British Columbia Hansard — 22 November 2018, p.m., Issue 190 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20181122pm-Hansard-n190

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, November 22, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 190 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Thursday, November 22, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 6761 Motions Without Notice......................................................................................................................................................... 6761 Acting Clerk and Acting Sergeant-at-Arms Hon. M.

Farnworth Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6761 Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act(continued) S. Furstenau Hon. G.

Heyman Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 6763 Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6763 Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018 Hon. C. Trevena J. Sturdy T. Stone A.

Olsen Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 6766 Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018 Third Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 6767 Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018 Bill 49 — Professional Governance Act Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6767 Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018(continued) Hon.

C. Trevena J. Sturdy T. Stone J.

Thornthwaite Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 6775 Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018 Third Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 6775 Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6776 Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018(continued) J.

Sturdy Hon. C. Trevena A. Olsen T. Stone J. Thornthwaite Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6784 Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018(continued) S. Bond Hon. C. James A. Weaver T. Redies

Point of Order (Chair’s Ruling) ............................................................................................................................................. 6787 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 6784 Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018(continued) T. Redies S. Thomson B. Stewart A. Weaver Hon. C. James Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018 M. Lee Hon. D. Eby T. Wat L. Throness Bill 57 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018 M. Lee Hon. D. Eby

THURSDAY , NOVEMBER 22, 2018 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members E. Ross:In the gallery, we have Chris Sankey. Chris San- key was a former elected councillor for Lax Kw’alaams and is now in the private sector, developing a 1,500-metric-tonne land-based closed-containment fish farm. He’s also develop- ing an agriculture project that is basically a 78-acre green- house project, which is well underway right now. He’s in Vic- toria looking for meetings as we speak. Lastly, he wanted me to read into the record his own quote.

He wanted me to read it on my own behalf. I want to make it clear these are not my words; these are his words. “Lastly, I want the general public to know how good of a bas- ketball player he was at the guard position, where he used to defend me like white on rice. Chris used to give me night- mares, thinking about how good of a defender he was, where he left me crying in my big pillow as I wallowed in my sor- rows. Go Tsimshian. ” Would the House please make welcome Chris Sankey from Lax Kw’alaams. Motions Without Notice ACTING CLERK AND ACTING SERGEANT-AT-ARMS Hon. M. Farnworth:I rise to move a motion.

Just for the information of members, this motion is to ensure con- tinuity of the important roles of the Clerk and the Ser- geant-at-Arms at this time. That’s what this motion is involving. By leave, I move: [That, further to the motion adopted on November 20, 2018, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees, shall be con- ferred the duties and responsibilities of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly on an acting basis, and is to be styled as Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly until otherwise ordered by this House. Ms.

Ryan-Lloyd is authorized by the Legislative Assembly to under- take any responsibilities prescribed to the Clerk of the Legislative As- sembly by statute, by the Standing Orders, and by any other authority; and further That Randall Ennis, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, shall be conferred the duties and responsibilities of the Sergeant-at-Arms on an acting basis, and is to be styled as Acting Sergeant-at-Arms until otherwise ordered by this House. Mr.

Ennis is authorized by the Legislative As- sembly to undertake any responsibilities prescribed to the Sergeant- at-Arms by the Standing Orders and by any other authority.] Leave granted. Motion approved. [1:35 p.m.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 51, Environmental Assessment Act. In

Section A, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 45, Budget Measures Implementation Act. Committee of the Whole House BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 51; L. Reid in the chair. The committee met at 1:37 p.m. Sections 48 to 55 inclusive approved. On

section 56. S. Furstenau:Just one question on

section 56: the cir- cumstances for suspension, cancellation and amendment of certificates and exemption orders.

Section 2(

b) says: “on the twentieth anniversary of the issuance of the certificate the project is not operational. ” I’m just wondering about 20 years, which seems like a rather long time, and whether or not there would be reviews in the interim in that kind of lengthy time period. Hon. G. Heyman:There are two separate issues here. At least, I believe there are. The first one is if a project has not been substantially begun.

As we explained earlier, if it has not substantially begun within ten years, the certificate ceases to exist. [1:40 p.m.] This is a new provision that allows us, in the case where a project has substantially begun but was never completed or ceases operation, to have the certificate removed at a 20-year point.

Section 56 approved. On

section 57. S. Furstenau:Just a clarification. If the minister could please define “an opportunity to be heard. ” What would that mean, to be heard? By whom? What follow-up action would that entail? Hon. G. Heyman: Essentially, revoking a certificate is a fairly serious action, so the purpose of this provision is simply to provide for administrative fairness and allow the certificate holder to be heard, if the consideration is to revoke. 6761

Sections 57 to 76 inclusive approved. On

section 77. Hon. G. Heyman: The orders of the day contain an amendment to

section 77 that I would like to speak to. [SECTION 77 (2) (e), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown: (

e) respecting qualifications of individuals who may serve on the technical advisory committee, andof persons who may undertake reviews referred to in

section 19 (2) (c) (ii) and of personsreferred to in

section 19 (2) (c) (iv) or 26, including, without limitation, qualifications respecting impartiality;] On the amendment. Hon. G. Heyman:Again, this is a matter of bringing more clarity to issues that were raised, that we believe were covered and certainly were the intent of the act. The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that we intend project information that will be used in the assessment process to be reviewed impartially, no matter where it comes from. This will be of assistance to the technical committee as well as for the purposes of public transparency. Amendment approved.

Section 77 as amended approved. On

section 78. Hon. G. Heyman: Again, there’s a fairly simple amend- ment to

section 78(6) where we’ve simply added

section 14 as well as

section 11 of the former act. [SECTION 78 (6), by adding the underlined text as shown:

(6) Despite the repeal of the former Act and subject to subsection (7), if an order under

section 11 or 14 of the former Act was issued re- specting a project but a decision under

section 17 of the former Act has not been made before the date this

section comes into force, the former Act applies respecting both an assessment of the project and a decision under

section 17 of that Act, but only if the project pro- ponent provides a notice to the chief executive assessment officer within 6 months of this

section coming into force that the proponent wishes to continue the assessment under the former Act.] On the amendment. Hon. G. Heyman:Section 14 covers panels. This has to do with transitional provisions, and this just makes it clear that we’re addressing panels under

section 14. [1:45 p.m.] Amendment approved.

Section 78 as amended approved. On

section 79. S. Furstenau:On

section 79, “Regulations to deal with transitional matters and difficulties, ” could the minister offer some clarification of his intention on this section? For example, how will this relate to projects in the early phases of their proposals already? Will they use the old environmental assessment process or the new? What is the threshold? How far along does a project need to be in its application to use the old process? Hon. G. Heyman:

Section 79 and

section 78, in fact, should be read together.

Section 78 sets out the conditions that must be met for a project that has begun to continue under the existing process or to be transitioned to a new one, if activities meet certain thresholds.

Section 79 is a fairly standard transitional provision suggested by legislative drafters to deal with any unfore- seen circumstances in the event they occur with respect to transition. S. Furstenau:Okay, so 78 and 79 together. What if pro- jects that are already, so to speak, in the pipeline involve emissions that will max out our provincial carbon budget? How will the impact of the new environmental assessment process impact those types of projects? Hon. G. Heyman:There are a couple of ways this will be addressed.

First of all, if a project has a certificate, we can- not retroactively apply the conditions of this bill to an exist- ing certificate. That’s the whole purpose of the transitional procedures. However, if an existing project applies to have its conditions amended, the amendments would be considered under the provisions of the new act. The new act also gives us the ability to audit projects and to ensure that they’re meeting their conditions.

For instance, if a project was audited and wasn’t meeting the levels of greenhouse gases that were contemplated during the project design or if that was creating impacts or impeding mitiga- tions that the project design and certificate conditions were intended to achieve, there would, again, be the ability to amend conditions. [1:50 p.m.] Finally, as the member and others will see, in the event of…. [The bells were rung.] Once we release the climate strategy, people will see there is a comprehensive plan to work with industry and business at every level to remain competitive while reducing green- house gas emissions from existing operations through a vari- ety of means.

Sections 79 to 82 inclusive approved. Title approved. 6762 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 22, 2018

Hon. G. Heyman:I move that we report the bill complete with amendments. Motion approved. The committee rose at 1:51 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT Bill 51, Environmental Assessment Act, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Heyman:I move that now in this House we pro- ceed to Committee of the Whole on Bill 55, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018. [1:55 p.m.] Committee of the Whole House BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 55; L. Reid in the chair. The committee met at 1:57 p.m. On

section 1. Hon. C. Trevena:If I might, just before we get into the meat of the bill — I’m looking forward to committee stage; it’s going to be interesting — I would like to introduce staff who are here to give the technical assistance and support. On my right is Jeremy Wood, senior director for legisla- tion and policy; on my left, Kathy Kirby, executive director for legislation and policy; behind me, Kristin Vanderkuip, registrar, and Deborah Bowman, assistant deputy minister. J. Sturdy:Y es, it is a pleasure to be here.

