointed. I

don’t understand what they don’t get about that.

Personally, I don’t understand why they are not considering for

themselves whether or not they should be openly speaking about this

matter that is so sensitive. I mean, it’s their own call, of course. But

it is very unusual. In any event, I won’t be speaking about this

sensitive matter today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, what’s unusual in this discourse here today is that we’re

asking questions that relate to a number of items that have nothing to

do with the work of the special prosecutors and police investigations.

So I will afford the Attorney General an opportunity to address this

question again.

There was outside legal counsel who advised the Speaker on the

motion to suspend the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms. Very simply, who

was this lawyer, what was this lawyer’s role in relation to the role of

government lawyers employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General, and

why won’t the Attorney General provide the transparency on the internal

operations of this Legislature that British Columbians are

demanding?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: If this isn’t about the police investigation, the fact that

special prosecutors have been appointed, I’m not sure what it is about.

I cannot talk about these matters. They’re incredibly sensitive. Police

are investigating. Special prosecutors have been appointed. I won’t be

commenting on it.

M. Stilwell: The questions that we’re referencing today are not in regards to

the criminal investigation or the prosecutors. The question I have today

is about the administrative responsibility of the Solicitor

General.

Will the minister confirm who initiated the investigation? Was it

actually the police, or was it the Speaker and his special

adviser?

Hon. D. Eby: Did the member just say: “This isn’t about the police

investigation. Let me ask about the police investigation”? It’s

bordering on farce at this stage. It’s clearly about the police

investigation and special prosecutors.

We won’t be talking about that today. We won’t be talking about

that tomorrow. Until the investigation concludes, I’d recommend that to

all members in this place.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: The public needs to know the nature of what due diligence, if any,

was done by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General within their

administrative responsibilities.

When was the Solicitor General informed of the investigation by

the Speaker and his special adviser?

Hon. D. Eby: These are matters directly related to the police investigation and

the appointment of special prosecutors. I won’t be answering any

questions related to that today.

P. Milobar: The questions today are meant to try to establish a better

understanding of when the Attorney General and Solicitor General vetted

the information as the motion came forward to the House that we dealt

with on Tuesday in this House. We’re not asking for any detail as to

what was involved in those conversations with outside counsel or inside

legal counsel. We’re simply asking for timelines of when discussions

took place.

British Columbians need to know….

Interjections.

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

P. Milobar: British Columbians need to know what the Attorney General did or

didn’t do to vet the legal advice that came from this outside counsel.

They need to know that correct procedures were followed.

When did the Attorney General become aware that the Speaker was

receiving outside legal counsel on the motion to suspend the Clerk and

the Sergeant-at-Arms, and what did he do with that

information?

Hon. D. Eby: These are matters related to an active police investigation.

Special prosecutors have been appointed. It would be inappropriate for

me to comment on this.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a

supplemental.

P. Milobar: I think the public is having trouble understanding the Attorney

General. As a layperson myself, when the Attorney General has had no

problem through all of Mr. German’s reports and of all those processes —

processes when, one would assume, ongoing investigations were happening

— and having regular updates with the media and holding

court….

We are asking very simple questions about very basic timelines.

For the Attorney General to say that he can suddenly not answer those

basic questions is a disservice to all British Columbians. The lack of

information and the absence of answers about the role and actions of the

Attorney General undermine public confidence.

On what date did the Attorney General become aware of the lawyer

advising the Speaker? Who agreed to the retainer of the lawyer? Not how

much was the retainer, just who agreed to the retainer.

Hon. D. Eby: I mean, on the first part, the member is right to draw a

distinction between how our government is handling the issue of money

laundering and how their government handled the issue of money

laundering — and unfortunately, I have to say today, as well, a

difference between how our government is handling an active police

investigation where special prosecutors have been appointed and how

their opposition is handling it. I won’t be commenting on it.

M. Lee: All members of this House have the right to ask the questions that

are being asked here today. They are questions to address the confidence

that British Columbians should have in the integrity of this

House.

[2:30 p.m.]

Given the motion that was passed last Tuesday, November 20…. There

was information that this House did not have at the time that motion was

passed, in the rushed nature that this was brought on, between the time

that the House Leaders met, at 8 p.m. on November 19, and the time that

the motion was raised on the morning of November 20.

The role of the Speaker’s special adviser, Alan Mullen, raises

many important issues. On Wednesday, November 21, the day after the

motion was put forward by the government, as a government motion in this

House, this special adviser told the media that he was retained in

January of 2018, in part to address the Speaker’s concerns about the

Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms.

My question is: was the Solicitor General ever told details of the

special adviser’s role in this matter prior to these comments being made

in the media?

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Speaker, no one is disputing the member’s right to ask

whatever questions he wants in this place. All I’m saying is that when

there’s an active police investigation, when special prosecutors have

been appointed, at a very sensitive time on a very sensitive matter, my

recommendation to all members in this place would be to refrain from

commenting on that matter, and I will refrain from commenting on that

matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: With respect, earlier the Attorney General indicated that members

of this House can ask whatever questions we deem appropriate. Under the

circumstances, given the gravity and the sensitivity of this matter, the

confidence that British Columbians have in the integrity of this House

is being questioned. Each of us, as members of this Legislative

Assembly, have participated in that motion on short notice, on short

order.

It is appropriate for members of this House to be asking the

important questions around what procedural steps and due diligence steps

were taken by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General as cabinet

ministers in this government. They have the responsibilities and the

duties to this government. When they became, particularly, in possession

of that information, based on the Monday night meeting and any time

before that, we as members of this House need to know what occurred —

what occurred before that Monday meeting and what occurred,

particularly, between the Monday night meeting and the Tuesday morning

motion.

Alan Mullen told the media that he was speaking on behalf of and

with the full authority of the Speaker. Further, Mr. Mullen stated that

the concerns came from the Speaker and that, as an experienced

investigator, he had been involved in investigating the concerns raised

since he was retained back in January.

Was the Solicitor General informed of the special adviser’s role

at any point during the seven-month investigation?

Hon. D. Eby: The member, surely by this point in question period, knows that

these matters are tied together. They’re all related to an active police

investigation. The appointment of a special prosecutor is an incredibly

sensitive matter. I know the member is one of the newer members to this

place, but it’s tradition and for good reason that government refrains

from commenting on active police investigations.

The appointment of a special prosecutor should be a signal. The

reason special prosecutors are appointed is to give the public assurance

that this is separate from politics. It should be a signal to members in

this House to exercise great caution around such matters. I would urge

that caution on all members in this place and urge them and encourage

them to refrain from commenting on this. Of course, the member can ask

whatever questions he wishes. That’s his political judgment. But I would

recommend against it in a sensitive matter like this, and I will not be

commenting on it.

M. de Jong: The government chose to introduce a motion to suspend the two most

senior non-partisan officials that serve in this chamber, and it sought

the support of all of the members of this chamber when it did so. The

passage of that motion led to the spectacle of those officials being

marched out of this building in the most demeaning and humiliating

manner possible.

[2:35 p.m.]

Members supported the government motion, but they did so, I would

suggest, on the assumption that the legal and investigative branches of

government had exercised the due diligence necessary to satisfy

themselves that the basic principles of procedural fairness and natural

justice had been followed.

