Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 69

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Irene Forcier

I. Paton

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Aerospace technology and skills training initiative in Okanagan

N. Letnick

Bani Adam poem

B. Ma

Prince George Hospice Society bucket list fundraising event

S. Bond

Essay on poverty by student at Gilmore Community School

J. Routledge

Surrey students in science entrepreneurship competition

T. Redies

Barb Randall

L. Krog

Oral Questions

Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal and resource sector jobs

P. Milobar

Hon. B. Ralston

Government position on resource development projects

J. Johal

Hon. M. Mungall

Site C power project costs and alternative energy

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Mungall

LNG industry and duties on imported steel

E. Ross

Hon. G. Chow

Electricity rates and review by B.C. Utilities Commission

M. Bernier

Hon. M. Mungall

Payment of legal fees in defamation lawsuit

M. Polak

Hon. D. Eby

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 16 — Crown Corporations Committee powers and ride-sharing review

Hon. M. Farnworth

A. Weaver

M. de Jong

On the amendment

M. de Jong

A. Weaver

J. Sturdy

Hon. M. Farnworth

On the main motion

L. Krog

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Tributes

IRENE FORCIER

I. Paton: A bit of a quiet morning for introductions. I just want to remind

the group that Friday night was the chamber of commerce Hats Off to

Excellence awards in Ladner, Tsawwassen and Delta. A lady named Irene

Forcier was crowned Citizen of the Year in our community.

Irene has a long history of community involvement — 25 years as

executive director of Deltassist, chair of Reach child development

centre and Rotarian of the Year in Delta. We’re very proud of Irene

Fortier, who was named Citizen of the Year in Delta on Friday

night.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY AND SKILLS

TRAINING INITIATIVE IN

OKANAGAN

N. Letnick: The Central Okanagan has a well-established base in aerospace,

with huge growth potential that can be achieved as the region and the

province work collaboratively to facilitate the establishment of a

learning centre at UBC Okanagan’s campus. The learning factory is a

unique partnership proposed by Delta’s Avcorp Industries and UBC — a

first in Canada and a global first in aerospace.

The learning factory will integrate production of complex

aeronautic parts with cutting-edge digital techniques to form a new

research and teaching centre. Technicians, engineers and data scientists

will work side by side to better understand and enhance composites

manufacturing while providing work-integrated and research-based

training for students from UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College, providing

the highly trained workforce needed by the aerospace sector in British

Columbia and beyond.

The learning factory is a flagship project. Two of the nine

applications were shortlisted by the federal innovation supercluster

competition, including Canada’s digital technology supercluster. It’s a

B.C.-based proposal from 70 partners whose broad aim is to drive

competitiveness by developing and applying digital technologies across a

variety of sectors, including manufacturing.

When completed, the learning factory will attract global leaders

such as Boeing, Subaru, Microsoft and Siemens to the B.C. interior as a

platform for disruptive innovation that is likely to attract significant

investment and spinoff partnerships to the region. Best of all, the

learning factory will create more than 100 high-paying private sector

jobs and build on some of the Okanagan’s most important assets — its

burgeoning tech sector in a world-class university campus, rapidly

growing engineering and data science programs.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating

Avcorp and UBC Okanagan for driving this exciting initiative and to

pledge our support for their efforts in making this aerospace vision a

reality.

Bani Adam POEM

B. Ma: In a statement I made last week about the devastating earthquake

in Iran, I shared part of a short poem that is memorized and cherished

by all Iranians. The poet, Sa’adi Shirazi, of the city of Shiraz in

central Iran — which, by the way, is also the place where the name of

the shiraz wine originates from — lived in the 13th century.

The full poem is an aphorism known as Bani Adam or

The Children of Adam . I would like to share it with the

House today in full.

بنی آدم اعضای یک پیکرند

که در آفرينش ز یک گوهرند

چو عضوى به درد آورد روزگار

دگر عضو ها را نماند قرار

تو کز محنت دیگران بی غمی

نشاید که نامت نهند آدمی

Human beings are members of a whole,

In creation of one

essence and soul.

If one member is afflicted with pain,

Other

members uneasy will remain.

If you have no sympathy for human

pain,

The name of human you cannot retain.

[Persian text and translation provided by B.

Ma.]

The message is culturally universal and timeless. It puts an

emphasis on our oneness despite our cultural and superficially distinct

racial diversity.

[10:10 a.m.]

That’s probably why it is on display at the entrance into the

United Nations building in New York. I believe that we should all carry

these good words with us as we do our good work in this House. Thank you

for letting me share this with you today.

PRINCE GEORGE HOSPICE SOCIETY

BUCKET LIST FUNDRAISING

EVENT

S. Bond: What’s on your bucket list? That’s what Prince George Hospice

Society asked our community recently. With the support of very generous

sponsors, Donna Flood and her hospice team, as well as Norm Coyne,

numerous donors and volunteers, created a unique initiative that

culminated in a sold-out gala and some lucky residents getting to check

one item off their bucket lists.

The guest speaker at the fundraiser for the hospice society was

MTV’s Ben Nemtin of The Buried Life . Ben’s story was inspiring

as he shared the journey of how he and three of his friends went on a

mission to complete their bucket list of 100 items to do before you die.

That list included getting to play basketball with Barack Obama. Yes,

they managed to check that off their list.

While the evening was a success by any measure, including raising

more than $30,000 for hospice, a memorable act of generosity made the

event unforgettable. Dirk Finger is a teacher who was diagnosed with

cancer just one month before the birth of his son. Dirk faced surgery,

chemo and radiation, only to be told that he is likely living with a

terminal condition.

Dirk and his wife, Melissa, have shown incredible strength and

courage. Their bucket list wish was to take their children to

Disneyland. None of us will forget how Craig Wood, Don Willimont and the

Wood Wheaton superstore granted the Finger family their bucket list wish

right there on the stage — a fully paid trip to Disneyland. It was a

night to remember and to celebrate people caring for people.

I am so proud of our community and the work of the Prince George

Hospice Society. Thank you to everyone who made the bucket list

initiative a reality and for helping make dreams come true, especially

for Dirk, Melissa, Arabella and Daxton Finger.

ESSAY ON POVERTY BY STUDENT AT

GILMORE COMMUNITY

SCHOOL

J. Routledge: A 12-year-old student at Gilmore Community School in Burnaby North

has written a most insightful essay about child poverty. I’d like to

share some of it with this House.

He begins:

“Child poverty strikes kids all over Canada. It is especially bad in

British Columbia, where almost 20 percent of all children live in

poverty. That’s one in five. Just imagine a city composed of all B.C.’s

poor children. It would be our fifth-largest city — a bit bigger than

Abbotsford and a bit smaller than Richmond.”