We’re grateful to be in the House here to debate a piece of legislation to get in place ride-sharing for British Columbia. And while we’re glad to see it’s here, I guess it’s fair to say that we’re a bit disappointed in what’s before us. There’s an issue around the confidence of being able to actually accomplish the goals that have been presented in terms of having an environment where ride-sharing will be embraced, will be supported and will be acted on by the companies. Unfortunately, it seems that there is, to some degree, a lack of a consumer-driven and a market-driven type of activity or initiative.

There are certain obstacles that have been cre- ated, which we’ll look to explore as we go through this legis- lation. It certainly is important that the legislation and the playing field be level for both ride-hailing, as well as with the taxi industry. Certainly, I think both sides of the House agree with that. It is also important that some of the limitations around how these organizations or businesses and apps can be suc- cessful around artificial boundaries, around geofencing, geo- graphical constraints and limitations that have caused issues around deadheading.

And lack of flexibility and limiting access to these services need to be eliminated. [2:00 p.m.] Certainly, I think we’ve also been clear that the issues around licensing and driver’s licence requirements…. We’re concerned about them creating an unnecessary barrier to entry. It will be how we’re going to be able to explore that in this bill, as it’s not necessarily specifically addressed. We’ll look to try and better understand how we can actually talk about some of these things.

Certainly, the issue of municipal oversight, permitting requirements, which can ultimately result in a patchwork of regulations that have hampered the taxi industry and the success of the taxi industry, could make it impossible for ride-sharing to actually be embraced in British Columbia. Things like individual business licences in every municipality could potentially be a significant barri- er, as well as a variety of other responsibilities that are left with the municipalities.

These are some of the things that we look to, to explore, better understand and strive to make some changes, poten- tially, that can create a better environment to have this be a successful piece of legislation. I guess, to begin with, in sort of a more general way…. Certainly, the expectations of the public are high. There has been much discussion about when we’ll see ride-sharing in British Columbia. All parties, in 2016, committed to having it in place by 2017. Then that turned into 2018. Now we’re talking about 2019. The Premier said it was coming soon. I think he inferred the late summer, early fall.

The minister has referenced late 2019. I wonder if the minister has some target dates in terms of when she would expect to see applications being received by the passenger transportation branch. Hon. C. Trevena: With all due respect, that’s got no relativity to

section 1 of the bill. J. Sturdy:Typically, there’s an opportunity to discuss some of the general concepts around this bill. Is the minister sug- gesting that’s not something that there’s any latitude to understand? The Chair:The member is correct. There has been latitude expressed in the past. Minister of Transportation. Thursday, November 22, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6763

Hon. C. Trevena:Fair enough. As I have said many times in this House during question period and through second reading debate, we’re anticipating that app-based ride-hail- ing companies will be able to apply by September 2019. J. Sturdy:The PTB system has been somewhat opaque in the past in terms of how to move through that Passenger Transportation Board process. It was pointed out to me that in 2017, an application for an app-based company called Ripe Rides was not approved because of the issue of the sound economic conditions in the transportation business in Metro Vancouver.

Perhaps we’ll have an opportunity to get into this a little bit earlier in terms of how that process will, in fact, change. But does the minister have a target date for applications to be approved, assuming they are approved? When can we really expect to see…? Does the minister have a date that she would like to see people actually being able to use the app? Hon. C. Trevena:The board, as the member is well aware, is an independent tribunal. They have expedited applications in the past.

For instance, they were very accommodating when we were dealing with the withdrawal of Greyhound long-distance bus service, for which they’re also responsible. [2:05 p.m.] They know the expectation around this file and will be working accordingly, but they are an independent tribunal, as the member well knows. T. Stone:I also want to say thanks to the staff. I see a few familiar faces over there who I know worked really hard on preparing this package of legislation. They certainly did when we prepared a very similar package about a year and a half ago.

We actually had all of this mapped out, Madame Chair, as you know. My question, again, relates to…. As we move through this bill, I’m wondering if the minister could provide some com- ment on whether or not there are any sections in this — this

section or any other sections — that represent a confid- ence vote of this House. If she could provide that assessment on this

section and any other sections, that would be much appreciated. Hon. C. Trevena:A couple of comments. One is on the specifics of a confidence vote. We are actually checking for extra advice on that one. We have obviously talked to the Third Party about this. We had the vote on second reading, which did go through, but we are talking to the Third Party about it. I just wanted to comment, also…. The member for Kam- loops–South Thompson comments about how this bill reflects the bill that, when he had my role, was almost com- plete.

Obviously, there is the whole issue of cabinet confid- entiality there, of who knows what when. But I go back to the fact that if it was so near completion, it could have come to the floor of this House, been debated in the early spring of 2017 and then let people decide on the actual outcome of that bill rather than their putative…. We’ve got, potentially, a bill out there. T. Stone:Seeing as the minister has been willing to engage on this line, it is worth mentioning that this bill that we’re here debating today, Bill 55….

While it does contain some of the guts of the bill that we worked on and developed a year and a half ago, there are some very stark differences in this bill from what we had proposed. The piece of legislation that we had prepared did not include a litany of barriers to entry for ride-sharing busi- nesses.

The bill that we had prepared did not provide restric- tions on supply, did not provide restrictions on boundaries, did not provide restrictions on fares, did not provide restric- tions insofar as continuing to allow municipal requirements that could trip up the successful entry of ride-sharing com- panies in British Columbia. [2:10 p.m.] It is with that in mind that I asked my previous question about whether or not there were any sections, this

section or any other sections, that were deemed to be confidence votes. I ask that because there is a tremendous opportunity in front of us, recognizing the members of the Third Party and their interest in ensuring that ride-sharing come to Brit- ish Columbia as soon as possible. I note that the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who I believe has particular interest on this file and I would expect will be weighing in on this section-by-section analys- is…. He is indicating as such.

There is a tremendous oppor- tunity, knowing their good will and their intentions to facil- itate the entry of ride-sharing, for us to all work together and perhaps try to make this bill something that actually will work for British Columbians, that will actually pave the way for ride-sharing. That can only be accomplished through the moving of amendments to a number of sections. The official opposition will be moving a broad swath of amendments to this bill as we go through this process.

We think this is a tremendous opportunity for the Green Party members to really show that they are willing to collaborate with the official opposition in an area where there hasn’t been a tremendous amount of daylight between our caucus and their caucus. That is why I wanted to understand, at the front end of this section-by-section debate, whether or not there were any sections that would be deemed to be motions of con- fidence in the government. If there are no confidence votes here, then this really paves the way for the Green caucus and the B.C.

Liberal caucus — and maybe even members of the NDP caucus — to work together to try to improve this bill so that there is some light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak, insofar as ride-sharing coming to British Columbia. With that, I would ask the minister one more time. She indicated that she would be seeking some additional clari- fication. Could the minister please advise the House when that clarification will be coming forward? I think I cer- 6764 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 22, 2018

tainly would be interested in knowing what the answer to that question would be, as I’m sure my good friend from Saanich North and the Islands and his caucus colleagues would be as well. Hon. C. Trevena:I’m still trying to understand the mem- ber opposite. As he well knows, confidence votes are budget votes. They are of the throne speech. We have been talking to the Third Party, obviously, as we move forward. I am sure that my critic on the other side has also been talking to the Third Party.

If the opposition is so eager to get their version through or some version through, I am also anticipating that when we finally get down to the section-by-section part of this bill, we will be able to have common agreement and move forward so we can get app-based ride-hailing here in B.C. [2:15 p.m.] J. Sturdy:I see, in

section 1, there are a number of changes to the

definitions, including adding “accessible passenger directed vehicle, ” which I take it was not in the Motor Vehicle Act at this point, which is an interesting omission. I’m glad to see it in here. The next one was: “fleet size has the prescribed meaning. ” I’m wondering if you could clarify what that actually means. Hon. C. Trevena:At the moment, the legislation doesn’t have a definition for fleet size. The board can set a fleet size, but there is no definition for it.

So this, through regulation, is going to allow for a fleet size for a taxi or for a transportation network service — app-based ride-hailing — to be estab- lished by the board. This is going to be through regulation because one of the things needed is flexibility. I mean, we were talking a lot about new entrants to the market, not just the app-based ride-hailing, but autonomous vehicles or whatever else may be coming on the market. So it gives it a bit more flexibility to set it through regulation. J. Sturdy:I can understand why the need for a fleet size definition is there. The next

section was 1(b): “repealing the definition of general authorization vehicle identifier. ” I wonder if you can explain what that is and why it’s being repealed. Hon. C. Trevena:Under this legislation, we are mod- ernizing the legislation, so this will allow for more flexible vehicle identification. There will be a repeal of the general vehicle identification and special vehicle identification. This will be dealt with…. Y ou’ll see more details about this in

section 14, where you’ve got the new vehicle identification explained. [2:20 p.m.] J. Sturdy:So would that be a more appropriate time to try and understand, specifically, what that is? Is that a licence marker? We’ll talk about it then? Okay. Fair enough. The intercity bus definition has changed. Could the min- ister explain why that is? Hon. C. Trevena:This is housekeeping. It’s been restruc- tured to reflect modern drafting that is needed for legisla- tion. There’s no change in policy here at all. A.