The question does remain. Having asked for the support of this

chamber, when did the Attorney General become aware of and what steps

did he take to independently assess the actions initiated by the Speaker

and his adviser and the legal advice that the Speaker had

received?

Hon. D. Eby: Now, the member who spoke before the member for Abbotsford West

has a defence: he’s relatively new in this place. The member who just

asked this question…. I mean, he used to be Attorney General, so he

knows that police are separate from government when they do an

investigation. He knows that when special prosecutors are appointed,

there’s a reason for that — to keep the process independent of

government.

When he says the “investigative arms of government,” I don’t know

why he would conflate that, because he knows the difference. The

difference is exactly why it’s so important that members in this House

think very seriously about commenting on this matter.

It’s an active police investigation. Special prosecutors have been

appointed. I urge all members, including very experienced members, to

think very carefully about how they speak about this matter.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. James: I’m pleased to rise to table government’s Second Quarterly

Report , 2018-19, as required by

section 10 of the Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the 2017 Annual

Report from the Office of the Conflict of Interest

Commissioner.

Petitions

P. Milobar: I rise to present a petition from a very brave mother in Kamloops who,

in April of this year, lost her son at the Peterson Creek Bridge in

Kamloops. It is calling for the installation of suicide prevention measures

on the Peterson Creek Bridge, similar to what we have on other provincial

bridges across the province.

D. Ashton: I rise today to present a petition to the House from over 1,600

individuals asking that B.C. Timber Sales not log in the Carmi recreational

area above Penticton.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll call on the Deputy Speaker.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Standing Order 35

(Deputy Speaker’s Ruling)

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF

URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE FOR CLERK

AND

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, earlier today, at the request of the Speaker, I took

the chair to hear and to consider an application by the member for

Abbotsford West. Under Standing Order 35, the member sought adjournment

of the House in order to discuss a matter of urgent importance — namely,

the conduct of this House with respect to the events and facts that led

to the motion on Tuesday, November 20, with regard to two permanent

officers of the House.

While Standing Order 35, subsection (2), states that a member

“shall rise and state the measure briefly,” the Chair allowed the member

for Abbotsford West to explain his application in detail so that

concerns with regard to this most serious matter could be placed on the

record.

I thank the member for his submission, as well as the Government

House Leader and the Leader of the Third Party for their comments. The

Chair recognizes the very difficult circumstances that formed the basis

of members’ concerns regarding the events that transpired last

week.

It is my understanding that the Speaker addressed some of those

questions earlier today in a letter addressed to all three House

Leaders. As acknowledged by the Government House Leader and the Leader

of the Third Party, the important fact that should frame the approach by

the House is that an active criminal investigation is underway with

respect to this matter.

[2:40 p.m.]

The sub judice principle is an important convention long

recognized in this House and other parliamentary institutions. By way of

this self-imposed restraint, the House does not enter into debate on

matters before another body — typically, a court of law — in order to

refrain from prejudicing, in any manner, proceedings not before this

House.

I find that in this unique and difficult circumstance, the

principles of the convention must be applied with even more caution, as

the events and facts of the active investigation touch upon this very

institution. Were the application to proceed, a Chair would be placed in

a particularly untenable position. The Chair could preside over a debate

while concurrently assessing and determining which facts, matters or

comments within the debate may or may not impede or prejudice an active

investigation.

In addition, on April 13, 2010, Speaker Barisoff ruled that a

matter under investigation by the police, while not sub judice

in a strict sense, has, by precedent, not been discussed in this House.

Speaker Barisoff noted that it is a matter of courtesy to the

investigation to avoid debate in parliament.

Further, it has previously been held in this House that an

application under Standing Order 35 cannot involve the normal

administration of justice. In a decision of Speaker Barnes rendered on

June 17, 1994, he stated, in part, that “Standing Order 35 was never

intended to provide a vehicle for interference in the normal

administration of justice.”

While the Chair does not suggest that it would be the intention of

the House to interfere with the normal administration of justice, due to

the circumstances, there is a very real and substantial concern in this

regard.

I conclude that because the active investigation focuses on two

permanent officers of this House, the risk to offend the spirit and

intent of the sub judice convention is more heightened in this

instance.

For these reasons, I find that the application made under Standing

Order 35 cannot proceed.

A. Wilkinson: Mr. Speaker, having heard your ruling, there remain widespread,

grave doubts throughout the population of British Columbia about the

conduct of the Speaker in the last week…

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

A. Wilkinson: …about the manner in which the motion came before the House. This

cannot be allowed to lie. This House must address the issues at some

point.

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is not debatable.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF

FINANCE

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move motions that have been distributed to both the

Opposition House Leader and the Third Party House Leader.

[That further to the motion adopted on February 26, 2018, that the

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be

empowered to consider and make recommendations on the budget of the

following statutory officer: Human Rights Commissioner.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

APPOINT A HUMAN

RIGHTS COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously

recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a Human Rights

Commissioner, pursuant to the Human Rights Code (R.S.B.C. 1996,

c. 210).

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select

Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and

during any sitting of the House;

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

and

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of the following

Members: Raj Chouhan (Convener), Mitzi Dean ,

Stephanie Cadieux , Greg Kyllo , and Andrew

Weaver .]

[2:45 p.m.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 55, Passenger

Transportation Amendment Act. In

Section A, I call committee on Bill 57,

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 55; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

section 3 (continued) .

Hon. C. Trevena: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add that we have staff with me here

again today, many of the same staff who were here on Thursday. We’re

also now joined by Nina Bindra from the Ministry of Attorney

General.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

[2:50 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Division 4, “Reports of the Board,” is being added to the

Passenger Transportation Act. Doesn’t, in fact, the board already deal

with this through the annual report of the Passenger Transportation

Board, and if so, why would we be adding it?

Hon. C. Trevena: The board has sometimes published an annual report, but not every

year. So this really formalizes that, with the expansion of its

functions, with the growth with the TNSs. This and the growing work that

it will be doing — this really just formalizes the need to have an

annual report.

J. Sturdy: Is the board receptive to any directions received from the

minister to review, recommend and report on any particular aspect? It

just appears as if there’s a certain redundancy here. Is the board

receptive to direction from the minister? Just to reiterate, this is a

formalization of a requirement to generate an annual report by the

Passenger Transportation Board?

Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, there is no requirement, so this sets down the fact

that there will now be a requirement to produce an annual report.

Previously, it’s been up to the will of the board. Now, it’s saying:

“Please, every year produce an annual report.”

J. Sturdy: Could the minister tell us how many times there has been an annual

report? Do we know? Recently? In the last five years? Why has this come

up?

Hon. C. Trevena: The board produced one in 2016-17. They haven’t produced one yet

for ’17-18. We can check how many years the board has produced one, if

the member really wants to do that. We can provide that to him in

writing afterwards.

A. Olsen: I’m just wondering if there’s any requirement under this

section

where these reports would be made public.

Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, when they are doing reports, they do post them to

the website. So the assumption is it again will carry on being

public.

A. Olsen: Would the recommendations to the minister contemplated under the

newly added

section 22.2(

a) constitute any advice to cabinet?