Then he goes on:

“My mom sees firsthand what child poverty looks like because she

teaches at an inner-city school. Many of her students are from immigrant

and refugee families, single-parent homes, on social assistance and the

working poor. Her classroom is culturally diverse. Every year eight to

12 different languages are spoken.”

He continues:

“My mom tells me that many days her students come to school hungry.

Fortunately, Thunderbird has a hot breakfast and lunch program which

serves over half the children. There’s also a program called New for

You. Four or five times a year families will come to school to get

gently used clothes, shoes, books, toys and other household items

donated by the teachers, their friends and other community members. On

Fridays, the school offers Blessings in a Bag, which is food given to

the most vulnerable families to get them through the weekend.”

He concludes by saying:

“My hope is that people will soon learn that, even in a rich city

like Vancouver, there are many poverty-stricken families that cannot

afford the luxuries most of us take for granted. We all need to

understand that there are pockets of poverty in every corner of the

world. It affects all types of families for different reasons. I hope we

can work together to bring down the poverty rate.”

I hope so too, Mr. Speaker.

SURREY STUDENTS IN SCIENCE

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

COMPETITION

T. Redies: I’d like to congratulate a group of constituents from the

Surrey–White Rock community who’ve used their innovative young minds to

create products aimed at reducing Canada’s energy footprint.

[10:15 a.m.]

Eleven students from Semiahmoo Secondary, Earl Marriott Secondary

and Elgin Park Secondary recently competed at the Shad–John Dobson

Entrepreneurship Cup at Ryerson University on October 26. Based out of

Waterloo, Ontario, this month-long program is open to students in grades

10 to 11. Participants apply STEM disciplines to real-life public policy

and entrepreneurial challenges centred on an annual theme.

Among these students was Semiahmoo Secondary student Hugo Yin.

Hugo and his 11 teammates from across Canada explored the research

behind colour-changing chemicals and created a product called Kameleon,

a roof shingle that is designed to trap heat or repel heat, depending on

the season. The shingles turn white when it’s warm outside to reflect

sunlight, and black when it’s cold outside to absorb heat. This

colour-changing paint could be used in practical applications as a way

of reducing the cost to heat a home.

For the first time in the history of Shad, Hugo’s group received

five awards, including best application of theme, best application of

scientific principles, best business plan, best prototype and Shad

innovators of the year.

Once again, I’d like to congratulate everyone who participated in

this competition. When I see young people like Hugo and his teammates

and their thoughtful and environmentally conscious innovations, I feel

very positive about the future of our province and our

country.

BARB RANDALL

L. Krog: Canadians are familiar with Jean Vanier, the founder of L’Arche,

which provides care for people with developmental disabilities. He is

famous. I want to recognize my constituent Barb Randall today, another

caregiver with a big heart.

Before moving to Victoria in 1971 to follow her husband George’s

career as a sergeant in the Canadian Armed Forces, Barb was a foster

parent to children in Newfoundland. Here in B.C., initially in Victoria

and for decades in Nanaimo, Barb operated a licensed group home for

adults with developmental disabilities.

“Home” is the word to emphasize here. These individuals came from

institutions that were closing, like Tranquille and Glendale, and

families who could no longer provide care. Creating a home for up to six

adults at a time, the Randalls, with Barb’s leadership, created a loving

atmosphere where many lived out the rest of their lives — like Denise,

dying in 2015, who lived with the Randalls for over 30 years.

Mary McDade, a provincial social worker, now retired, praised Barb

to the skies. Those who lived with the Randalls holidayed with them,

whether camping in an RV at Rathtrevor or travelling to New Brunswick or

Reno or Las Vegas. In her time, Barb kept up with the latest training,

was president of the famous Clay Tree Enterprises in Nanaimo and was

always available and always advocating on behalf of people with

developmental disabilities.

Now, Barb was filled with that down-east generosity. Barb retired

at 78, with Denise’s death, but continues to provide respite care, at

age 80, for her daughter Christy and son-in-law Kevin, who carry on the

family tradition of providing care for people. As her daughter Christy

says, her mom is an angel. All she has loved and cared for would

agree.

Oral Questions

KINDER MORGAN PIPELINE PROPOSAL

AND RESOURCE SECTOR

JOBS

P. Milobar: This government opposes a long list of job-creating projects. They

want to shut down the Trans Mountain project despite exhaustive reviews,

federal regulatory approvals, First Nations approvals and community

approvals. Even after lengthy statutory-driven processes are completed,

this government will not stand behind those approvals. This is one of

the main reasons B.C. now ranks dead last in Canada for energy

investment.

My question to the minister. When will this government defend the

jobs of working people in the energy sector instead of fighting in court

against approved projects?

Mr. Speaker: Member, do you have a specific minister?

P. Milobar: I assume they would understand, since they have a Minister of

Jobs, that we’re talking about jobs and investment. Could the Minister

of Jobs and investment please answer the question?

[10:20 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, the member is quoting from a Fraser Institute survey. Let me

quote the former Minister of Energy and Mines, Bill Bennett, earlier

this year on the topic of Fraser Institute surveys. “It’s not an

objective assessment of anything.… I wish the Fraser Institute would do

an objective analysis of what actually happens on the ground and not

just what someone’s perception is in Australia or somewhere else in the

world, but they will do what they will do.”

Certainly, the previous government promised 100,000 jobs in the

LNG sector — 100,000 jobs, more like 100,000 broken promises. This

government was elected on a promise to build an economy with good jobs

that pay well and last. We’re delivering on our promise to create good

jobs in British Columbia, and we’re proud of the investment we’ve

attracted.

The Premier was recently in Prince Rupert visiting the AltaGas

propane export terminal, which is preparing to open new markets in Asia.

Investment in Fortinet, a cybersecurity company in Burnaby, who

announced 1,000 jobs just recently. Amazon has announced 1,000 jobs in

Vancouver. DP World announced a $200 million expansion to their Prince

Rupert terminal that will boost shipping capacity by over 50 percent —

and 400 to 500 jobs.

We’re just getting started on building a rich, prosperous British

Columbia.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Those are all interesting statements by the minister, but the

reality is that working people…. This is the reality. The working people

in British Columbia must now rely on outsiders of our province to stand

up for their jobs, not this government.

The Premier of Alberta has said that she is “a mouthpiece for the

tens of thousands of British Columbians.” According to Premier Notley:

“We believe the position of the B.C. NDP is incorrect, is wrong and is

bad for British Columbians.” In fact, the Trans Mountain pipeline would

create 75,000 person-years of employment and generate $19.1 billion in

economic activity for British Columbia.

So why is it, Mr. Minister, that the only NDP Premier, in B.C.

this week, who will be defending people in the energy sector is from out

of our province?

Hon. B. Ralston: We continue to create the economic conditions that will enable

business here in British Columbia to thrive. We have cut, in our

budget….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. B. Ralston: They don’t want to listen.