Olsen:I’ d just like to maybe go back to the definition of “fleet size” and ask the question: why has the minister chosen to leave the definition of fleet size to regulation? Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. This is because we need flexibility for the future. We don’t know what the future is really going to look like. As I say, at the moment, we’ve got app-based ride-hailing that’s been here — it may seem like forever — for five, six, seven years and coming to B.C. by next year. Then who knows what’s going to happen with autonomous vehicles or anything else?

It gives that flexibility to the board that you can, in the future, shift if necessary. That’s why we’re doing it through regulation. A. Olsen:Would this prescription be through cabinet or through the Public Transportation Board, in terms of the definition? Hon. C. Trevena:It’s a regulation, so it will be through cabinet. A. Olsen:Thank you, Minister. Another question on this. Does the amendment allow for a different definition of “fleet” to be created for a company that offers services of a TNS or a networked service, as opposed to companies offer- ing passenger-directed service? Hon. C.

Trevena:Y es, it’s for different types of licences under the passenger transportation authority. That’s why we’re doing it through regulation, to give it some flexibility. But the simple answer is: it is for both, TNS, for passenger- directed vehicles, for taxi. It has that flexibility. T. Stone:I know some of this is dealt with in subsequent sections as well, but I think it would be beneficial for all members at this point — again, in the context of how some of these

definitions are changing — if the minister could speak to what the current state is with respect to licensing and the different types of authorizations. There’s general authorization and special authorization, and those author- izations at the moment serve very specific purposes. If she could speak to that. How do the authorizations change? What will the new state be under this legislation, assuming it passes unamended? What would those new authorizations actually Thursday, November 22, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6765

look like, respecting the entry of this new industry that we call ride-hailing, ride-sharing? Hon. C. Trevena:I just wanted to clarify that it’s all the authorizations that change. Clarification on

section 1(b) — is that what we’re after, or just generally everything, all the licence changes and everything in the legislation? T. Stone:I’m wondering if the minister could take us up to the balcony on this and just speak, at a high level, to what the new world looks like from a licensing authoriz- ation perspective as a result of the implications contained within this bill. [2:25 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:Currently we’ve got two types of author- ization — the general authorization and the special authoriz- ation.

Under the special authorization, there are passenger- directed vehicles, and there are intercity buses. Under the new world, as it were, if the legislation does pass, you’ve still got general authorization, and you’ve got special authoriza- tion, and under the special authorization, you’ve got passen- ger-directed vehicles, intercity buses and transportation net- work services. In the present legislation, it says: “‘special authorization, ’ when used in relation to a motor vehicle, means an author- ization to operate the motor vehicle as (

a) an inter-city bus, or (

b) a passenger directed vehicle. ” The new language is: “‘special authorization’ means any of the following: (

a) an inter-city bus authorization; (

b) a pas- senger directed vehicle authorization; (

c) a transportation network services authorization. ” T. Stone:So in that context, are there changes being made here that relate in some way to the government’s stated intention of facilitating the entry of more intercity bus oper- ators or making it easier or streamlining the ability of private operators to enter the British Columbia market to provide intercity bus service? Are there specific changes here that make that process of entry for those intercity bus companies easier in British Columbia? Hon. C. Trevena:I think the simple answer is no.

The Passenger Transportation Board did streamline and act very quickly when we had Greyhound withdrawing this summer and made sure that new entrants could come in and be fast-tracked through the system. When we’re talking about intercity buses in this legislation, most of the references are housekeeping measures. They are cleaning up the language here, but it’s not changing what the Passenger Transportation Board has been doing, which is effectively speeding up. Because it’s an independent tribunal, it has been speeding up applications to deal with the withdrawal of Greyhound. T.

Stone: The process by which the government has engaged in trying to make it easier and faster, more efficient for operators to provide intercity bus services has been addressed more through an expedited application approval process as opposed to the actual requirements for entry themselves. Did I get that correctly? Hon. C. Trevena:Y es. J. Sturdy:Back to

definitions here. Under (g), “‘passenger directed vehicle’ means…a commercial passenger vehicle, when the vehicle is operated to or from locations determined by or on behalf of the passengers, but does not include (

i) a commercial passenger vehicle that can accommodate more than the prescribed number of persons, ” what’s the intention of that limitation, and how would that prescription be set? [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. M. Farnworth:I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:30 p.m. The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. [2:35 p.m.] Reporting of Bills BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION AND V ACANCY TAX) ACT, 2018 Bill 45, Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018, reported complete with amendments. Deputy Speaker:When will the bill be considered as reported? Hon. M. Farnworth:With leave, now. Leave granted. [2:40 p.m.] [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] 6766 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 22, 2018

Third Reading of Bills BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION AND V ACANCY TAX) ACT, 2018 Bill 45, Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018, read a third time and passed on the following division: YEAS — 43 Chouhan Kahlon Begg Brar Heyman Donaldson Mungall Bains Beare Chen Popham Trevena Sims Chow Kang Simons D’Eith Routley Ma Elmore Dean Routledge Singh Leonard Darcy Simpson Robinson Farnworth Horgan James Eby Dix Ralston Mark Fleming Conroy Fraser Chandra Herbert Rice Furstenau Weaver Olsen Glumac NAYS — 39 Cadieux Bond Polak Lee Stone Coleman Wat Bernier Thornthwaite Paton Ashton Barnett 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 Hon.

M.

Farnworth:I call third reading of Bill 49, Profes- sional Governance Act. [2:45 p.m.] BILL 49 — PROFESSIONAL GOVERNANCE ACT Bill 49, Professional Governance Act, read a third time and passed on the following division: YEAS — 43 Chouhan Kahlon Begg Brar Heyman Donaldson Mungall Bains Beare Chen Popham Trevena Sims Chow Kang Simons D’Eith Routley Ma Elmore Dean Routledge Singh Leonard Darcy Simpson Robinson Farnworth Horgan James Eby Dix Ralston Mark Fleming Conroy Fraser Chandra Herbert Rice Furstenau Weaver Olsen Glumac NAYS — 39 Cadieux Bond Polak Lee Stone Coleman Wat Bernier Thornthwaite Paton Ashton Barnett 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 Hon.

M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 55, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. In

section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee on Bill 50, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act. Committee of the Whole House BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

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

section 1(continued). Hon. C. Trevena:I wonder if the member for West Van- couver–Sea to Sky could repeat his question. It’s been a little while since he asked it, and I wanted to get it again so that I could get a good answer for him. [2:50 p.m.] J. Sturdy:I’m pleased to repeat the question. It was with regard to the definition in (1)(

g) of “passenger-directed vehicle” and the substitution of the definition around “com- Thursday, November 22, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6767

mercial passenger vehicle that can accommodate more than the prescribed number of persons” — the intention of that and how the prescription would be identified, determined and stated. Hon. C. Trevena:There’s not much of a change here. It is still what was in the previous regulation, which is 11 people. What is significant is that…. It’s a minor change, but I think it’s a significant change. It says in 1(g)(a) “when the vehicle is operated to or from locations. ” Previously, it said “to and from locations. ” This allows for that one-way drop-off. So you can go to one place and not have to do a return. J.

Sturdy:I was interested, as well, in the accommodation and the prescription of the number associated. It says “can accommodate more than the prescribed number of persons. ” Is that the number, 11, that you just referred to, and where is that referenced? Hon. C. Trevena:It’s 11 plus the driver, and it’s prescribed through regulations, Passenger Transportation Act. J. Sturdy:On the sub (ii), it says “a commercial passenger vehicle excluded by regulation. ” What would be the need for exclusion? What type of situation would we see? Hon. C. Trevena:This

section is to provide some flexib- ility to avoid capturing those vehicles that really don’t need to be captured. The example is…. It’s sort of like for health care. If you are caring for someone, and you are being paid to care for them, and then you give them a ride to an appoint- ment because you’re being paid to care for them, that would be excluded under this. [2:55 p.m.] It gives that flexibility, so we can capture those vehicles that are going to be used commercially and not those that are being used but not on a commercial basis. J.