Hon. C. Trevena: It would be regarded as advice to the minister, not advice to

cabinet.

T. Stone: In relation to this new

section 22.1, “Annual reports,” where it

references: “(

c) other information the minister may require.” I’m

wondering if the minister could elaborate on what other types of

information she and her ministry would be contemplating that would be

driven by the need to have this

section (c), which is rather nebulous,

as it’s currently written.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Sections 22.1(

a) and 22.1(

b) are very specific on what would be

included in the annual report. So (

c) allows for more broad information,

whether it is any change that may have happened within the industry,

anything that is information on decision-making, on issuing licences,

some information that is sort of assessment of data — anything that

isn’t actually in the quite, sort of, defined sections (

a) and (b). So

it gives that scope for more information than

section (

a) and

section

(

b) provide.

T. Stone: With respect to

section 22.2, which provides for a requirement for

the board to make recommendations to the minister when directed to do

so…. Then it does provide subsections (

a) and (b), which provide some

sense of how those recommendations would be fed back to the

minister.

I’m just wondering if the minister could indicate whether or not….

Again, much like the question that was asked moments ago from the member

for Saanich North and the Islands, would any request of the minister of

the board to provide recommendations on a matter be made public so that

the public would know that the board has been asked to do this? And

would there be any timelines associated with the timeliness of response

that the board would be expected to provide these recommendations back

to the minister?

Seeing as, from an annual report perspective, there are some

timelines provided for here, I’m wondering if timelines have been

contemplated with respect to this request for recommendations from the

board.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Well, I think it’s — we’ve just been discussing this —

interesting. It really is going to be on a case-by-case basis. It

depends what it is. If it’s an issue of security or safety or if there’s

an investigation, it wouldn’t be public.

It could be public for the sake of transparency for requesting

something more generic — for instance, something about the long-distance

bus service. So it’s going to be on a case-by-case basis, and because

it’s on a case-by-case basis, the timing and the time for the response

required would likewise be on a case-by-case basis.

I don’t think we can put into legislation something quite as

specific as exact timing on direction and requests that we don’t know

what they’re going to be but are likely to be coming forward.

J. Sturdy: Back to item 22.1(a). In the reporting, the board is required to

set out briefly “all applications made for a licence that include

special authorization.”

I wonder if the expectation of the minister is that not just the

list of the applications but the decisions on those applications would

also be included, and whether there would be reasons for a decision in

there?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

J. Sturdy: So that would be similar to…. For example, in the Ministry of

Environment on an environmental assessment, there’s an assessment,

there’s a list of conditions, and there’s a reason for a ministerial yea

or nay. So there would be a rationale either way for the affirmative or

the negative on an application.

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

A. Olsen: I just want to canvass the minister here for a few minutes on the

use of the potential use of various driver’s licences, if I may. This is

to the driver of the car, not to the licence of the operator. But this

is the driver’s licence.

It’s been a point of contention, I think — the suggestion that’s

made that an operator needs a class 4 licence. I just want to ask some

questions around this.

I’ll start with the broadest question and just the minister’s

rationale behind using, as has been stated publicly, a class 4 licence —

that all ride-hailing drivers should have a class 4 licence.

Hon. C. Trevena: I know the member is very concerned about the licence designation

here. It is obviously something that some people have been picking up

on. I know the member is also aware that under this section, we’re not

talking about the driver’s licences. It is the licence for the vehicles,

but not the driver’s licence.

That being said, I have talked a lot about the class 4 licence,

because it’s commercial licence, and we’re going to have people who are

going to be earning money by driving people around. Somebody is going to

be making profit from it, and they’re going to run a commercial

operation or be working for a commercial operation. As such, I believe

that there is the requirement and the expectation from the public that

those people who are driving for profit are licensed to the highest

designation they can be.

[3:05 p.m.]

In this case, it is a class 4 licence. I think everybody is aware,

it’s a tougher licence. You’ve also got a medical exam, and you’ve got

to also be able to inspect your vehicle.

There are certain sorts of strictures there to have that licence,

to be qualified for that licence. People don’t get it on the first time.

I mean, if you do a quick search on the Internet, you see people who do

driver’s classes, driver’s training on how to get through to the class

4, how you’re going to make sure. So there is that extra due diligence

and extra strictures on it. So for the matter of public safety, I’ve

been very committed to the class 4 licence.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the response. Just further to that, are there

regulations in this bill that would allow the minister to require

additional training, safety certificates, criminal record checks and

other forms of an enhanced safety regime for any operator under this

act?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, there is. Under

section 30, it talks about the criminal

record checks that we’re looking at. A large part of this bill is to

make a provincial regulation. I know that in certain jurisdictions, some

drivers have to have, when it comes to cabs at the moment, a criminal

records check,

whereas in other jurisdictions, they don’t. This will

make sure that provincewide there will be criminal record checks. And

that’s in

section 30.

A. Olsen: The reason why I’m asking is because…. Could we not use class 5 as

a base and then through regulation require — sort of like a class 5 plus

— commercial operators who are operating a ride-hailing vehicle

commercially to have additional requirements, such as additional

training, safety certificates, criminal record checks and other forms of

an enhanced safety regime?

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the member’s question. The class 5 plus, or a new

form of licence, wouldn’t come under the Ministry of Transportation. It

would come under the Ministry of Solicitor General. PSSG is responsible

for the driver licensing. So as my ministry, working with what is

available, we are working on the class 4, which is the commercial

driver’s licence. As I say, this section, as the member is aware, is

about vehicle licences, not drivers’ licences.

A. Olsen: I do acknowledge that. I’m kind of looking…. I recognize that

there’s a narrative that’s out there and a line of questions or concerns

that have been raised, certainly, around the licensing. So with the

blessing of the minister, I just wanted to canvass this area so that at

least this area of questioning has been asked and responded to. Let’s

put it that way.

My understanding is that the provisions that apply, the national

safety code, to the taxi industry are separate from the broad

requirements of the class 4 licence. Is that true?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Most commercial vehicles are under the national safety code, but

it isn’t linked to the driver’s licence. So while the vehicles are under

the national safety code, driver’s licensing is separate. Most

commercial drivers in B.C. have a class 4 or higher licence.

A. Olsen: How many other provinces apply the national safety code to the

taxi industry?

Hon. C. Trevena: B.C. is really at the forefront. We are the only province that

does this.

A. Olsen: Can the minister outline exactly what the NSC, the national safety

code, adds to motor vehicle safety, and why it’s important that it apply

to the passenger transportation sector, specifically ride-hailing and

taxis?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I mentioned to the member, this is the highest level of safety.

We’re the only province to actually have taxis under the national safety

code. We are literally the leaders in this.

What it entails is that the carrier has to take responsibility for

the safety of the fleet — got to have a safety plan. A carrier has to

monitor hours that people are working — so make sure that people aren’t

tired, aren’t fatigued, are driving safely — and that they have records

of being inspected. If the vehicle is out of service, that has to be

reported.

This is all monitored by the commercial vehicle safety and

enforcement branch. The carrier is responsible, also, for reporting to

CVSE — for instance, when vehicles are out of service. But it is

something we should be very proud of — that taxis and commercial

vehicles are in here and that they are…. This is, as I say, the highest

level in the country.