We cut small business taxes from 2.5 percent to 2 percent. As

members opposite will know, the small business sector here has…. There

are one million jobs in the small business sector in this province, and

we’re determined to make sure that those businesses get the tax

environment that will help them thrive and prosper here in British

Columbia.

We’re creating an innovation commission to boost the B.C. tech

sector. We are forming an emerging economy task force that will look

over the horizon at the prospects for creating new jobs, new prosperity

in British Columbia in a competitive jurisdiction globally. We’re

establishing a small business task force that will look, again, at the

small business sector for solutions to make those businesses prosper in

the future.

We’re just getting started on creating a British Columbia that

serves everyone, not just the top 2 percent.

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

supplemental.

[10:25 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Based on that answer, it appears that the minister feels that

given enough time, they will indeed make Kinder Morgan a small business

in this province and they can benefit from the tax cuts.

It is not just the Premier of Alberta who is calling into question

the government’s commitment to workers in the resource development

community. Investors are now ranking B.C. last in Canada for energy

investment.

Interjections.

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

P. Milobar: I guess I should congratulate the Premier and his government. They

have already accomplished what took previous B.C. NDP governments years

to do, and they’ve done it in record time, in four to five short months.

It definitely makes sense now why the Premier continues to say that the

only way to deliver on any election promises is with federal money.

Apparently, the game plan is to turn us into a have-not province like

Quebec.

Now that Premier Notley, the president of Kinder Morgan and

federal minister Jim Carr are all here this week.... Instead of trying

to shut down already approved projects, will the Premier and the

government and the Minister of Jobs engage with these visitors to ensure

that B.C. sees the greatest possible benefits from the Kinder Morgan

project?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, the member seems to want to return to the Fraser Institute

survey. Let me quote once again what the former Minister of Energy and

Mines, Bill Bennett, earlier this year, not that long ago, said on the

topic of Fraser Institute surveys. “It’s not an objective assessment of

anything. I wish the Fraser Institute would do an objective analysis of

what actually happens on the ground and not just what somebody’s

perception is in Australia or somewhere else in the world, but they will

do what they will do.”

That’s the premise of the question that the minister is advancing.

In fact, I’ve been working closely, along with my colleagues, with the

oil and gas sector, and I can tell you they are excited about the

opportunities in British Columbia.

Let me quote from Andy Calitz, who’s the CEO of LNG

Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. B. Ralston: He said this on September 19: “I do not subscribe to the view that

the growth period for LNG or natural gas is over. The time will soon

come for the next FID. Speaking as LNG Canada, I am quite optimistic it

will be us.”

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

J. Johal: Under this government, B.C. now ranks as the worst jurisdiction in

Canada for energy investment. We are dead last in Canada under the NDP.

B.C.’s score in the Global Petroleum Survey plummeted from the

top 50 percent of jurisdictions globally to the bottom 25 percent. We

now rank below Myanmar, Kazakhstan and Tanzania. Heady company, thanks

to the NDP.

To the minister: how will you allay the fears of investors while

your government is in court trying to stop a project that already has

regulatory approval?

Hon. M. Mungall: I know that the B.C. Liberals want to blame everything on the NDP

when, in fact, the people who failed British Columbians were actually

them. Now, they put big slogans on the side of their bus. They promised

100,000 LNG jobs. Do you know how many they delivered? Zero. They

delivered zero.

In comes this new government, and we’re here to clean up their

mess. We’ve already started a competitiveness review so that we can

actually make LNG happen. I’ve been meeting with the oil and gas sector.

The Premier and I were just recently up in Prince Rupert visiting the

AltaGas propane export terminal, which is preparing to open new markets

in Asia. Under our watch, the very first export of LNG to China happened

just last week.

[10:30 a.m.]

I know the Liberals are upset that we are actually having success

on this side of the House, but British Columbians are thrilled. They

want to see a better B.C., and we’re the ones delivering it.

J. Johal: I remind the minister that when they were in opposition, the

Environment Minister, the Energy Minister, the Premier, the Jobs

Minister all opposed LNG.

Interjections.

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

J. Johal: The minute they became government, Pacific NorthWest LNG fled the

province.

The Energy Minister forgets about the hard-working men and women

in northeast and northwest British Columbia, the families in Dawson

Creek…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Johal: …and Fort St. John that rely on the energy industry.

Interjections.

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

J. Johal: Open hostility to resource development by this government has

scared investors. From LNG and pipelines to projects like Site C, this

government says: “No.”

It’s bad enough that the NDP is hostile to proposed projects, but

they now attack projects in the courts that have been through years of

regulatory environmental reviews and, not only that, consultation with

First Nations and non–First Nations communities — millions of dollars

spent by investors to get through a regulatory process that is fair and

transparent.

To the Minister of Energy, does the Minister of Energy seriously

believe anyone will invest when her government goes back and challenges

federal regulatory decisions made in the past?

Hon. M. Mungall: That was quite a speech of revisionist history if I have ever

heard one.

Just to remind the member opposite, let me quote from Dirk Lever,

who is the head of institutional equity research at AltaCorp Capital

Inc. He said this in September: “I would never in my lifetime ever vote

NDP.” That’s too bad for him, but fair enough.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: Oh, wait. Before you get too excited: “But I am also pragmatic

enough to know that people aren’t cancelling projects because of them.”

Sorry for the bad news over there.

I’ve been meeting with the oil and gas sector since day one. I

travelled up north, and when I did, I actually got the

opportunity….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. M. Mungall: I got the opportunity to tour many of our oil and gas sites up in

the northeast of B.C., including ARC’s. ARC Resources has been working

with the new government, and this is what they have to say: “Your

involvement was instrumental in making the deal a success, so thank you.

There is a consistent message that the government wants to work with

industry and is willing to collaborate to responsively develop this

massive natural gas resource for the benefit of British Columbia and

Canada. This industry and government relationship we have, of mutual

respect, is very unique. Thanks for continuing to foster it.”

That’s from Terry Anderson, the senior vice president and COO of

ARC Resources. Clearly, industry is very pleased to be working with this

new government.

SITE C POWER PROJECT COSTS

AND ALTERNATIVE

ENERGY

A. Olsen: We’re two decades into the 21st century, right? You wouldn’t know

it listening to the questions from across the way.

Yesterday a new record price for electricity was set in Mexico.

This price was less than two cents per kilowatt hour. What was the

source of the rock-bottom price? Wind.

As my friend from Cowichan Valley said last week…

Interjections.

[10:35 a.m.]

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

A. Olsen: …another day, more evidence against Site C.

We’re seeing radical disruption in the global energy markets. In

the review of Site C, the BCUC noted that the major long-term risk

facing Site C is disruptive technology. The BCUC found that advances in

solar and wind generation and in storage capacity could dramatically

lower the cost of alternatives and reduce any benefits from Site

My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Why, in the

face of these rapid changes in the world energy market, would we want to

lock ourselves into a megaproject where the only direction energy prices

will go is up?