Sturdy:Is there a significant list of vehicles that are excluded by regulation? I guess a supplementary would be: is it a comprehensive list? Is it specific in terms of what those exemptions are? Or are there categories? Hon. C. Trevena:That is in the current regulation. J. Sturdy:The next sub is a prescribed commercial pas- senger vehicle. If the minister could perhaps explain…. What is the meaning of that particular (

b) there? Hon. C. Trevena:The definition on this…. I can under- stand the confusion. So (

a) is what is excluded, a commercial passenger vehicle that operates to and from but does not include. Points (

i) and (ii) were excluded, and (

b) is what is included. Because it’s prescribed, it’s under the existing pas- senger transportation branch regulations. J. Sturdy:On to (h). This is an added definition, “pas- senger directed vehicle authorization”? If the minister can help us understand why that is a required addition to the

definitions. Hon. C. Trevena: This is going back a little to point (b), the authorization section. Under “special authoriza- tion” we’ve got the passenger directed vehicle authoriza- tion, the inter-city bus authorization and the TNS author- ization. This is the passenger directed vehicle authoriza- tion. Just that one. Not inter-city bus, not TNS. It’s the pas- senger directed vehicle. T.

Stone:Just going back a bit, under subsection (f)(b), we’re talking about the definition of “mobility aids. ” I’m just wondering if the minister could clarify the nature of her consultation or what engagement looked like with the accessibility community generally. This is a good place to perhaps ask that. [3:00 p.m.] I think we all share the absolute critical importance of making sure that there continue to be viable, accessible transportation options for people who really need it. And I just think it would bear all of us good value to under- stand the work that was done on the accessibility side of the equation.

As part of that, where it says, “a prescribed device used to facilitate, ” I’m assuming a prescribed device would be a device that has been specifically provided to an individual, whether that be by a health care provider or someone else. Or is there some other meaning behind the way that subsec- tion (

b) is worded insofar as what a prescribed device actu- ally means? Hon. C. Trevena: Answering the second part first, “a prescribed device used to facilitate the transport of a per- son with a disability, ” it is prescribed by regulations. It’s not that the device is prescribed, but that it is prescribed under regulation. For consultation, it has obviously been…. This is a very serious issue. We know that there is an essential shortage of accessible vehicles. So we have been ensuring that we’ve been doing a lot of consultation. Obviously, we have the select standing committee.

There was consultation there and sub- missions there. Dr. Hara, who we retained to assist in the consultation and discussions about the taxi industry and app-based ride-hail- ing, has also consulted with accessibility groups. The access- ibility secretariat has been consulted. The seniors advocate has been consulted. The Disability Alliance, I think, pres- ented to the select standing committee and has also been in conversation. There were letters submitted to the select standing committee. The transportation board also regularly consults with the accessibility community. T.

Stone:I appreciate the minister advising the House 6768 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 22, 2018

on the level of engagement with the accessibility com- munity. There’s always more that we can do. I do appreciate those efforts. Last question on this particular subsection. I appreciate the response insofar as my question as to what a prescribed device actually meant, as per regulation or otherwise. The minister has said it’s as defined in regulation. Could the minister explain to the House why…?

Give us a few examples of what a prescribed device could be that wouldn’t already be contemplated in subsection (a), which reads: “a wheelchair, scooter or other device used to facilitate the transport, in a normally-seated position, of a person with a disability. ” What is the difference? What is the second subsection actually contemplating that’s not captured in the first subsec- tion? [3:05 p.m.] Hon. C.

Trevena:This goes back to some of the other pre- scriptions, using regulation to give some flexibility, primarily because we don’t know what will be coming up for access- ibility for mobility aides in the short and longer terms. So if there is some device that isn’t any that we have recognized up to this point, whether it’s a wheelchair or anything else, this gives that flexibility for it to be recognized and accommod- ated through regulation. T. Stone:Are there prescribed devices currently provided for in regulation?

If so, can the minister point me to where I could take a look at that or, perhaps, provide those details to me after the fact? Hon. C. Trevena:This is a new definition. “ Adding the fol- lowing definition” is new, so there is actually nothing there as yet. But obviously, as things move along, I’ll be happy to share with the member what comes up. T. Stone:I would appreciate that. Thank you to the minis- ter. Just, again, a bit more of a higher-level question about the licences. Just wondering, again in the context of how some of these

definitions have changed here, if any of the changes that are provided for in this legislation impact gen- eral authorization licences insofar as sightseeing and large charter vehicles. I think of companies like wine tours, which are proliferating in communities — I’m not sure if in Camp- bell River, the member’s home community, but in many communities around the province. Currently a general authorization licence is sufficient for operators offering tours with itineraries set by the licensees in any vehicle size. I believe in the current state of this that it’s referred to as carrier-directed tour.

A GA licence is also suf- ficient for charter services offered in vehicles with forward- facing seating for 13 or more, including the driver. Again, I’m just wondering if there are any changes con- templated in here that respond to the ask of many operators in this space requesting that the seating capacity be changed to move larger vans — like Mercedes Sprinter vans, as an example. They seem to be a popular van used for these kinds of operations — moving these into the general passenger vehicle category. [3:10 p.m.] Hon. C.

Trevena:I’m very conscious of changing vehicles and changing technology, that things have moved on, but that isn’t part of this set of changes in these

definitions or these regulations. T. Stone:Likewise, with respect to the legislative changes contemplated in this package, do any of these changes impact operators, which have been generally referred to as party bus operators? Do any of their licence authorizations change through any of the changes in this legislation? Hon. C. Trevena:No, not at this time. T. Stone:Okay. Thank you, Minister. Moving on to subsection (i), it repeals the definition of “rates” and substitutes it with a new definition.

The new definition includes different types of fares or charges: dis- count fares, round-trip fares, point-to-point fares, deadhead charges, minimum and maximum charges and any other fares, fees or charges. Just wondering if the minister could speak to…. First, at a high level, has a new fare

schedule been…? Well, actu- ally, let me back up. If I understand correctly how this will work, through order-in-council, the government will have to set some initial rates, a rate schedule, that would then be taken up by the Passenger Transportation Board. Per- haps the minister could correct me if I’m wrong about that insofar as, certainly, the new operators, the TNS, the ride- sharing companies. Related to that, has that rate

schedule yet been determined? Hon. C. Trevena:The Passenger Transportation Board has been responsible for establishing taxi rates and will be responsible for establishing rates for TNSs. It is independent. It doesn’t come through cabinet. T. Stone: Just so we’re absolutely clear on this, there will be no direction provided from cabinet to the Passen- ger Transportation Board with respect to what the starting position will be on fares, as it relates to the new entrants into the market?

This is an important point because there has been lots of talk about minimum rates and maximum rates and con- cerns around surge pricing and so forth. If I’m not mistaken, I think the minister and the government have made some strong comments out there about wanting to, with the con- sumer in mind, make sure that there is some sensibility wrapped around what those rates are that can be charged for the new entrants to the market. Thursday, November 22, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6769

But if I heard the minister correctly in her last response, she said that cabinet would not be providing any direction as a starting point for those rates for new entrants. Could the minister take one more run at that for me and just help me to clarify this? [3:15 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:I just really wanted to highlight, for the member, point (

e) under (i) — that there will be minimum and maximum rates. Everybody is very conscious of surge pricing. So we’re expecting the board will be following this. There’ll be a floor to the rates and a ceiling to the rates, but it is up to the board to be setting the rates. T. Stone:Okay. So again, just one last time. There will be no direction from cabinet or through order-in-council to the Passenger Transportation folks directing a starting point for a floor or a ceiling on the rates that can be charged for a new entrant. Is that correct? Hon. C. Trevena:Y es, that’s correct. T.

Stone: The minister mentioned the “minimum and maximum charges” aspect of this. I believe the word “max- imum” is new. It represents a new component of the defini- tion here. I’m wondering if the minister could provide some background or context as to what the thinking was that res- ulted in adding the word “maximum” into the subsection (e), which now says “minimum and maximum charges. ” Hon. C. Trevena:Y es, the board is really already doing this. They set rates in a range, but it isn’t in legislation. This actually puts it in. It clarifies it and puts it into legislation. T. Stone:Okay.

I think there are obviously going to be a lot of question marks wrapped around what the rates are going to be, what rates will be allowed to be charged, both on the taxi side and on the ride-sharing side. If we can first talk about the taxi side, I’m wondering if the minister could shed some light for the House on the approach that will be taken with respect to pricing insofar as street-hail and taxi-stand pickups go. At the moment, the pricing is fixed.

I’m just wondering if that will continue to be the pricing approach — again, on the taxi side, with respect to street-hail and taxi-stand pickups. [3:20 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:This, once again, is the work of the board. They are the ones who determine the pricing, wheth- er it’s a street-hail or whether it is a cab rank or whatever. They’re the ones who determine the pricing. T. Stone:Fair enough, but I’m just asking: is the minister aware of any change that is going to take place from what the current state is to what the new state is? We’re talking about the pricing here.