A. Olsen: Okay, thank you for that.

Some of the most significant components that the NSC requires are

concerned with vehicle inspection and upkeep. Why does it make sense to

require a ride-hailing operator who, based on the data from other

jurisdictions, only uses their vehicle for ten to 20 hours a week for

passenger transportation to meet the same requirements of a vehicle that

is exclusively, 24-7, used as a commercial vehicle?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The reason is that the vehicles are operating for hire. A taxi is

inspected every six months, and we honestly don’t know how often or how

regularly the app-based ride-hailing vehicles will be used. Some may

only be doing a few hours a week, but some may be operating full time.

You do see in certain jurisdictions where people are trying to make a

living from doing app-based ride-hailing.

I don’t think we can really pick and choose. If we are making

sure, as responsible policy-makers in a government, that we have

designations for vehicles that are driven for hire — that there are

certain vehicle safety and driver expectations — I don’t think we can

pick and choose which one should win and which shouldn’t have certain

requirements.

A. Olsen: Dan Hara, the consultant that was hired by the government to

review the modernization of the taxi industry and produce a final

report, recommended that a class 5 licence be permitted for the entire

taxi sector, with additional requirements put in place for safety and

training.

Why has the government opted not to follow this recommendation

from Mr. Hara?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I mentioned to the member previously, and I’ve been very public

about this, passenger safety, public safety has to come first. A class 4

licence is a licence for people who are driving commercially. Whether it

is a taxi or other service, you need a commercial licence because you

are earning money from transporting people from A to B.

We want to make sure that people on our roads are as safe as

possible, both the drivers and those who get in vehicles that are for

hire. That is why, when we are looking at the regulations in the Motor

Vehicle Act, we are not making any changes. We are keeping with a class

4 licence.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I guess, from our

perspective, the class 5 as a base is something that we feel

is….

It’s not that we disagree that safety is an issue. We certainly

don’t want to be messing around with that. That is certainly not

something that we want to be quibbling with. Passenger safety is of the

utmost importance, as is the safety of the driver.

But in his report, Hara explicitly states that: “A class 5

driver’s licence with a TaxiHost Pro certificate is arguably at least

equally qualified as a class 4 driver is to drive a taxi.”

Again, I just want to make sure that I understand. What is so

unique about a class 4 licence that the government feels it is uniquely

able to address safety in this sector, especially despite numerous other

actors suggesting alternatives?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member.

We’re not unique in demanding a higher standard for people who are

driving commercially. We’ve got the same equivalent to class 4 in

Alberta, Quebec and Nova Scotia. They all demand that drivers, whether

they are for app-based ride-hailing or for cabs, have a class 4

licence.

I know that the tourism association of B.C. is happy that we are

looking at keeping the class 4 licence. They think that there should be

a minimum of class 4 licence. They’re looking at it as a matter of

safety, a matter of reputation.

It’s not something that we’re doing blindly. We’re not ignoring

Dr. Hara. He’s been very helpful in formulating this. But on this piece

of policy, which…. Again, I beg the member’s awareness. He is aware that

this

section doesn’t deal with drivers’ licences. It is a Motor Vehicle

Act regulation, and I’m sure we’ll have lots of opportunity after this

legislation is passed to continue this conversation.

We’re not unique in having that higher standard for people who are

driving commercially.

A. Olsen: Again, I thank the minister, and I thank the Speaker for this

opportunity to canvass what I think is an important aspect of this. I

think it’s important for us in this House to canvass this aspect, but as

well, it’s important for the public and for the potential operators —

people who would like to operate — to understand why government’s making

a decision. So I appreciate the opportunity.

Again, I’d like to reiterate that I and my caucus colleagues are

not in any way suggesting that safety is not a concern for us. It is

paramount, and we appreciate the fact that the minister has safety as a

primary concern. But I think that it is also important to point out that

safety, from a driver’s perspective, is only one aspect of what it is

that we need to be looking at.

MADD, for example, comes out strongly in favour of a market, and

ride-hailing in the marketplace, based on public safety, that we need to

be providing people options to get home at night after having a few

drinks — currently, in some centres around the province, finding, in

fact, that the lack of ability to catch a cab or the lack of ability to

use an app-based ride-hailing service is pushing people to more

dangerous options, including getting in their car and

driving.

What we’re concerned about is that obtaining a class 4 licence in

this province can be a time-consuming, costly process. It can dissuade

people from doing it, from engaging in the business. It can be one

obstacle and a significant barrier to ride-hailing operating in the

province. I’m thinking of some communities, like the ones that I

represent, where it would take like a full day or multiple days in order

to go and obtain your licence.

Just one final question on this. Is the minister willing to

consider a class 5 plus or a class 5 plus the TaxiHost Pro regime for

ride-hailing, where we use the basic class 5 as the base and apply,

through regulation, the necessary restrictions — like age, driving

record, criminal record checks — while requiring and creating an

enhanced safety regime, which could include some additional on-line

training tools like others use?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m also very cognizant…. I think nobody wants to take the ground

that they are the only people concerned about safety. I know that there

are many, many people concerned about safety — your colleagues, the

opposition. Everyone says that they’re concerned about safety. We’re

translating that as the class 4.

I know that Mothers Against Drunk Driving is concerned about this,

but the Vancouver police department has recommended to the select

standing committee that we had back earlier this year that ride-hailing

drivers be required to obtain a class 4 commercial licence, part of

which is because it requires disclosure of certain medical conditions

that could potentially jeopardize the safety of passengers. So we have

that.

[3:25 p.m.]

The member is very well aware that we are going to be having a

committee to be looking at the regulations. We have a great opportunity

then, I think, to be able to have a look at the driver’s licence part of

that — at the committee that we’re going to be having, if this bill

passes through this Legislature.

T. Stone: I, too, would like to weigh in with a few questions on this

particular section.

First, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I think, was

quite right in asking what is really different from the national safety

certificate requirements and the requirements that could be prescribed

through a class 5 plus type of driver’s licence.

For the purposes of some background, in the legislation that we

developed a couple years ago and introduced today, we provide for the

elimination of a class 4 requirement, not just on the ride-sharing side

— so not just for new entrants — but also on the taxi side — so for

existing participants. We came to that conclusion only after seriously

and thoughtfully reviewing all of the related safety considerations,

which we feel, and I’m certain that every member of this House feels,

need to be there, both to protect drivers and, certainly, also to

protect passengers.

So we had provided for all of the same safety requirements that

are currently a requirement of the national safety certificate. Those

safety requirements…. Our plan was to still require them but to do so

outside of the national safety certificate requirement and to attach it

to, let’s call it, the class 5, 5A or 5 plus. Which, by the way…. There

are numerous examples of these kinds of riders existing for other uses,

be it air brakes or towing large trailers and vehicles, and those kinds

of things. There are other types of licence riders that can be attached

onto a class 5 licence.

When we look at the national safety code…. I have the requirements

in front of me. It says that the requirements of the national safety

certificate are that operators must be in compliance with applicable

regulations, including ensuring all drivers are appropriately licensed

and including review of driver abstracts. All drivers operate in

compliance with hours of service regulations. All drivers conduct

pre-trip inspections. All vehicles operating under their safety

certificate are appropriately maintained. All vehicles have a valid

inspection every six months. Vehicles are registered and insured with

ICBC.