Hon. M. Mungall: As the member knows, we are doing our due diligence as we make

this very important decision. This is a decision that’s going to impact

British Columbians, not just today but well into the future, and we want

to make sure that we’re making the right decision for B.C.’s energy

future. We also need to acknowledge what has brought us here and how

that impacts on the decision that we have before us in the next

month.

What has concerned me most, though, in seeing what has happened in

this province around the issue of Site C, is the division. I believe

that division is a result of a poor process that was put in place by the

B.C. Liberals. At the end of the day, this government is going to be

making a decision that works for British Columbians and is about British

Columbians. That’s what it should always have been about.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: The division was about 18 years ago, going from one century to

another. To show how late British Columbia is to the game, we’re going

to have our first debate on ride-sharing in this House today, seven

years after the first ride-sharing company came onto the

market.

Like changes in transportation, how we create, store and use

electricity is rapidly changing, and British Columbia risks being left

behind, way behind. We’ve inherited the big-project mentality of our

grandparents’ generation, with the threat of costly overruns like

they’re seeing with Muskrat Falls in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We should be looking to build a modern grid based on a distributed

network of renewable projects. Industry drives innovation. Government

should be creating the economic environment for the entrepreneurial

spirit to survive. Instead, the ratepayer-subsidized megaproject that is

Site C is turning innovators away, locking us into the path set by the

last century. We must adapt.

My question…

Interjections.

A. Olsen: Uncomfortable. I understand it — uncomfortable.

…is for the Minister of Energy and Mines. Will we join the

innovators and encourage a 21st century system or the big-dam,

big-transmission, big-loss project that was first considered in the

1980s?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member, not just for the question but also for

sharing his perspective on this issue. Many British Columbians have done

the exact same thing. They have written to me. They’ve written to all

members of this House, no doubt, saying whether they are for or against

Site C proceeding. I appreciate that so many British Columbians have

been engaged and involved in this process.

What I am disappointed in is that they are so divided. I do

believe, as I said earlier, that that division is a direct result of and

because the B.C. Liberals utterly failed British Columbians when they

decided to not go to the BCUC, when they decided to subvert what was due

process on such a project. That was wrong. It was the wrong decision at

the time, and it was always wrong. We have corrected that wrong, and we

are now in the process of making a good decision that’s going to work

for British Columbians for today and well into the future.

[10:40 a.m.]

LNG INDUSTRY AND

DUTIES ON IMPORTED

STEEL

E. Ross: British Columbia’s LNG industry faces roadblock after roadblock

from this government. They make reassuring gestures that are not matched

with actions. Instead, they opposed Pacific NorthWest LNG in writing and

are hiking carbon and corporate taxes.

Now we are facing duties being imposed on imported steel, which

adds about $2 billion to project costs. This side of the House, the

official opposition, has written to the federal government opposing

these tariffs.

The Minister for Trade is tasked, in his mandate letter, to work

with the federal government to ensure B.C.’s interests are protected.

Can the minister today confirm that he has done his job, stood up for

B.C.’s interests and written to the federal government saying that these

tariffs would kill the LNG prospects in B.C.?

Hon. G. Chow: Thank you for the question. We are working closely with the

strategy aligns with our interests. We are working with the minister,

the federal Minister of Trade, who actually briefs us on the status of

the negotiations.

As the Minister of State for Trade, my objective is to make sure

that we have trade opportunities and diversify our markets in order to

create good-paying jobs for British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Skeena on a supplemental.

E. Ross: We’re talking about a specific duty, and we’re asking the

government to write a specific letter in opposition to this duty that

will cripple the LNG industry. It is a crippling duty to the LNG

industry, and this government is failing to act.

In opposition, the Premier was quick to sign a letter opposed to

LNG. Today he can’t sign a letter supporting the industry. Perhaps it’s

because this government only says they support the industry but, in

reality, does not.

The Premier has experience in writing letters to the federal

government. Will the Minister for Trade take his lead, sit down and pen

another letter, this time supporting LNG jobs and asking the federal

government to drop these punitive duties?

Hon. G. Chow: Under the old government, the Liberal government, for the past two

decades, we have lost 30,000 good-paying forestry jobs, resulting in 100

mills that were closed. My mission is to diversify our trade

opportunities…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. G. Chow: …in order to create good-paying jobs for British Columbians. We

will support any opportunity that brings business and job creation to

B.C.

ELECTRICITY RATES AND REVIEW BY

B.C. UTILITIES

COMMISSION

M. Bernier: Yesterday the Minister of Energy brandished a letter from a Mr.

Stevens congratulating her on her amazing announcement for a hydro rate

freeze. We know the minister has been throwing the B.C. Hydro staff

under the bus, the NDP bus. Now she’s doing the same to the BCUC. She’s

out in front of decisions and making announcements.

I’m wondering if the minister will stand up and actually explain

to Mr. Stevens, tell him and the rest of British Columbia, that there is

no hydro rate freeze. In fact, she went out with an announcement,

hypocrisy at its best, before she even went to the Utilities Commission

for approval.

Will she apologize to Mr. Stevens and the people of British

Columbia for misleading them?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s another day and another opportunity for the B.C. Liberals to

showcase how they just don’t believe in affordability for British

Columbians. I know that they don’t like freezing rates for hydro for

British Columbians. I know they’d rather jump those up. They did it for

16 years, to the tune of 70 percent — 24 percent just in the last four

years.

This side of the House believes in affordability for British

Columbians. British Columbians want affordability in their lives. We’re

going to deliver.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a supplemental.

M. Bernier: Well, we’ve heard people in this House talk about fake news. Now

it’s fake promises and fake press releases that are taking

place.

The minister can’t have it both ways. Either she sent out a press

release that was wrong, or she’s directing a private group, the BCUC, to

do their job. Either way, she has something to be accountable

for.

Which was it that she did wrong? Is she actually misleading the

public, or is she telling the Utilities Commission what to do? She needs

to stand up in this House and actually acknowledge the fact that she

made a mistake. That’s all we’re asking her to do. Will she do that

today?

Hon. M. Mungall: You know what was a mistake? Giving the top 2 percent a tax break

while charging extra fees for every other British Columbian. That was

the mistake of the B.C. Liberals.

British Columbians have had enough. They want to see life being

made more affordable for them; they want to see a reduction in MSP — oh,

we delivered that; they want to see their hydro rates frozen; and they

want to see due process in the meantime.