I’m hoping the minister is not going to answer the next half dozen questions I have about rates and pricing by simply saying that it’s going to be determined at some later date. British Columbians, I think, have a right to know, as part of this debate, this discussion, what they can reasonably expect — even if not in dollar terms, then in terms of approach. Again, with respect to the street-hail and taxi stand pickup, the current state, as I understand it….

I’m absolutely willing to be corrected if I’m wrong, but my understanding of the current state is that the pricing is fixed, set by the Passenger Transportation Board. I’m simply inquiring as to whether or not the minister anticipates any change to that pricing approach for taxis, with respect to street-hail and taxi stand pickup. Hon. C. Trevena:The board has, obviously, had discus- sions with industry. It has had information on its website about different approaches. There has been the input from Dr. Hara. But on the issue of pricing, it is the purview of the board. T.

Stone:The pricing that is set is the purview of the board, but I do believe — I was in the minister’s position at one time — that there is an aspect of this where the minister does have a view. That is taken into account, in part, through the individuals that are appointed to this board through order-in-council by the government. [3:25 p.m.] I’m simply trying, for the benefit of consumers in British Columbia, to understand what the approach is likely going to be as we potentially usher a new industry into British Columbia — both for that new industry and for existing pro- viders — the taxi industry.

These are important questions. I think that, to the extent that we can eliminate as many ques- tion marks as possible around this entire file, this will be good for assuaging concerns that the existing industry has, and it will answer questions that the new entrants have. The second part of the taxi-rate piece that I want to inquire about today relates to telephone dispatch. We’ve tried to talk about street-hail and taxi.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide some comments around any changes that may be contemplated or may be coming with respect to the approach, relating to the fares that are allowed to be charged with respect to telephone dispatch within the existing taxi industry. Hon. C. Trevena:I think the member, as he has men- tioned, has been in this role himself and does know very clearly that the board is an independent tribunal. [L. Reid in the chair.] This

section on rates is essentially talking about the differ- ent sorts of fares and adding the definition of “minimum and maximum charges. ” 6770 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 22, 2018

T. Stone:I’m wondering if the minister could advise the House if — as part of the consideration of any potential changes to the rates that can be charged for the telephone dispatch with respect to the taxi industry — any consider- ation has been given to allowing for lower rates for tele- phone dispatch trips, to allow for discounts during off-peak time, to better enable the taxi industry to generate business, if needed. [3:30 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:Without wanting to sound like a broken record…. We’re talking about the independence of the board and the purview of the board.

Whether we’re talking app- based, phone call or street hail, the board has that responsib- ility. The only change in the legislation from previous legis- lation are the words “and maximum charges. ” Point (

e) is the only change in the legislation. The rest is the legislation as it stood when the member for Kamloops–South Thompson stood in this position. T. Stone:Well, I’m going to keep trying. The rates that are going to be charged or allowed to be charged to consumers is one of the most central components of the regulatory frame- work that this legislation amends, whether one looks at the taxi side or at the ride-sharing side. How much these com- panies are allowed to charge — most consumers find it pretty important and pretty interesting information to have.

I hope that the minister, in the spirit of providing some clarity for British Columbians around approach, around framework…. In the context of, as she calls it herself, a very significant overhaul of the Passenger Transportation Act and the regulatory framework…. She has Kristin Vanderkuip, the registrar and director, sitting behind her, who knows this stuff in her sleep, and senior staff. Certainly, when I was the minister, I had these conversations with these people and the folks in the ministry.

To suggest that the minister is not part of those conversa- tions or that it’s not the purview of her office is simply not being, I think, fair and reasonable in terms of the subject matter at hand and the importance that it has on people’s minds. How much can these companies charge? I don’t think it’s good enough to simply say, “It’s an independent tribunal, and it’ll all be set, ” and whatnot. There had to have been dis- cussions that the minister was party to, with respect to the framework around what can be charged on both the taxi side and the ride-sharing side.

It is implausible to suggest that the minister has not been involved in discussions on rates. So I will try again. Can the minister speak to any changes in approach that may be coming, with respect to the taxi industry, when it comes to rates on both the telephone dis- patch side of the equation and/or the street hail or the taxi stand pickup side of the equation? Taxi operators, taxi own- ers and consumers want to understand what pricing changes are being contemplated that will flow from these legislative changes. Hon. C.

Trevena: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson may find it implausible and may find it confusing and may find it troubling and may find various other adject- ives and anything else he wants to find, but it is exactly the same role, as the minister, that was the role when he was the minister, which is that the Passenger Transportation Board has the ability and the right under the Passenger Transport- ation Act to act independently. [3:35 p.m.] The rest of this is exactly as it was when he was minister.

The only thing that is being added is “maximum, ” which, I would think, would give comfort to any consumer, any- body who is wanting to get a cab or get an app-based hail- ing car, because it does suggest that the board can now set a maximum fee. The rest is as it has always been under the Passenger Transportation Act, including when the member opposite was the minister and was going through it himself. T. Stone: Well, that’s actually not true. We’re dealing with the definition

section here and subsection (i), which provides for a new definition for rates. These

definitions of rates flow through the entire piece of legislation that is used to provide that guide on what can be charged and what cannot be charged, whether you’re a taxi operator or a new entrant. Number two, things are changing dramatically, because the whole point of this legislation, we’re to believe, is to wel- come a new industry to our province: ride-sharing. Funda- mental to that is going to be the rates that can be charged. This is not a steady-state scenario. There is no ride-sharing industry yet in the province. This bill provides the govern- ment’s framework for getting there.

I’m simply trying to understand, recognizing the signific- ant concern that has been expressed by existing participants in the industry — namely, taxicabs and taxi owners and taxi drivers — if there are any substantive changes being contem- plated to what rates can be charged on the taxi side of the equation. That’s an important element, I think, of the overall discussion if one wants to have a balanced discussion of the welcoming of this new industry into British Columbia. Again, the minister is right in underscoring the fact that I once sat in her chair.

I once had the meetings and discus- sions and engagements and consultations, and on and on it went, including with the passenger transportation branch, including with the Passenger Transportation Board, includ- ing with the chair — several of whom I had appointed, as the minister, through order-in-council.

None of that is changing here, so I don’t understand the reticence on the part of the minister in not being more forth- coming with respect to what the framework is going to be, assuming these changes are implemented, what the changes will actually look like and how the rates will actually impact the taxi industry. It’s a fair and legitimate question. I’ll ask the minister one more time if she is prepared to share with British Columbi- Thursday, November 22, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6771

ans what they can expect insofar as rates that can be charged by the taxi industry as a result of the presumptive passing of this legislation. [3:40 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:I want to clarify one piece first before going down to…. As the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has said, one last time, so answering this question one final time. The current legislation reads, in the

definitions section: “‘rates’ includes discount fares, deadhead charges, round trip fares, point-to-point fares, minimum charges, and any other fees or charges. ” The new legislation reads that “‘rates’ , in relation to com- pensation that may be charged or collected for the trans- portation of passengers in commercial passenger vehicles, ” so getting a bit more clarification on what the rates relate to, “includes the following: (

a) discount fares; (

b) round- trip fares; (

c) point-to-point fares; (

d) deadhead charges; (

e) minimum and maximum charges; (

f) any other fares, fees or charges. ” The only difference in the legislation is the addition of the maximum charge. I say again that the Passenger Transportation Board, as an independent body, will be working — as it has done in the past, and as it will continue to do so in the future — in the best interests of the consumer, of the travelling pub- lic, whether it is dealing with fares that are charged in tax- is, whether it’s fares that are charged in app-based ride-hail- ing, whether it is the ability for buses to be going around our province — intercity buses that will be going around our province.

Whatever its licensing is to do, it is working independ- ently. It has the interests of the consumer and the public when it is making its decisions, and it will continue to do that when it is setting the fares to a minimum level or to a max- imum level. T. Stone: The minister’s reading of this subsection is exactly the same as mine. There’s no daylight between us on what the

section actually says. That wasn’t my question. I’m trying to drive at what expectations should look like, in consumers’ minds and in taxi drivers’ minds, as to what rates will be when this legislation presumably makes its way through this House and becomes the law. Let’s try on the ride-sharing side of the equation. I would like to ask the minister if she could…. Seeing as this bill, again, is entirely about welcoming a new industry to British Columbia, one that doesn’t exist here, and one that does exist in many places around the world….

Many of us have tried it in other places, and we, generally, probably have an expect- ation, roughly speaking, of what we might expect to pay here in British Columbia. Every jurisdiction has managed it a little bit differently. Can the minister provide some comment on what the pri- cing approach will be for the transportation network service or the ride-sharing companies that would be welcomed into British Columbia as part of these legislative changes? Hon. C.