Again, these are all requirements that would seem to be,

practically, provided for in other ways, without requiring a national

safety certificate — which seems to just represent an onerous

restriction or a barrier to entry for new entrants to the market. Again,

I’m wondering if the minister could highlight for us: what are those

additional safety requirements that are attached to the national safety

code provision that could not be provided in other ways to ensure the

safe operation of all TNS vehicles, whether they be taxis or

ride-sharing?

[3:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The member references what was in the private member’s bill tabled

today and legislation that, when the member was the minister, he seemed

to forget to table in this House. We wouldn’t be having this debate

today, I think, if the member had actually, as minister, tabled that

legislation and not waited until 16 months into opposition.

The national safety code. To take the requirements out of the code

means…. As I mentioned to the member for Saanich North and the Islands,

there is fleet monitoring. So there would be no monitoring of fleets of

vehicles. There would be no tracking of who was responsible. Under the

national safety code, we have the carrier who is responsible. We have it

regulated by CVSE. We have being able to track through safety plans,

through hours of service, and ensure that, hopefully, we don’t see the

serious accidents that we see if they have the level of deregulation

that the member so clearly wants to have.

Our government wants to have regulations because it wants to make

sure that everyone is safe. We believe that by deregulating on the

national safety code, we would really be opening up some serious

problems.

T. Stone: Well, the legislation, the private member’s bill which we

introduced today, does provide a broad range of specified requirements

on licensees, vehicles, drivers. With respect to the licensees, the

responsibilities include ensuring the appropriate insurance,

requirements around the vehicle types, so ensuring that there are

are responsibilities around ensuring that drivers and vehicles meet

requirements like minimum age, record checks, driver abstracts, vehicle

inspections. Likewise, there are driver responsibilities, which include

obtaining record checks and abstracts, pre-trip and vehicle inspections,

informing licensees if they’re charged or convicted of particular

offences, and so forth.

The minister should just say that they’ve made the decision to

keep the national safety code requirement there, even though it could be

easily provided for in a more streamlined and efficient manner — all of

the safety requirements contained therein — as is the case with our

private member’s bill.

[3:35 p.m.]

The other reality is that what we’re really talking about here is

a whole bunch of part-time drivers who will largely be driving for

companies, on the ride-sharing side, as new entrants to the industry,

but also a number of part-time drivers on the taxi side of the equation,

as well, who will have a much more difficult time entering the market

because of the maintenance of this unnecessary national safety code

requirement. This, as the minister rightfully pointed out, doesn’t exist

in any other jurisdictions that we’re aware of in Canada — certainly not

in North America — when it comes to the ride-sharing

business.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide some details as to

what makes British Columbia so incredibly unique, so different from

Alberta or any state in the United States that has had ride-sharing in

different forms for months and, in many cases, years. In these hundreds

of other jurisdictions, there’s no equivalent to a national safety code

requirement — this requirement for a national safety code

certificate.

All the while these jurisdictions have found other ways, in a more

streamlined and efficient manner, to ensure that these important safety

considerations, which we all support, as has been detailed in my

previous question. The member for Saanich North and the Islands has as

well. We all support maintaining strong safety requirements.

Why do we want to be the lone jurisdiction in North America that

continues to insist on this onerous national safety certificate

requirement?

Hon. C. Trevena: Unlike the member of the opposition, we don’t see it as onerous.

We see it as a basic foundation for safety. We are very proud to be

leading the way here in safety in this and having the highest standards

countrywide. If it’s the case that they’re not seeing it in other

jurisdictions, then maybe they’re the highest standard in North America.

That’s something we should be proud of. We shouldn’t be trying to

deregulate it and saying: “It’s far too complex. It’s far too

onerous.”

By having the national safety code there, it does create that

level playing field. It is there for the taxi industry, and it will be

there for the app-based ride-hailing companies.

It’s for the companies, not the individual drivers, because we’re

talking about fleets. It’s the company. If the member reads the

legislation all the way through, he’ll see that we are talking about the

app-based ride-hailing companies, through the term “TNS.” We’re not

talking about individual drivers; we’re talking about having companies

dealing with it.

J. Sturdy: Just for clarity, with regard to 5(2)(b), motor vehicle being

operated under a “valid safety certificate.” That’s a national safety

code certificate? Is it synonymous?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

J. Sturdy: With regard to the class 4 versus class 5. I thank the minister

for indulging in this particular conversation. I recognize that it’s not

necessarily identified in this section, but as the member for Saanich

North and the Islands was able to begin to canvass this, I’d like to

take this opportunity as well.

If the minister can explain to us the difference between a class 4

and a class 5 licence in terms of the driver’s exam, for example. What

is the difference? What do you have to do for a class 4 licence that you

don’t have to do for a class 5 licence?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m glad that the member also recognized that this isn’t actually

covered in this section. This is about vehicle licences and not drivers’

licences. Drivers’ licences, as the member is well aware, are covered

under Motor Vehicle Act regulations, which are the responsibility of the

Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[3:40 p.m.]

However, I will inform the member that a class 4 is a commercial

class of driver’s licence. They do have a higher level of prescreening

criteria: you have to be at least 19 years old and hold a valid 1, 2, 3,

4, 5 or 6 licence or an equivalent licence with at least two years’

non-learner driving experience.

The prescreening for a class 4 is that driving records must have

fewer than four offences that resulted in penalty points in the past two

years; have no motor vehicle–related criminal code convictions — or

equivalent, if you’re not from B.C. — in the past three

years.

There is also the medical monitoring, the medical exam, which is

every five years until you’re 45 and then every three years from 45

until 65. The exam itself — there is both a written exam as well as a

driver’s exam. There is also the proof that you know what you’re looking

for when you’re checking your vehicle.

As I mentioned to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, if

the member goes on line, he will find a number of companies and

individuals who have failed their class 4 licence and talk about how

surprised they were, because they thought it was going to be quite easy,

and have either gone to have further training — there are training

schools that work specifically on commercial vehicle driving instruction

— or are working with such training organizations, have started

themselves. I think the member would find it very interesting to have a

look at that.

But as I mentioned before, and as I mentioned to the member for

Saanich North and the Islands, this isn’t in this section. It is Motor

Vehicle Act regulation.

J. Sturdy: What I hear the minister say is that there are issues around age,

the driver’s abstract, criminal code and medical with regard to a 4

versus a 5 but that otherwise, the difference is really just in a

pre-trip inspection versus not doing a pre-trip inspection on the

examination.

Hon. C. Trevena: I know there’s a huge amount of interest in this. That’s why I’m

very glad that when this legislation is passed — hopefully in the next

24 hours or so — we’re going to be having this discussion at the

committee, where we’re going to be looking at regulations, because we

want to be transparent on regulations and moving along there.

No, the member is incorrect. There is a harder test. Well, I

understand it’s harder, having read about it and having talked with

people. It’s a harder test, a harder written test. There is a driver’s

test, and there is the vehicle inspection. So you do have another test.

You’re not just learning how to inspect your car. You do, do another

test.