Now, the members on the other side, the B.C. Liberals, have no

clue what appropriate process is at the B.C. Utilities Commission, and

we all know that. But this side of the House does. We’re committed to

delivering on affordability for British Columbians. That’s what they

want. That’s what they’re going to get with this government.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

IN DEFAMATION

LAWSUIT

M. Polak: When the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology was appointed to

cabinet, he wasted no time handing out his very first pink slip to

Gordon Wilson. Of course, he didn’t stop there. He couldn’t contain

himself. Not only did he give him a pink slip, but he had to publicly

speak in a negative fashion about his work, maligning this civil servant

and resulting in a court case that, now, he expects the taxpayers to

support him in defending himself from.

Can the minister today update this House on the status of his

indemnity application and how much money has been spent in court to

date?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to stand up and answer the member’s question about

indemnities. Now, the member knows that indemnities are confidential,

and many members of this place have taken advantage of the indemnity

program. What’s not confidential is the total amount of indemnities at

the end of the year, and they will be reported in that way.

Interestingly, I do have some figures for the member. In 2002, the

total amount of indemnities — this was the first year of the B.C.

Liberal government — was $1.155 million. Now, unfortunately, in 2016,

which was the last full year of the B.C. Liberal government, it was

$13.2 million. They ran it up 13 times over their

administration.

So while I do appreciate questions about indemnities from the

opposition, I think they should have a look in the mirror.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call the motion standing in my name, Motion 16. I could continue with

the full motion. If members are fine with that, we can proceed straight to the

motion.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 16 — CROWN CORPORATIONS

COMMITTEE POWERS AND

RIDE-SHARING REVIEW

Hon. M. Farnworth: With that, I move Motion 16 standing on the order paper in my

name.

[Be it resolved that this House authorize the Select Standing

Committee on Crown Corporations to examine, inquire into and make

recommendations on ridesharing in British Columbia;

That the Committee be authorized to meet for up to 3 days to hear

from expert witnesses;

That the Committee shall limit its consideration to forming

recommendations on the following in its report:

– How provinces with public auto insurance companies have

provided, or are looking to provide, insurance to both transportation

network companies and the taxi industry;

– Assessing the impact transportation network companies

would have on different communities across the province;

and,

– Considering the regulatory regime that may be established

between the Province and municipalities, including looking at the issue

of public safety.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the Committee shall be

empowered:

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

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

Committee;

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

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

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

and

d. to retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee,

and shall report as soon as possible to the House, but no later than

February 15, 2018, or following any adjournment, or at the next

following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its

reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of

adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair

shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[10:50 a.m.]

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise here and speak in favour of

Motion 16 on the order paper today. I’m very, very happy to be standing

here to this advancement. This is a momentous, to my knowledge,

occasion. This is a first time that I recall that an issue raised in a

private member’s bill has been brought forward to a committee, a select

standing committee, in recent time here in the Legislature.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

When I tabled my ride-share enabling bill for the first, second

and third time, I said I was doing so to help move the discussion

forward, and I’m very glad we have been able to do so in such a

productive manner.

We in British Columbia want to view ourselves as innovators in the

tech sector, but you’ll never be viewed as an innovator if you’re not

willing to embrace the innovation that is before us in that industry. At

long last, this issue will finally be addressed in a collaborative

fashion by all three parties, and it’s been six years — six full years,

pushing seven now — since ride-hailing companies first attempted to

enter the B.C. market.

Despite all-party agreement that we need to bring this disruptive

technology to British Columbia in a regulated fashion, we’ve yet to see

any progress until now. Instead of my bill being called for second

reading, ride-hailing will now go to an all-party committee, the Select

Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, made up of MLAs from all three

parties.

For several weeks, the B.C. Greens have been working with the B.C.

NDP to develop an approach that would allow important questions related

to ride-hailing to be canvassed with stakeholders in British Columbia.

The committee, comprising MLAs from all three parties, will engage with

expert witnesses, debate issues related to the industry and, ultimately,

produce a report to be released by February 15, 2018.

The committee framework is the opportunity for government

representatives to talk to ride-hailing companies, consult with

stakeholders about their concerns and analyze how this sector will

impact the variety of communities across British Columbia.

Sometimes people think that ride-hailing is only a metro issue.

But let me tell you: when I’ve travelled British Columbia and I’ve

talked to taxi drivers from north to south and east to west, I recognize

that it’s a desire to come provincewide.

On the Select Standing Committee on Finance, we were in Cranbrook

recently, as part of our travels. The taxi driver who picked me up there

told us about ride-sharing in her area. She said she wants it to come

there because it costs her a $100 a day to rent the cab from a licensee

holder. On some days, she actually loses money,

whereas if she were able

to be her own boss, travel when peak demand is there and not travel when

there’s not peak demand, it would allow her greater flexibility. She was

all for it in the Kootenays.

As we move forward, we must recognize that we already have

ride-hailing companies operating in this province, not only in Metro

Vancouver but here in the capital regional district. They’re already

here. They’re already operating — in Chinese language, mind you — but

they are operating in an unregulated environment. And that poses a risk

to public safety that this government has a responsibility to ensure is

dealt with.

This isn’t about just major ride-sharing companies. We’ve all

heard Uber. In fact, we all hear the discussions that it’s all about

Uber. Uber is but one name that seems to be in the press a lot, but

there are many others. We recently heard about the company Lyft moving

to North America.

What’s more is that as I toured British Columbia speaking to tech

leaders in all jurisdictions — from Kelowna to Kamloops, to Vancouver,

to Victoria, to Prince George, to Fort Saint John — I recognize that

there are also B.C.-based entrepreneurs, B.C.-based innovators,

B.C.-based start-ups that are keen to move into this disruptive space

too. But they can’t because they want to play by the rules. The rules

have not been set, so they can’t enter the market.

It’s our expectation that this report will be used alongside the

work of Mr. Hara to inform all future legislation the government brings

forward to regulate both the taxi industry and the ride-sharing

industry.

Now, I appreciate that the government has taken steps towards

bringing ride-hailing to British Columbia by hiring an expert to begin

to look at modernizing our out-of-date regulations for the taxi

industry. However, my colleagues and I were concerned when we saw that

explicit reference to ride-hailing was missing from the terms of

reference of that review.

[10:55 a.m.]

We felt that this would be an opportunity to use our Legislature

in a new way and promote a multipartisan, collaborative response to this

issue for which there is pent-up demand like I’ve never seen before in

British Columbia.

While this committee will be tasked, the Select Standing Committee

on Crown Corporations, with taking on the specific issue at present by

ride-hailing services, I hope that what we are doing here today provides

a blueprint in this province for how we might deal with future issues as

well. The world is changing, and our economy is changing. We have the

responsibility as legislators to ensure that we are not simply keeping

pace with the change — or, in this case, struggling to even keep up with

it, years behind — but that instead, we’re preparing for the challenges

proactively and creating opportunities for this generation and

next.

Let me tell you: while we still debate the introduction of

ride-hailing and the introduction of transport network providers here in

B.C., other jurisdictions are already talking about driverless cars.