Trevena:That, too, will be a decision of the Pas- senger Transportation Board, within the parameters set out here in the definition of rates, including the minimum and maximum charges. T. Stone:Can the minister at least provide British Colum- bians and ride-sharing companies with a sense that a flexible pricing approach will be adopted and implemented with respect to ride-sharing companies, recognizing that it’s that flexible pricing, which balances the supply and the demand, that makes the reliability and the availability of the ride- sharing service possible?

Frankly, the flexible pricing model is absolutely integral to the entire business model of ride- sharing companies. [3:45 p.m.] If there isn’t flexibility in that model, the ability to charge more at high-peak times and less at lower-demand times…. If there isn’t that inherent flexibility made available to these companies, that is a massive barrier to entry for ride-sharing companies into British Columbia.

Can the minister please advise the House and share with British Columbians whether or not there will be pricing flex- ibility in terms of the approach that will be adopted for ride- sharing companies as they operate in British Columbia? Hon. C. Trevena:This definition does really allow flexibil- ity. The board will receive applications from app-based ride- hailing companies — the TNS, as the acronym is — and con- sider the appropriate rate structure with, as the definition at (i)(

e) says, a minimum and a maximum level. T. Stone: We’re making little bit of progress here. I appreciate the comments in the minister’s previous response because it provided a little bit of a glimpse into what the framework for pricing may actually look like. That’s what we’re trying to understand here, again, with consumers first and foremost in mind, as well as taxicab operators and drivers. I’m wondering if the minister could provide the House with her understanding of and concerns with and her views generally as pertain to surge pricing, which has been often highlighted as a challenge in some jurisdictions.

It obviously varies from one jurisdiction to the next. But surely, the min- ister must have a view of surge pricing, and I would appreci- ate if she could share that with the House today. Hon. C. Trevena:This piece of legislation is about mod- ernizing the taxi system, opening the way for app-based ride-hailing to come into the market. I think that, yes, everyone has heard stories about surge pricing, whether it’s raining or there’s a football game or whatever else is happening.

This legislation is designed to ensure that the Passenger Transportation Board can have the 6772 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 22, 2018

best interests of the travelling public at heart and is setting minimum and maximum charges. [3:50 p.m.] T. Stone:It is a reasonable expectation, should this legis- lation pass, that forthcoming from the Passenger Transport- ation Board there will be a prescribed

schedule that would represent a floor and a ceiling as it pertains to the rates that can be charged by ride-sharing companies. Hon. C. Trevena:The board is independent. The board will be setting rates as prescribed by this

definitions

section and will be setting a minimum charge and a maximum charge. It’s up to the board, Member. T. Stone:Can the minister indicate whether or not there will be special consideration when it comes to the setting of rates with respect to the ride-sharing side of the equation and natural disasters? Will there be any ceilings, any specific ceiling that would be set in the event of a natural disaster? Hon. C. Trevena:The government is not setting the rate. The board will be setting the rates. T. Stone:Well, it’s the government that appoints the board members. I certainly did that when I was the minister.

Through order-in-council, we appointed members of that board. I had regular meetings with the board chair. I had reg- ular discussions with board members. I had regular discus- sions with the staff and the passenger transportation branch as well. I would be shocked if the minister isn’t having those exact same discussions today and in the months leading up to the preparation of this legislation.

Further, with the exception of one very tiny glimpse of information there, it is highly regrettable that the minister will not engage in a thoughtful and more detailed discussion around what expectations British Columbians should have when it comes to rates, both on the taxi side and the ride- sharing side.

This is a fundamental component from a con- sumer fairness perspective, but it is also a fundamental com- ponent with respect to the ability of these companies, these new entrants that British Columbians want in mass num- bers, to actually be able to come, to establish themselves in this province and to be able to operate. It is astounding that the minister has stayed within a defined box on this and is refusing to discuss, in thoughtful terms, what the approach will be so that British Columbians know, so that drivers know.

I will take this opportunity, in this context of rates, to say that the piece of legislation that we had prepared back in December of 2017, the miscel- laneous statutes (passenger transportation services) amend- ment act, 2017…. The work in that bill and the work wrapped around that bill, which was substantial and was ready — it was sitting on the minister’s desk — provided a lot of detail around rates and what people could expect.

On the taxi side of the equation of the street-hail and taxi-stand pickup, our approach was to provide for fixed pri- cing there, initially set at the existing rates that were being charged. I’m simply asking the minister if that was going to change with this legislation. I couldn’t get an answer there. When it came to telephone dispatch, we were going to…. Our legislation provided for the ability for taxicab compan- ies, when it comes to telephone dispatch, to actually charge a discounted rate at certain times.

Again, that was about help- ing strengthen taxi companies and helping them with their businesses. [3:55 p.m.] On the transportation network services side and the ride- sharing side, our legislation did provide for flexible pricing — the one major exception being in the case of natural dis- asters, whereby pricing could not be set any higher than 3½ times what it would normally be set at. We provided for…. The minimum floor rate was tied to the regional flag rate for the taxi industry. These were all details that, as a minister, I was certainly well on top of.

I was not punting it all over to the Passenger Transportation Board or suggesting that I was not involved. I was very involved. My staff were very involved. All of the ministry staff were very involved. I refuse to believe that all of the above individuals haven’t been involved in discussions around rates for the taxi industry and for the ride-sharing industry, as it pertains to this piece of legislation. With that, I will turn it over to, I believe, my colleague from North Van–Seymour. J. Thornthwaite:I have a question, also to do with rates. I’m wondering what the definition of “deadhead charges” is. Hon. C.

Trevena:Before I respond to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, I just wanted to quickly respond to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. I’ve got to say that I respect the independence of the board. I respect what the board has been doing, and I respect its work as an independent body and independent tribunal. I think that these are very important to good governance — having tribunals where government has a hands-off. I do respect that.

The member cited the aspects of pieces of rate structure that are in draft legislation that the previous government drew up and had, allegedly, ready but just seemed to forget to introduce in the House. I think that we’ d be in, potentially, a different position if the government had introduced that legislation into the House.

I think that the member knows full well that it wouldn’t have been on my desk when I took over as minister, because there is cabinet confidentiality, and we respect cabinet confidentiality. [4:00 p.m.] To the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, the deadhead charge is already in the current legislation. This just is enumerating it slightly differently. A deadhead charge is a charge where vehicles travel back to base empty. Thursday, November 22, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6773

It gives the ability of a company to charge that, to reposi- tion their vehicle. J. Thornthwaite:So does that mean that it allows the com- pany to charge double if it’s a deadhead charge, if they’re travelling to another municipality? Hon. C. Trevena:It’s a charge that is there in legislation already. It has to be applied for by the company, and it’s not generally applied for. So it’s not actually used very often. It’s there as an “in case. ” The example that is given to me now is if you need, for instance, to get a cab for a long distance, for instance, from let’s say Prince George down to Vancouver….

Y ou had an emergency, and the only way you could travel was by cab. The cab company might apply to get that charge coming back, because it’s such a long journey. It’s something which isn’t usually applied for, but it is for that repositioning. J. Thornthwaite:So the repositioning is…. The example that the minister used was a long distance, obviously — to Vancouver from Prince George. What I was getting at is: what would be a deadhead charge in a ride-sharing com- pany, given this is supposed to encompass ride-sharing companies? What would be a deadhead charge?

For instance, would that be considered, say, from Vancouver to the North Shore or Vancouver to Langley or Vancouver to Surrey or whatever? Hon. C. Trevena:Once again, the rates are set by the independent Passenger Transportation Board. This section, deadhead charges, does exist now. It is rarely used, and dead- head rates can’t be charged unless they’re approved by the Passenger Transportation Board. So whether that is a taxi or an app-based ride-hailing company, they have to apply to the Passenger Transportation Board for their deadhead charges to be applied. J.

Thornthwaite:How would that work, then, if there’s a ride-sharing company that is picking me up somewhere in the North Shore and going downtown? I guess what I’m getting at is if there was not a ride — I think, pretty much, when you’re dealing with ride-sharing companies, there always is a ride — would there be an opportunity, then, through this application process, to double the price if somebody had to come back? Hon. C. Trevena:If the new service, the TNS, the app- based ride-hail wants to apply to the board to be able to implement those charges, it can do so.

Then it’s up to the board to look at the application. [4:05 p.m.] J. Thornthwaite:I have another question about

section (f). It’s “any other fares, fees or charges. ” Perhaps the minister could expand on what those might be. Hon. C. Trevena:Again, this already exists. It includes things like when you see cleaning charges, if something hap- pens in the cab and the cab needs to be cleaned. That’s one. Excess luggage. These are the sorts of fees. Y ou already see it in the cabs. I think there are often little stickers saying that you will be charged extra if something happens or if you have extra luggage. Those are the sorts of issues that are covered in

section (f). J. Thornthwaite:I have seen that. I know that if a pas- senger makes a mess — or even an animal, I guess, makes a mess of a car — then there is that provision. Specifically about ride-sharing companies, though, where would that apply with them? Hon. C. Trevena:It would be exactly the same. J. Thornthwaite:How does a company then apply to the Passenger Transportation Board to get these fees? Hon. C. Trevena:They apply to the Passenger Transport- ation Board under rates application.