J. Sturdy: Well, just in the interest of full disclosure, I do hold an

unrestricted class 4 and have been through the test and know it to be

exactly the same test bank — at least that was my experience — and the

same requirements. You either know how to pull in and out of traffic, or

you don’t. Whether you have a class 4 or a class 5, the criteria is

exactly the same.

I would suggest to the minister that it’s not about driving

skills. It is about the items that you identified earlier around

abstracts, age, criminal code violations and medical. Then, of course,

there’s the pre-trip inspection. At least that certainly is my

experience.

Is the minister telling us, then, that there’s a different test

bank and a different skill set required to pass that driving test when

you take that test through ICBC?

Hon. C. Trevena: With all due respect to the member, I know that there’s a huge

amount of interest in this. It isn’t part of this section. We do have

the committee that is going to be struck, when this legislation is

passed, to talk about regulations, where this will be one of the items

that can be discussed in the committee. I know there’s a lot of interest

in the difference between a class 4 and class 5 licence. We’re happy to

have that discussion at that committee.

[3:45 p.m.]

I say that with all due respect, we have spent nearly an hour on

the discussion between a class 4 and class 5 licence in a

section of the

legislation where it doesn’t reside. It doesn’t reside at all in this

legislation. It’s in the MVA regulations. It is a regulation. It doesn’t

appear in this legislation. There is no discussion in this legislation

about a class 4 or class 5 licence.

With all due respect, Member, let’s have a really healthy debate,

a good policy debate, at the committee. We have a number of sections

still to deal with, and I’d be very happy to talk about the other

sections.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister. I guess I’m somewhat responsible for us

spending the last hour on this. This issue around licensing — I’m

comfortable, if this discussion is going to be going to the committee,

to have it there. I recognize the challenges that it poses to this

specific piece of legislation, but it’s not currently in the terms of

reference of that. Will the government be making the required changes to

ensure that it’s part of the terms of reference and that we can have

that discussion there? Following that, I’d be happy to move

on.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, yes, those terms of reference will be updated.

Thank you for the opportunity.

T. Shypitka: I’m just going to piggyback off the member from Vancouver–Sea to

Sky a little bit here. On the recommendation of a class 4, instead of

going through the onerous process of getting a class 4, where the skill

set may not be a lot different…. Did the minister consider the resources

that are needed to hire additional testers? I know that in my community

of Kootenay East, we have a long lineup of people just getting a class

The resources that will be required to hire additional testers to

encourage the backlog on class 4 licences will be long and lengthy. This

will slow down the process even more. So has the minister considered the

resources that are required to bring additional testers in

place?

Hon. C. Trevena: There have been more examiners hired. We’re anticipating that yes,

there will be whatever licence is finally decided upon. I want to see

class 4 there, but whatever licence is decided upon, there will be the

resources there to ensure that people can apply for their tests and take

their tests. As I do say, this is a matter that…. The licensing is ICBC,

the Solicitor General, not amendments to the Passenger Transportation

Act that we’re discussing at the moment.

T. Shypitka: It’s great to hear that there are more testers being provided. I

know that in my region, that is not the case right now, and we are

looking for more testers. But the question isn’t so much if new testers

are being provided now. It’s what will it look like once this comes into

play, when we’re needing more class 4 people? What kind of additional

resources, other than what we’ve got right now, will be part of the

program going forward? And what will that budget item look like? Do we

know how much that’s going to cost and how many resources we’re going to

need?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, the driver’s licensing is not part of this legislation.

It is not part of this section. It’s not part of the legislation. It’s

the Motor Vehicle Act regulation. There will be discussion about it

separately. We are looking at, through ICBC — not my ministry — ensuring

that there are testers in place to deal with whatever new numbers come

through of people looking for licences.

J. Sturdy: Similarly to my colleague, I hear that the wait in my riding is

literally months to get a driver’s test, so I can see that there would

be concerns.

I think I’ll take this opportunity to also recognize that the

Standing Committee on Crown Corporations also recommended a class 5

licence, so there is consistency there with the Hara report.

It is interesting to note that Operation Red Nose does not require

a commercial licence. A class 5 licence and a clean abstract is

something that is accepted by Red Nose. Hopefully, there won’t be a

consideration around changing that.

[3:50 p.m.]

Then I’ll also point out that only 10 percent of all of the

licences issued in British Columbia currently are commercial in nature.

The rest, 90 percent, would be standard personal drivers’ licences. So

this seems like a very significant potential barrier. There is, as I

said, a wait, and there’s a cost. I recognize that it’s not the

minister’s ministry, with regard to ICBC and the cost of taking these

tests, but it is, again, a barrier to participation.

Of the 10 percent of the drivers’ licences in this province that

are commercial, an interesting statistic there is that only 15 percent

of that 10 percent are actually held by women — just an interesting

observation of fact. Certainly, it doesn’t create an opportunity for

more people to easily participate in this activity of providing

transportation options for British Columbians.

I see that the minister has expressed some unwillingness to carry

on farther with this conversation, although they were pleased to provide

ample opportunity to her colleague in the confidence and supply

agreement. I will move on.

This section,

section 5, didn’t particularly have an impact on

taxis from operating in the past. Yet there is a proposed change to

section 23(1) so that a person must not operate a motor vehicle as a

commercial vehicle without charging a prescribed rate. I wonder if the

minister could explain about the need for this change.

Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, the legislation reads in (c)(ii): “any rates

approved or set by the board under

section 7(1)(

f) and any rules made in

relation to those rates under

section 7(1)(g).” This new

section says:

“…motor vehicle are charged rates in compliance with, as applicable, (

i) rates approved or set by the board under

section 7(1)(f) [rates for

passenger directed vehicles], and (ii) rules made under

section 7(1)(g)

[rules respecting rates charged by licensees].” So there is, basically,

almost no change.

With that, Madame Chair, I move the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

[3:55 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 57 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 57, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: In this House, I call continued committee stage on Bill 55,

Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018. In the little House, I

call Committee of the Whole, Bill 47, Health Sector Statutes Repeal

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 55; L. Reid

in the chair.

The committee met at 3:58 p.m.

section 5 (continued) .

J. Sturdy: There clearly has been a series of concerns raised with regard to

the issuance or the requirement around a valid safety certificate and

other pieces of this section. So I’d like to, at this time, move an

amendment to the proposed amendment to Bill 55, Passenger Transportation

Amendment Act, 2018.

I move that the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018, be

amended.

[4:00 p.m.]

SECTION 5, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 23 (1) is repealed and the following substituted:

(1) A person must not operate a motor vehicle as a type of

commercial passenger vehicle unless the following requirements are

met:

(

a) the motor vehicle is being operated under a valid licence

that authorizes the motor vehicle to be operated as that type of

commercial passenger vehicle;

(

b) the motor vehicle is being operated under a valid safety

certificate;

(

c) the person meets prescribed requirements and is otherwise

operating the motor vehicle in compliance with the licence, this Act,

the regulations and other applicable laws;

(

d) passengers transported in the motor vehicle are charged

rates in compliance with, as applicable,

(

i) rates approved or set by the board under

section 7 (1) (f)

[rates for passenger directed vehicles] , and

(ii) rules made under

section 7 (1) (g) [rules respecting

rates charged by licensees] ;

(

e) the motor vehicle meets prescribed

requirements.