They’re already talking about creating a regulatory environment that

allows transportation without a driver. We are so far behind in British

Columbia, yet we have so much opportunity to be leaders in this area, as

well as others in the emerging economy.

For two years, my staff and I have been meeting with

representatives from the taxi and ride-sharing industries to discuss the

opportunities, the barriers and the challenges facing B.C.’s

transportation systems. Let me say that while there are some licence

holders of taxis who are concerned that their investment may be

affected, without doubt, the overwhelming number of taxi drivers and

taxi companies that I’ve spoken to support the introduction of

ride-hailing. They recognize that it’s happened throughout North

America, throughout the world, and their industry has not

suffered.

We know that the introduction of ride-hailing targets a

generation, the millennial generation, who otherwise would not be taking

taxis. They’d be driving their cars or not going where they want to go.

It’s the generation of people who, on evenings, on Friday and Saturday

nights, are stuck in downtown Vancouver trying to get home or sometimes

taking that risk that perhaps they’ll drive home themselves because they

can’t get access to a taxi, when they shouldn’t be in that

car.

This is a safety issue for which a solution exists and for which a

solution has existed for years. I’m delighted that we’ll start to

explore this further in the Select Standing Committee on Crown

Corporations. Quite excited by the makeup of that committee too. It

looks like it will be some…. I think I’m one of the older people on that

committee. There’s a relatively young demographic represented on that

committee — the member for Vancouver–West End, the member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale. It looks like we’ll have a generational perspective

as we move forward in the discussions on that committee.

Over time, it’s become increasingly clear that B.C. has fallen

behind when it comes to evolving with innovation, unlike almost every

other major city in North America. Other jurisdictions have had

ride-sharing services in their communities for nearly a decade, and we

just now are getting to work on it. And as I’ve mentioned, others are

already talking about autonomous vehicles.

There’s many an anecdote of executives and tech innovators coming

to Vancouver on a jet from the Silicon Valley and getting off that plane

and saying, “I’m going to access the ride-hailing company here because I

have an account,” and not being able to and then wondering what’s going

on in this jurisdiction that’s trying bill itself as an innovator in the

modern economy.

Some cities are getting driverless cars, as I said, before we can

even allow ride-sharing apps to be operated here in British Columbia.

It’s just remarkable. So let’s get on with this committee work. I’m

excited to do so. We do a disservice to the people who elect us if we

continue to pretend that the only things that are worth talking about

are the divisions between us. On this issue, the B.C. Liberals

campaigned to bring in ride-sharing enabling legislation by the end of

this year — as did the NDP and as did the B.C. Greens, actually, for

three years. We finally have all three parties’ agreement, so let’s get

on and do this.

[11:00 a.m.]

A willingness to debate and to ultimately provide a shared report

that outlines a path forward is a good thing. I’m sure that every member

of this House can agree that when making big changes, it’s essential

that we bring the public along with us. We respond to public opinion, we

listen to the public, and we move forward based on public opinion to

bring in policy that actually reflects the concerns and values of the

general public but also provides a safe, equitable work environment for

those embracing the new technology.

Considering the level of politicization of this issue so far, and

the significance of introducing this new technology to British Columbia,

I sincerely hope that this multiparty committee will provide great value

in assuring the public’s confidence. We’re en route to developing

legislation that will enable the fair, safe and accessible introduction

of ride-sharing in British Columbia so it could be passed as soon as

possible.

It’s my goal that the work of this committee will help make this

the last holiday season in British Columbia without ride-sharing

services.

M. de Jong: Technology is a wonderful thing…

Interjections.

M. de Jong: …I say with absolute conviction. It certainly changes the way we

live, most often for the better, I think. At the risk of inviting

further derision from colleagues in the House, I think particularly of

communications technology and how it has changed in the now nearly

quarter-century since I arrived here, when it was still quite common to

receive a fax. We went from fax machines to cell phones the size of a

lunch bucket to the Internet, of course, and iPhones and

apps.

It is exciting. It’s interesting. The role that British Columbia

and Canada have played in the development of that technology is

something we can all be proud of. Where it gets interesting is when

evolving technology overtakes existing regulation. It’s not always the

case. There are plenty of examples where evolving and developing

technology emerges into a place where there is no regulation whatsoever.

But frequently technology evolves and overtakes regulatory provisions

that have been in place for a long time.

It strikes me that the manner in which the creators of public

policy seek to accommodate that circumstance will largely determine the

nature and the magnitude of the collision that often results between

that evolving technology and the existing regulation. I think that is

the case with the issue we are dealing with today.

Technology has evolved — happily, I would say — to the point where

the manner in which a consumer can secure transportation assistance has

changed fairly dramatically. What has not changed — and, at the risk of

getting ahead of myself, what I don’t think will change or should change

— is the fact that as a society, we choose to regulate those companies,

agencies, individuals who offer passenger transportation

services.

We do it for a variety of reasons. We do it for safety reasons. We

do it for quality assurance reasons. We do it for fairness reasons, both

to the provider of the service and the consumer of the service. Those

presently engaged in providing passenger transportation services, I

think understandably, seek assurance that those regulatory provisions

that presently exist will also apply and cover the advent of the new

technology and services that might flow from the application of the new

technology.

[11:05 a.m.]

It can be a complicated exercise. Now, I’m obliged, I think, to

point out that the government may not have thought so when it made its

pre-election statements. I rather suspect it has come to discover the

complicated nature of evolving regulation to take account of evolving

technology. The result is, I think, the motion that is before the House

this morning, which seeks to refer the issue, generally, to a select

standing committee for consideration.

I’m obliged, when I saw the motion and learned that it was due to

be discussed this week…. I had a chance to review it and discuss the

matter with my colleagues. With respect to the comments that the Leader

of the Third Party has just made, speaking positively about the

advantages of seeking to consult with communities that might be

impacted, he will receive no criticism or opposition from me on that

front.

I should say, in general terms, the notion of referring a matter

to a select standing committee that is populated by members of all

parties — in this case, all three parties — can generally be a very

positive exercise.

Where I did find it curious is the motion specifically referring

to the committee reviewing “how provinces with public auto insurance

companies have provided, or are looking to provide, insurance.” I think

that’s a legitimate issue. I think that is something that the committee

can turn its minds to with respect to evolving public policy.

“The impact transportation network companies would have on

different communities across the province….” I think that, too,

represents an appropriate area of exploration for the

committee.

And the third bullet, “Considering the regulatory regime that may

be established between the province and municipalities, including

looking at the issue of public safety….” I would say, on balance, all

three represent legitimate areas, in some cases very specific areas,

where the committee has received instructions and is empowered to

explore and consult.