If they’re changing whatever it is that they are doing, if they need to add any- thing, it’s under an application to the Passenger Transporta- tion Board. J. Thornthwaite:So it doesn’t happen on the spot, then, with passenger A messing up a car or whatever. They have to apply? I just want to get that straight. Hon. C. Trevena:I think we might just be missing a little bit. The company would have to apply to the board before it is allowed to charge these extra fees or charges.

So if the company didn’t say to the board it wanted to be able to charge an extra fee for bringing a dirty dog into the car after a long hike, or if you’ve got extra luggage that they’re going to charge extra, it has to get that pre-approved by the board. T. Stone:Just moving on here, in this section, the defin- ition of “general authorization vehicle identifier” and the definition of “special authorization vehicle identifier” are both repealed.

It would appear that they’re replaced with a new definition, which is just the generic “vehicle identifier. ” What’s included in this new definition of “vehicle identifier” seems to be, with a few exceptions, very comparable to the previous definition. I’m just wondering what the rationale was for replacing the previous

definitions, as mentioned, with this new, more generic vehicle identifier definition. [4:10 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:This change really allows for the…. We’re talking about flexibility. We’re talking about new entrants to the market. This allows the registrar to adapt 6774 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 22, 2018

to, basically, the appropriate identifier for the different busi- ness models. So whether you’ve been driving a cab, whether you’re driving an app-based for-hail, or TNS, it allows for the registrar to be flexible to get the right identifier. T. Stone:Okay. I do understand that and appreciate that. So it would be similar to, if I recall correctly…. When I was the minister, we brought in a new decal that was required to be on party buses.

Is this new definition, then, truly intended to provide maximum flexibility to the branch to be able to create whatever type of decal or plate or other type of identi- fier for each of the different respective categories of passen- ger transportation? Is that it in a nutshell? Hon. C. Trevena:Y es. J. Sturdy:If I could, with regard to the maximums and minimums…. I know you’ve gone over and over this, and I’m not sure that I really got a handle on it. Just to give them flexibility was the answer — the parameter, to give the PTB a range to work in. I’m sorry.

I should have understood an answer out of all of that interchange, but unfortunately, I didn’t. Hon. C. Trevena:The import of this is having the word “maximum” in the legislation. So the independent Passen- ger Transportation Board will set a maximum level that fares can go to. J. Sturdy:Speaking to maximums and minimums and the theoretical independence of the Passenger Transporta- tion Board, the minister has talked at length and at various times about the issue of a minimum wage or a living wage, with regard to transportation network services or ride-hail- ing drivers. How does this relationship work, then?

How can the minister’s stated desire to have a minimum wage…? How is this connected to the maximum and minimum rate change, and how does this relate to an independent Passen- ger Transportation Board? Hon. C. Trevena:Would you like me to answer the ques- tion now? Okay. I think everybody has a desire that every- body gets a living wage. It has nothing to do with the inde- pendence of the non-theoretically independent Passenger Transportation Board.

As I mentioned to your colleague the member for Kam- loops–South Thompson, we believe in the independence of bodies such as the independent Passenger Transportation Board because they help the work of good governance. This is something that our government thinks is very important, to have independent tribunals, such as the Passenger Trans- portation Board, working on behalf of the public good to support good governance. So I question the assumption that there is a theoretical independence. As the member well knows, the Passenger Transportation Board isn’t setting people’s wages. That comes under labour codes.

This is an issue that is dealt with under labour codes, not under the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 4:15 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. Reporting of Bills BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete with amendment. Mr. Speaker:When shall the bill be considered as repor- ted? Hon. D.

Eby:With leave, now, hon. Speaker. Leave granted. Mr. Speaker:When shall the bill be read a third time? Hon. D. Eby:Now, hon. Speaker. [4:20 p.m.] Third Reading of Bills BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.] Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 55, and in Committee A, I call com- mittee stage on Bill 57, Attorney General Statutes Amend- ment Act. [4:25 p.m.] Thursday, November 22, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6775

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 4:27 p.m. On

section 1(continued). J. Sturdy:We were on this issue of maximum and minim- um rates and how they are set by the PTB, yet at the same time, there’s a desire from government to see that there are minimum income thresholds. Certainly, the B.C. Federation of Labour has also been quite adamant about this. I’m really not understanding how you could separate out the rates charged relative to the ability for these companies to pay.

If there’s a desire on behalf of government to ensure that there is a certain level of compensation for the drivers, how can that not be relayed on to the passenger transport- ation branch and influence their decisions in terms of what minimums and maximums could be? Hon. C. Trevena:To the member for West Vancouver– Sea to Sky, the Passenger Transportation Board sets the rates. The companies set the way that the drivers are compensated and work that out with the drivers, whether it’s a cab com- pany or whether it’s a TNS. However it’s done, that’s up to the company.

It’s the responsibility of the independent Passenger Transportation Board to set the rates. [4:30 p.m.] J. Sturdy:The minister, then, is suggesting that there isn’t a relationship. Or does the Passenger Transportation Board consider the ability of the organization — of the TNS or the taxi company — to pay, in terms of the setting of rates? If they clearly see from government’s perspective that there’s a desire to see a certain level of wage…. There’s been speculation about a living wage, whatever the definition of that happens to be. This has got to be con- sidered.

Y et at the same time, I think there’s some confusion about the conditions under which the Passenger Transport- ation Board is making these decisions with regard to rates and how they’re considering…. What are the criteria under which they’re making these decisions? Hon. C. Trevena:I think we’re getting a little beyond the rates question here. We’re getting into another

section of the bill. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] The Passenger Transportation Board, an independent board, sets the rates. It looks at various aspects, such as the consumer price index. The companies set compensation.

One of the things the board does consider — and this is something that comes up later in the bill, that we can discuss later in the bill, perhaps — is the three-part test: whether there’s a need for service, whether the applicant is fit and proper to provide the service and capable of providing the service, and whether the approval of the application would promote sound economic conditions in passenger transport- ation in B.C. Under the present model, the board has to agree to all three of those. I would like the member to disaggregate the wages from the rates. The Passenger Transportation Board sets the rates.

The companies set the compensation for their drivers. J. Sturdy:Just for clarity, there are different rate classific- ations for each of the different services. So taxis would get a certain rate range. TNS would get a certain rate range. Inter- community buses or whatever would get a different rate. Hon. C. Trevena:The rates are set by the independent Passenger Transportation Board. J. Sturdy:Perhaps the minister could just help me, then, understand. There is no rate schedule, I guess, for TNSs at this point, because there aren’t any TNSs. Is that correct? Hon. C. Trevena:Y es, that’s right.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. A. Olsen: Just one question on this from me, and that is: what’s the difference between audit and investigation in this section? Hon. C. Trevena: Auditing is monitoring for compli- ance to the business, and investigation is acting on non- compliance, investigating non-compliance. So one is just monitoring whether the company is compliant. The other is, if they are found not to be compliant, to be able to have that investigation. [4:35 p.m.] J. Sturdy:So this audit and the investigation power is of the PTB? Hon. C. Trevena:It is the registrar. J.

Sturdy:Could the minister perhaps help me understand better where the registrar resides? What does the registrar consist of? What does it look like? What are its powers? I’m sorry, I don’t entirely understand this. 6776 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 22, 2018

Hon. C. Trevena:The registrar is the delegated authority. The registrar is responsible for administrating licences and ensuring compliance and enforcement of the Passenger Transportation Act. J. Sturdy:Is there a limitation on the powers? Is there any- thing that they can’t investigate? That’s maybe a simpler way of putting it. Or is it really just about the technical aspects of it, whether the paperwork is filled in? Hon. C. Trevena: The powers are actually defined in

section 5. Y ou can find them. They are that an inspector may enter the premises of a licensee, agent, permit holder or permit holder’s agent for the purpose of — I’m summar- izing here — inspecting any records and things that may be relevant to an inspection. They must, obviously, present identification. They may require a person who has possession of or con- trol over records that may be relevant to an auditor invest- igation to produce those records. They may inspect records, remove records for the purpose of making copies, and so on. It’s quite a strong power.

It is the power of ensuring that the Passenger Transportation Act is enforced and that public safety is ensured too. J. Sturdy:Will there be any targets in terms of the num- ber of audits that take place in a given year? Are there any targets? [4:40 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:That isn’t actually included in the bill, the specific target of audits. J. Sturdy:If there were to be targets, who would be setting those targets? Would that be government? Hon. C. Trevena: That would be based, really, on an assessment of the industry.