(1.1) Notwithstanding anything in the Motor Vehicle

Act or the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations or any

other Act or regulation, the holder of a Class 5 or superior

driver’s licence, as that term is used in the Motor Vehicle

Act or the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations , is

permitted to operate a vehicle in their business of operating a

passenger directed vehicle. ]

Point of Order

Hon. C. Trevena: I rise on a point of order. This amendment deals, in the second part,

with matters that are dealt with in regulations that are not dealt with in

this bill at all.

The

section deals with matters that are in the motor vehicle, MVA,

regulations section. They are not being dealt with here, so they are

literally foreign to this bill. It has nothing that is relevant with this

bill. There is no issue…. There is no discussion in this bill about driver’s

licence classes. It’s not in any legislation anywhere, so I believe that

this amendment will be out of order.

The Chair: Does West Vancouver–Sea to Sky or Kamloops–​South Thompson

wish to respond?

T. Stone: Chair, obviously we’ll wait for and respect the advice that you

provide us on this matter.

What we’re trying to do here is provide a thoughtful amendment, which

we believe gets to the policy aspect of this section, which we believe fails

British Columbians and fails participants in the existing and the new

industry. I’m not aware of any rules that preclude members of this House

from moving amendments to legislation that is being debated in this

House.

The general theme and nature of this

section is safety and safety

provisions. The amendment that’s being proposed, thematically, also relates

to safety. So we would hope, Madame Chair, that you would provide us some

guidance on this and that you would see that we’re just trying to be

thoughtful and cooperative here, in spirit of what this

section actually

entails, to offer an amendment that we very much believe is in

order.

The Chair: The Law Clerk is pondering, so does anyone else wish to make a

comment?

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, agree that we should be looking at this amendment proposal and

agree that it is thoughtful and, if accepted, will help to bring

ride-sharing to British Columbia much, much sooner than it would without the

amendment. So I think that there’ll be lots of support from consumers —

i.e., potential customers of ride-sharing.

I’d also like to reiterate what my colleague said with regards to the

potential drivers of ride-sharing. Many of them might be part-time drivers,

moms just dropping their kids off at school and then trying to get a few

extra bucks during the day in between drop-off and pickup of their children

from school.

[4:05 p.m.]

I have talked numerous times with taxicab drivers over the past little

while who have said that they actually support ride-sharing and would really

like to be a ride-sharing driver. They made it really clear that they were

looking forward to having ride-sharing come into British Columbia to augment

the work that they do for their respective taxicab drivers. Plus the fact

that one driver told me that he was sick and tired of having to have long,

long hours driving for this taxicab driver, so it would give him more

options driving for a ride-sharing company.

If this amendment is possible to go through, I will be supporting

it.

The Chair: Minister, is there anything you would wish to add?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you. Well, our concern here is that driving licensing is not

given a class within the statute. It is in the Motor Vehicle Act. It is not

in any legislation anywhere, because if you start hard-wiring licences into

legislation, it is difficult to change it. So it is, therefore, in

regulation. It is part of a detailed and balanced code. It includes

offences, conditions, restrictions,

definitions, and so on. I think

everybody is aware of that.

But in addition, adding a driver’s licence class into a different

statute that’s not in this statute at all — it’s not in the Passenger

Transportation Act; it’s regulations to the Motor Vehicle Act — may lead to

unintended consequences, not just in this act, but right through many pieces

of legislation. It may not legally operate as intended. So as I say, this

should be under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Further, there are concerns with the language in the amendment,

including the idea of a superior licence to a class 5. It’s uncertain what

that means and just what this would be related to. Is it both TNSs and the

taxis, as well as the TNS system?

As I say, none of the amendments in the bill preclude a change to the

Motor Vehicle Act regulations, which will be discussed in the committee of

the Legislature, which will be struck when this legislation gets passed.

That will allow fulsome discussion about the pros and cons of whether it

creates enough safety there.

But this, as I say, would have…. One, it’s not a relevant area to be

discussing this; and secondly, it could have huge unintended consequences.

It is part of the Motor Vehicle Act regulations, not amendments to the

Passenger Transportation Act.

Point of Order

(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: According to Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia ,

fourth edition, on page 218, an amendment that goes beyond the scope of

a bill or alters the principle of a bill as agreed to at second reading

is not admissible.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

J. Sturdy: I’m wondering if the minister could let us know why the change of

wording from “convey” to “transport.” The definition includes the

meaning, or is it simply a term change?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. It is plain-language drafting. People

don’t say “convey” very much anymore.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

J. Sturdy: Is it the case that this

section would prohibit people from

advertising services such as Uber or other ride-sharing companies that

don’t operate within the province?

Hon. C. Trevena: What this

section does — it clarifies that you can’t advertise

unless you have a licence that you can provide the service. So if you

have the licence, you can advertise. If you haven’t got the licence, you

can’t advertise.

J. Sturdy: What’s the intention behind the purpose of this

amendment?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member: all it is, really, is that you cannot say that you

can provide a service unless you hold a licence that authorizes you to

do so. Basically, you can’t say that you can do something unless you’ve

got that licence which allows you to conduct that business. It’s pretty

straightforward.

J. Sturdy: In other words, at this particular time, Uber could not advertise

because they don’t hold a licence.

Hon. C. Trevena: Until they get a licence, they cannot advertise. Their fleets

don’t have a licence, so they cannot advertise at the moment.

J. Sturdy: For clarity, then, if this legislation passes, Uber would not be

able to advertise at all with their name, or Lyft could not advertise,

or any other ride-hailing industry could not advertise regardless of

what the intention is behind it in terms of marketing their business or,

you know, promoting product in other jurisdictions. But essentially, if

you don’t have a licence, then you’d not be able to promote your name.

Is that the literal

interpretation of this legislation or this

piece?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: No company can advertise that they are providing a service for

app-based ride-hailing until they get the licence that is required,

that’s set out through this legislation, to work.

J. Sturdy: The ride-hailing companies or TNSs will be able to advertise

themselves, just not advertise that they are providing a service. As

long as they’re marketing their business, that’s fine — but not that

they’re providing a service?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

J. Sturdy: Similar to

section 5, there is certainly concern in this

section —

the requirement for a class 4 licence, which is too onerous and

restrictive. I think we all agree that public safety is paramount, but

with appropriate safety rules, the issue of the public’s well-being

while travelling in a ride-hailed vehicle can be dealt with effectively

without having to implement such onerous conditions.

Similar to our

section 3 amendment regarding overly restrictive

conditions on rate-setting by a ride-hail company, as this

section deals

specifically with transportation network services, we are going to

propose a further amendment that would eliminate class 4 restrictions

for ride-hail companies and drivers and restrictions on rates charged by

ride-hail companies. As such, I’d like to move an amendment.