I will state now that what I thought was curious, given the nature

of the public discussion that has taken place, was the absence of any

reference to that group of existing licensees, who, of course, are very,

very interested in the outcome of this conversation and very interested

in how public policy might be adjusted to take account of new

technology. And recognizing, I believe, that it would be their view — it

is certainly ours on this side of the House — that the fundamental

notion that those engaged in the provision of passenger transportation

services should be subject to regulation and that regulation should

apply equitably, evenly, predictably and fairly.

With that in mind…. I don’t mean to belabour the point, but the

absence of any reference to existing taxi licensees and those employed

in the taxi industry is troubling to the official opposition.

The other portion of the motion that I thought curious…. I’m not

sure a lot turns on this, but the reference to the committee being

authorized to meet for up to three days to hear from expert witnesses….

I’m not sure what turns on three days, and were it to be four or five….

I’m not sure it’s necessary or even advisable. I’m not proposing that we

change the date for the committee to report back, but should the

committee choose to extend their consultations or their hearings with

expert witnesses, it strikes me that it would be appropriate to give

them the authority to do that and not shoehorn them into three

days.

[11:10 a.m.]

So the amendment that the official opposition is proposing and

that I’ll provide to members now — and I’m obliged to the members of the

staff who assisted with the drafting of the amendment — would alter the

motion as follows.

It would delete, in the second paragraph, the words “for up to

three days,” and simply leave that to the discretion of the committee.

In the third paragraph, it would actually delete the word “assessing,”

and that paragraph would read, “the impact transportation network

companies would have on,” add the words, “existing taxi licensees, those

employed in the taxi industry and different communities across the

province,” so it would include a specific reference to those who work in

the taxi sector, those who hold taxi licences.

It strikes us in the official opposition that if we are to advance

this in the manner that I think the government and the Third Party wish

to, it would make eminent sense to include a specific reference to

existing taxi licensees and those who work.

I’m going to move that amendment now, Mr. Speaker.

[That Motion 16 be amended as follows:

In the second paragraph, by deleting the words “for up to 3

days”;

In the third paragraph, second bullet, by deleting the word

“Assessing”; and

In the third paragraph, second bullet, by adding the words

“existing taxi licensees, those employed in the taxi industry, and”

after the words “would have on”.]

On the amendment.

M. de Jong: I think the amendment has been distributed. I don’t propose to say

a lot more than that, except to emphasize the official opposition’s

rationale and our belief that insofar as the decision has been made by

the government and the Third Party to refer the matter to a select

standing committee, the opposition is prepared to support that. But our

support — I should say, directly and unequivocally — for the motion is

contingent upon acceptance of the proposed amendment that the taxi

licensees and those engaged in the taxi industry would be specifically

referred to as being engaged and available for consultation.

That’s my comment with respect to the amendment to the main

motion.

A. Weaver: I’d like to speak to this amendment, if you would bear with me

just a couple of seconds. I’ve only seen it for the first time moments

ago.

I would start by saying we did send a letter to the member

opposite, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, asking him for

clarity and providing guidance on how we would hope that, in the spirit

of cooperation, amendments would be brought forward and that they

wouldn’t be tabled on the floor — if there was an idea to bring an

amendment forward — without the opportunity for thoughtful reflection.

Upon what was being brought forward in the amendment…. We don’t have

that benefit right now because I literally have just been given it, and

I’m literally struggling to find on the order papers the motion that

we’re debating.

Here’s the motion here: “That the Committee be authorized to meet

for up to 3 days to hear from expert witnesses.” So the concern here is

to remove the words “3 days.” Now, I understand that the point here is

that you don’t want to hamstring the committee. My worry about this,

even though I do like the idea, is that we do have a parallel process

with respect to the taxi industry. The purpose for having this

particular review, this particular motion, this particular review of

ride-hailing is that it was not included in the terms of reference of

the review of the taxi industry.

I understand the importance of hearing from existing taxi licence

holders as well. Clearly, they’re the ones who were most resistant to

the introduction of the new technologies. The reason, of course, is that

some of these have very, very substantive value.

I’ll tell a quick story here. As I was on CFAX here in Victoria

discussing ride-hailing, an owner of a taxi licence phoned in. He told

me that he’s very opposed to ride-hailing, and he suggested I didn’t

know what I was talking about. Then he went on to provide some

information. He had acquired the taxi licence for $200. Well, as soon as

one acquires a taxi licence for the tune of $200, you now are the

owner.

[11:15 a.m.]

We have a very odd system in British Columbia, whereby licence

recipients own those licences forever. A separate debate that we could

have at some point is that I think it’s important that we move away from

the owner having licences for life and recognize that the licences are

the property of the Crown. They can be leased out instead of being

offered forever, because the artificial value that’s created in the

marketplace — for something that really shouldn’t be there — is done in

the process.

The $200 licence here in Victoria is now worth I don’t know how

many tens of thousands of dollars because of the fact that these have a

value. And you can buy and sell them. I get that the taxi licence

holders are concerned — the taxi drivers less so; the licence holders

are.

It’s important that we hear this perspective. The question I have

is: to what extent is this the appropriate avenue in which to actually

have the taxi licence holders make their case when we know that the

other parallel committee stage is exactly 100 percent dedicated to

taxis? Ride-hailing companies are not able to participate in the

engagement of that because it’s not included in the terms and

references.

I continue to struggle here. What I struggle most about is I like

to reflect upon good ideas. The amount of time I’ve had to reflect upon

this is literally seconds. Had the members opposite really wanted, in

good faith, to get this forward, why didn’t they give it to us in

advance? Why didn’t we see this last week? Why didn’t we see it

yesterday? The opposition had the opportunity to do that. They had the

opportunity to actually come and talk to us. It’s particularly in light

of the fact that we sent the member for Abbotsford West a letter

specifically requesting that he consider providing…. If you want to

actually get amendments forward, give us the information in advance so

we can reflect upon it.

I struggle with this because I don’t know what the unintended

consequences are — “for up to 3 days.” That was agreed upon. If we just

remove it, how do we know now that this process is not self-limiting to

go on forever? Let’s suppose suddenly every taxi licence holder decides

that they want a right to come and speak before the committee. We could

have thousands of speakers taking this process through to eternity.

That’s not the intent.

I recognize and I support the idea that we don’t want to limit…. I

hope I get a chance to hear some words from the member for West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky, who is on the committee with us. Again, I’m

troubled with this, not because I don’t agree with the intent of

providing flexibility to the committee and not because I don’t disagree

that we want to ensure that we listen to everyone. But I’m not sure….

Again, let me see if I can go specifically to the wording.

I shouldn’t be doing this in the debate. In good faith, I

shouldn’t be having to look at the same time as I’m speaking to this

amendment trying to figure out and think whether I support it on the

fly. Is that how we do legislation here in B.C.? Is this the way we

really want to do legislation?