It would be set by the registrar, who is the head of the passenger transportation branch that administers the decisions of the Passenger Transport- ation Board. T. Stone:I would like to ask, in the context of this section, a few questions that relate to the very likely additional resources that will be required in the registrar’s office to assume a pretty significant expansion of responsibility with the entry of a new industry into the province. The first question would be this.

Can the minister provide any details related to what additional staffing requirements are likely needed in order to be able to adequately and effi- ciently administer an entirely new business line inside of the registrar’s office? Hon. C. Trevena:I think the member is aware that this legislation makes it a provincial regime, rather than the responsibility of the municipalities, which obviously will mean more work for the registrar’s office and for the pas- senger transportation branch.

There will necessarily be addi- tions in staffing to ensure that the act — really, the whole new system that is new; the introduction of TNS, TNCs, app-based ride-hailing — can happen smoothly. So there will be an increase in staff and resources for the office to make sure it can run smoothly. T. Stone:Can the minister provide a quantum of some sort? Are we talking about a doubling of the staff require- ments in terms of what is there today? Are we talking about tripling? Or is it just a few additional positions? I do recall this conversation when I was there as well. It is as a provincial….

As the minister quite rightly points out, as a provincial mandate, there will be a significant increase in, certainly, first-time applications. It will likely level off over time. But I think that it would be helpful for all to have a sense of what kind of staffing increase we are likely to expect. And perhaps the minister could indicate what that would look like to ramp things up, as this new industry is ushered in, and what she may expect would be the staffing requirements over time once the industry is up and running. [4:45 p.m.] Hon. C.

Trevena:We are going to ensure that there are adequate resources to properly enforce this legislation. We are committed to public safety, and that is a fundamental part of this legislation. So there will be the resources, com- mensurate with needs, for this legislation. T. Stone:On this side of the House, we are certainly very supportive of taking necessary measures to ensure the safety of the travelling public as well. But again, I want to….

I’m coming back to trying to understand what the scope and scale of the increase in the registrar’s office is likely going to be with what will be a significant expansion in the respons- ibilities of this office. Could the minister provide an indication as to how many additional FTEs will be required on the administrative side, meaning those staff that will be tasked with having to process the likely increase in applications that will be coming in pre- dominantly from the new entrants represented by the ride- share industry? Hon. C.

Trevena:We will absolutely ensure that there are the resources available to ensure that applications are pro- cessed in a timely fashion and that we have safety on our roads. I think that we are committed to making sure that this legislation works, and we will ensure that there are adequate resources, both in staffing and other resources, to make sure this works. T. Stone:With all due respect, let’s ask the question a dif- ferent way. There must have been some analysis done inside the ministry and in the registrar’s office as part of the broad Thursday, November 22, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6777

discussion of this entire piece of legislation, which represents a significant transformation of the Passenger Transportation Act in this province. Could the minister speak to what analysis was done, what business planning was done, what projections there may be, therefore, as part of that analysis that has informed the gov- ernment’s expectations around what is a reasonable expect- ation for how many additional staff will be required? To simply say, “Well, there will be a demand, and we will meet that demand, ” I think is selling taxpayers short and selling British Columbians short.

There will be a significant increase in volume. Surely, there has been some analysis and business planning done to best project what that estimated increase in volume will be and, therefore, what a related staffing complement should be in order to manage those volumes. Could the minister please provide any details she may have on analysis on the aforementioned? [4:50 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:We have not gone into this blindly. We’ve done work, obviously, in preparing legislation, in talk- ing to people, in doing all the planning. We are committed to making sure the legislation works.

As the member knows, we have the passenger transport- ation branch. We have commercial vehicle safety enforce- ment. We will be working diligently to make sure that this legislation works, that we can process — that the branch can process — the applications, that we are able to ensure that the licence is there, that we are getting new services on our roads when new services apply next year, in 2019, as we have said. We are committed to doing that, and we’re going to put in the resources necessary to make sure that that works. T.

Stone:Well, I appreciate the minister indicating that she hasn’t gone into this blindly. That would suggest that some work has been done inside the ministry. I know that work has been done. These are diligent, hard-working pro- fessionals in the ministry. They did the tremendous amount of work when I was there. I know that there would have had to have been business plans and analysis done that provide…. I have projections that were provided to me for my consideration when I was part of government managing this file. I think it’s an absolutely fair question and one that deserves an answer.

What analysis and business planning has been done that has enabled the minister and her staff to be able to project what the projected volumes will actually or potentially be? What does that range look like? How does that then translate into the budget requirements for the registrar’s office, most notably, for the staffing requirements? This is a legitimate question. The minister surely has infor- mation at her fingertips. If not, it would be at the fingertips of the professionals sitting around her that she could share with this House and with British Columbians. Hon. C.

Trevena:With all due respect to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, yes, we are supported by extraordinarily hard-working professionals, who’ve ensured that we actually have legislation on the floor of this House that we can be debating. These professionals were prepared to come to discuss and support us on that legislation in this committee debate. They were not prepared to be discussing estimates debate questions. We are committed to making sure that this legislation works.

We will be investing in the branch, in the registrar’s office, in CVSE, to ensure that this legislation works and that we get licences processed, and the safety of British Columbi- ans comes first. But this is not an estimates debate. It is com- mittee stage on Bill 55, amendments to the Passenger Trans- portation Act. I hope that you respect the staff who’ve come prepared to discuss that and not estimates debate. T. Stone:That is certainly the most ridiculous answer that the minister has provided today.

I mean, to suggest that the professional staff here are, as she says, “prepared to come and discuss with us this piece of legislation, ” as if there’s some favour being bestowed upon this House, is ridiculous. It is their job, and they do a great job. My beef is not with the staff.

My beef is with the minister, who, for whatever reasons, reasons known to her, is not pre- pared to share very, very simple information to very simple questions that relate to what will be an expansion of the registrar’s office that will flow directly from an increased volume of applications for this new industry that, presum- ably, will show up at our doorstep as this legislation is ushered in.

This is about understanding, and British Colum- bians understanding, what those volumes are likely to be and what costs are likely to be and what the staffing requirements are likely to be. [4:55 p.m.] Those are absolutely legitimate and fair questions to be asking in the context of this piece of legislation. I will ask again, knowing that there had to have been analysis done and projections provided by the very capable staff that work in this ministry.

Could the minister please provide this House and provide British Columbians with projections in terms of staffing requirements for the folks that will have to process and approve or not approve the flood of applications which the minister has suggested is likely going to happen? I would appreciate an answer to that question. I would appreciate knowing, as well, how many…. Is there any increase in FTEs coming with respect to the enhanced investigation and auditing powers that are provided for spe- cifically in this

section that will carry additional costs? I would like to know what that increase in FTEs is. I would like to know if there’s any projected increase in FTEs related to additional enforcement, which is also contemplated throughout this

section and throughout this piece of legis- lation, as the ride-hailing industry is ushered into British Columbia. Those are fair and specific questions that are very, very rel- 6778 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 22, 2018

evant to this particular

section and to this bill that the min- ister has answers to, and she should provide those answers to us here today. Hon. C. Trevena: I will ensure that the member has answers to these questions. We have taken note of the spe- cific questions. We will provide the member with answers in due course. There are, obviously, budget issues that we are dealing with. We’re going into the budget process, and that also plays into this. However, we will provide the member for Kam- loops–South Thompson with this information in due course. We do not have that available at the moment. We’ll provide it to him. T.

Stone:If I understand correctly, we have to wait, pre- sumably until after this piece of legislation is passed, before we’re going to be provided with answers to very basic ques- tions which are critical to this process that we’re in right now. We’re in Committee of the Whole on this piece of legislation. As one of 87 legislators, it’s my right to ask specific questions. For the minister to suggest that they will be provided at some later date is simply not acceptable. I would like to know…. Her staff have technology. I was well served when I was a minister.

Staff would send texts or emails out and ask specific questions, and the answers would be texted back in. I think that there is no reason whatsoever that a very simple question like how many additional FTEs should British Columbians expect to be on the hook for with this significant expansion that is about to take place of the registrar’s office…. How many additional FTEs are actually going to be part of that plan? What did the analysis and the business planning actually look like that informed those pro- jections? And how do those FTE projections actually flow through to actual costs?

Again I ask the minister: what is the anticipated increase in FTEs as well as anticipated budget that’s going to be required to fund this expansion of the registrar’s office? [5:00 p.m.] Hon. C. Trevena:I think that the member may not actu- ally be hearing what I’m saying, which is that we are abso- lutely committed to making sure this legislation works. We want to have the legislation in place. We are anticipating that there will be, obviously, more work because we are looking provincially. As the member well knows, having sat for one term on this side

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20181122pm-Hansard-n190
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20181122pm Hansard n190
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e61821e3d584568e5b354940bd12d0d7fb85cf4e

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