SECTION 9, by deleting the text shown as struck

out:

9 The following

section is

added:

Licence required to provide transportation network services

23.1

(1) A person must not provide

transportation network services unless the following requirements are

met:

(

a) the person is authorized under a valid licence to provide

the transportation network services;

(

b) the person holds a valid safety certificate;

(

c) the person meets prescribed requirements and is otherwise in

compliance with the licence, this Act, the regulations and other

applicable laws;

(

d) passengers transported in passenger directed vehicles

operated under the licence are charged rates in compliance with, as

applicable,

(

i) rates approved or set by the board under

section 7 (1) (f)

[rates for passenger directed vehicles] ,

and

(ii) rules made under

section 7 (1) (g) [rules respecting

rates charged by licensees] .

(2) Without limiting

section 23 (1), a person who drives a motor

vehicle as a commercial passenger vehicle must not transport in the

motor vehicle, as passengers, persons who hail the motor vehicle through

the use of transportation network services unless the licence under

which the person is driving the motor vehicle includes a transportation

network services authorization that expressly authorizes the motor

vehicle to be hailed through the use of those services.

(3) A person must not provide, or advertise or hold out that the

person is able to provide, transportation network services unless the

person is a licensee whose licence includes the transportation network

services authorization necessary to provide those services.

(4) For certainty, a person does not provide transportation

network services by driving a passenger directed vehicle under a

transportation network services authorization.]

On the amendment.

J. Sturdy: Really, this is about the fundamental way that this service works

internationally and, certainly, nationally and North America–wide, in

that the rates are flexible.

[4:20 p.m.]

The rates change, based on demand. More drivers come into the

market when there’s more demand and they can be attracted into the

market. There can be discounted opportunities when the market conditions

dictate that.

Ultimately, it is a consumer-driven market and a consumer-driven

demand that dictates the price that will be paid. Certainly, we see that

in virtually every other aspect of our economy. I wish I could determine

and dictate the price my farm’s going to get paid for potatoes, but the

market dictates that. I believe that it’s in the best interest of the

consumer and a functioning market to limit the opportunity for the board

to set pricing.

Hon. C. Trevena: We started touching on this last week, talking about pricing and

the rates being set. The government thinks it’s very important to really

have the lower and the upper limits. The member talks about this being

consumer-driven, that we have, basically, what would be a free-for-all.

We’re looking at it as a sense of consumer protection. We want to be

able to protect consumers from that free-for-all.

I think the member must be very well aware — having done a lot of

work, clearly, on app-based ride-hailing — that people do get hit by

surge pricing; the stories about whether it’s raining and suddenly

you’re being charged a lot. But just for example….

We have a number of jurisdictions now ensuring that there is not

going to be surge pricing, including New York City, where they are

actually looking at many of the provisions that we have in our

legislation, having had that free-for-all and now sort of ratcheting

back.

In Edmonton, we had, almost two years ago now, a New Year’s Eve

customer charged more than $1,100 for a ride. He did then get offered a

refund of $500. We don’t want to see that here in B.C.

In Toronto, somebody was charged, just last year, $18,518 for a

20-minute ride. It was a mistake. It was rectified. Still, those

mistakes do happen, and they’re not always rectified.

There have been studies done in New York, which is changing its

regulations to match pretty well what we’re looking at, where they found

that Uber drivers have been tricking the app into thinking there was a

shortage of cars, which raised the price.

We see, again, throughout many U.S. jurisdictions, a surge in

pricing on New Year’s Eve. We get one where, in Honolulu — people going

to Hawaii for Christmas, watch out for this one — sailors getting off

the ship were quoted as much as $221 to get to Waikiki. A cab ride was

$44.

What we’re doing, through this and through this section, and why

we think it’s so important to keep this

section is to have that consumer

protection, to ensure that we have the base level, as we do with the

taxi industry, so drivers and companies know that there will be a bottom

level. It won’t go to the complete bottom, and there will also be that

top level.

Rather than having it, as the member would like to see, be

consumer-driven, we think that consumer protection and making sure that

consumers are not unfairly gouged is the right approach. So we’ll be

opposing this amendment.

[4:25 p.m.]

The Chair: The amendment is in order.

T. Stone: I appreciate that this amendment is in order.

Again, the essence of what we are proposing here is to reflect

what is an important, consumer-driven need. That is to have

transportation options. I would suggest that seeing an increase in price

— and the minister can throw all kinds of, you know, real outlier

situations at us, a couple of hundred dollars here or $50 there, in

contrast to what a much lower fare would look like…. I would suggest a

couple of things.

One, consumers will make that decision as to whether or not they

want to actually go through with the transaction. That’s the whole point

of the ride-sharing model. The discrete transaction is made ahead of

time. It’s made through an app. It’s done through a secure financial

transaction. And passengers don’t need to agree to it. That’s

one.

Two, I would submit that paying a little bit more at peak times,

and in some cases maybe paying a fair bit more at peak times, whatever

that is — if it’s New Year’s Eve or if there’s some major surge of

passengers that come off a cruise ship — is better than standing in the

rain, trying to find transportation. It’s better than, you know, in the

middle of the night, trying to arrange transportation that might not

ever come. It’s better than finding yourself in an unsafe situation,

whereby you can’t get a ride when you absolutely need it.

We’ve heard from many members of this House, and in fact,

reflected from all parties and all regions of the province, situations

from our constituents and consumers who have faced those kinds of

situations.

What we’re saying here through this amendment is, fundamentally,

the price regime needs to be driven by the consumer, not driven by

government. Not driven by a big bureaucracy, but driven by the consumer,

whereby the prices will inevitably be lower when there is less demand,

and prices will be higher when there is higher demand.

Importantly, we’re not suggesting that this flexibility in pricing

only be available to ride-sharing companies. We’re saying it should be

available to TNS operators, whether they are taxi or ride-share. That

was part of the fundamental change that we incorporated in our private

member’s bill that was introduced today — again, to remove or ensure

that there is no obstacle to the entry into British Columbia of

ride-sharing companies. The tight, tight controls on supply and on

pricing represent those kinds of significant obstacles.

We’re not confident that ride-sharing will ever see the light of

day in British Columbia if we don’t address ensuring that these kinds of

obstacles, as represented through price controls, are actually removed

and not there as barriers to entry.

On that basis, I wholeheartedly support this particular

amendment.

A. Olsen: To this amendment…. I just want to say clearly that the B.C. Green

caucus is not going to be supporting this amendment.

There are a few reasons why. I think that it’s important to point

out that, if the official opposition wanted to completely deregulate

this environment, they had the opportunity to do that and decided, for

whatever reason…. As the former minister has stated, and I absolutely

take him at his word, he was ready to do it, but for whatever reason,

the party decided not to move forward — and could have created the

entirely deregulated environment that we’re in.

I’ve also been clear that some of the aspects of this current

legislation, I find to be too restrictive. What I’ve been trying to

strike here is a balance, a middle-of-the-road approach, recognizing the

fact that jurisdictions around North America and around the world are

indeed learning from….

[4:30 p.m.]

This is one of the benefits, as I mentioned at the end of last

week, the last time that we had the opportunity to debate this. Whether

or not I necessarily agree with the minister’s examples that were used,

I would say that I agree with the principle that was being used — that

we have an opportunity to learn from the early adopters, from those that

were first entrants into the market.

So we do not support the completely deregulated environment that’s

been put forward by the official opposition. That said, I think some

aspects that have been pointed out around surge pricing and some of the

aspects of the ride-hailing i