On the one hand, I’m holding the motion; on the other, I’m holding

the amendment. I’m trying to figure out whether this is good or not. As

I’m thinking this through, I’m filling the space with words because half

my brain is trying to figure whether it’s a good idea and the other half

is trying to fill this with words so you don’t call me on

time.

This isn’t how we do policy in this province. The more I think

about it, the more I’m thinking that the member opposite had a lot of

time. He had the time to actually show this to us so we could have

thought about it instead of on the floor.

I can’t support this because of that, because I haven’t had the

time to let my left brain catch up with my right brain as I’m trying to

embed these two and think about the consequences with no advance

notice.

Deputy Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on the

amendment.

J. Sturdy: That was an interesting conversation with the member and himself,

talking himself out of supporting this particular amendment. Well done.

It was an interesting debate.

I’d remind the member that there is no proposal to change the

reporting-out date of this committee, so it is limiting. It is

self-limiting.

[11:20 a.m.]

What was the date? It is February 15 of 2018. I think that should

provide some comfort that this would not be a committee that would stand

and go on forever and, in effect, be a way of deferring any kind of

decisions.

This is also, I’d remind the member, really the only venue that is

in place that would have members from all parties in the House receiving

delegations, investigating and better understanding the implications for

all parties and all interested parties in this important

discussion.

The report commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation and the

Minister of Transportation has a very specific focus. I think it’s

important that members who are considering this, who populate this

committee and are considering the implications, should not be really

spending all of their time on, to the exclusion of all the interested

parties….

In this case, obviously ride-sourcing impact to rural and urban

communities, impacts to the overall transportation system and network —

the feeding in and support of transit — and all the other various parts

of what ride-sourcing is and can be should be thought about and

considered in conjunction with the implications to existing technologies

and existing industries.

In fact, the industries that have been around for decades and

decades, probably well over 100 years…. It was interesting. In thinking

back on this, I realized and recognized that my grandfather actually

operated a taxi company in Vancouver in the 1930s. That was my only

connection with this industry — remains my only connection. But it’s

been around for a long time.

There’s a need, I think, to have the committee consider not just

inputs from ride-sourcing companies and communities, but also from an

existing technology, an existing industry that has invested and provided

services to the public of British Columbia for many, many, many years.

To not have the committee think or understand that perspective, when

deliberating and reporting out, is a major gap in the discussion and the

debate and, I think, would not serve the committee members particularly

well.

Overall, I think that these are all good suggestions — the idea of

not limiting the amount of time that this committee gets to sit and

deliberate and to allow it to expand to the time that they feel they

need in order to well understand this issue, and to specifically include

some of the stakeholders that clearly have much to contribute and, I

would imagine, much to say on this issue, all with the idea of better

informing the members of this committee and their deliberations in order

to provide the best information back to this House.

With that, I would very much support this amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the amendment put forward by my colleague, the

Opposition House Leader.

[11:25 a.m.]

It had not been my intention to speak, because we do have an

agreed-upon number of speakers. But as House Leader, in dealing with the

amendment, I do think it’s important to signal to the opposition that

the government will not be supporting this particular

amendment.

There is a parallel process that is currently underway dealing

with issues raised by members opposite around the taxi industry, in

particular. The motion has been on the order paper, and we have

accommodated the opposition in the calling of this motion.

At this particular point in time, hon. Speaker, I am informing you

and the members opposite that we will be voting against the

amendment.

[11:30 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment to Motion

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 38

Cadieux

Rustad

Bond

de Jong

Coleman

Wilkinson

Stone

Bernier

Wat

Johal

Lee

Hunt

Barnett

Tegart

Martin

Throness

Davies

Sullivan

Polak

Morris

Ashton

Oakes

Thomson

Sturdy

Ross

Isaacs

Milobar

Thornthwaite

Clovechok

Yap

Redies

Paton

Gibson

Sultan

Shypitka

Reid

Letnick

Foster

NAYS — 43

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

On the main motion.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Nanaimo. [Applause.]

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, I’m satisfied the level of applause is commensurate

with how short they expect my remarks to be, and I intend to be the soul

of brevity this morning.

It’s a lovely occasion when you can rise in this House and there

is general agreement amongst all three parties that this motion should

pass, notwithstanding the attempts of the House Leader in the opposition

to provide an amendment to it.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the Leader of the Third Party,

has pointed out that Uber is here, the world is changing, and technology

is changing. So what this motion does is provide a wonderful opportunity

for elected representatives, on behalf of their constituents, to hear

views and to make recommendations to government.

When you combine that with the work of Dan Hara that’s already

underway, by February, hopefully, this government will have received

appropriate recommendations to help answer the questions that the

committee is charged with making recommendations about.

Those are: how provinces with public auto insurance companies are

providing or are looking to provide insurance to both transportation

network companies and the taxi industry; assessing the impact

transportation network companies would have on different communities

across the province; and considering the regulatory regime that may be

established between the province and municipalities, including looking

at the issue of public safety.

[11:35 a.m.]

This is good stuff. This is what should be done. In contrast to

the previous government, which didn’t seem to have any interest

whatsoever in consultation around this important introduction of

ride-sharing in British Columbia and how it would be regulated and

managed, this government is actually not only relying on the expertise

of Mr. Hara and what recommendations he’ll be making to cabinet but also

on the work of an all-party committee.

Hon. Speaker, who could be opposed to that? An all-party committee

that will make the kinds of recommendations that are important, that

will allow us to move forward with this motion and consider all of those

things that are important.

Notwithstanding where you are in British Columbia, public safety

is important. Right now you hail a taxi. You know you’re getting a

driver who is arriving, who has passed medical certification, who has

experience, who has training, who is driving a vehicle that is safe.

Those things are important.

As we move forward with this motion, I’m delighted to rise. I

trust I’ll be the last speaker, given the amount of applause I received

when I announced I was going to be short.

I’m delighted to stand and support this motion and look forward,

like all British Columbians, to receiving and seeing the work of the

committee, understanding what it’s doing and then finally having the

decisions made by government as to how we’re going to proceed to deal

with this matter.

With that, I close my remarks and look forward to the

vote.

[11:40 a.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is on Motion 16.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 38

Cadieux

Rustad

Bond

de Jong

Coleman

Wilkinson

Stone

Bernier

Wat

Johal

Lee

Hunt

Barnett

Tegart

Martin

Throness

Davies

Sullivan

Polak

Morris

Ashton

Oakes

Thomson

Sturdy

Ross

Isaacs

Milobar

Thornthwaite

Clovechok

Yap

Redies

Paton

Gibson

Sultan

Shypitka

Reid

Letnick

Foster

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know, looking at the time, that someone could be lucky enough to

get, like, two minutes. Normally, I’d go that they should speak, but you

know what? I’m feeling in a good mood today, so how about I move the

House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned till 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada