Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 31, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 243

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Anne Edwards

Hon. M. Farnworth

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 41 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No.

2), 2022

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 42 — Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act,

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill M215 — Provincial Sales Tax (Used Passenger

Vehicles) Amendment Act, 2022

P. Milobar

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Community Inclusion Month

A. Walker

Donald Voth

B. Banman

Art Hive community art studio at Campbell River Art

Gallery

M. Babchuk

Maureen Mackell and Squamish Helping Hands

J. Sturdy

Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives Christmas

fund

H. Yao

Recovery from White Rock Lake wildfire

T. Stone

Oral Questions

Incidents in northwest B.C. and action on community

safety

S. Bond

Hon. M. Farnworth

Hon. M. Rankin

Government action on repeat offenders and directive

to Crown counsel

E. Sturko

Hon. M. Rankin

Hon. M. Farnworth

Government policies on fossil fuel industry and

expansion of LNG Canada project

S. Furstenau

Hon. B. Ralston

2030 Winter Olympics bid proposal decision and role

of First Nations

M. Lee

Hon. L. Beare

T. Stone

K. Kirkpatrick

P. Milobar

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2022

Hon. R. Fleming

B. Stewart

D. Coulter

R. Merrifield

Hon. N. Simons

T. Halford

P. Milobar

J. Sturdy

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 34 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs

Recovery Amendment Act, 2022

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2022 (continued)

B. Banman

E. Sturko

Hon. R. Fleming

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 34 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs

Recovery Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. A. Dix

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations

Act

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

M. Lee

MONDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Kahlon: At home watching right now is a gentleman named Greg Hind. Yesterday

the member for Surrey–White Rock, the Minister of Labour and I ran into

Greg. Greg has memorized every one of our photos. He knows our bios. He

knows a lot more about us than, sometimes, even our constituents. He is

going to be watching today with his dad. I told him that everybody in the

Legislature would be applauding him today, and he was pretty excited about

that.

Can the House please join me in welcoming Greg, who’s watching us virtually.

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a great pleasure this afternoon to introduce a good friend and

former municipal colleague of mine. Mr. Alan Lowe is the former mayor of the

city of Victoria, from 1999 to 2008. Since politics, he has returned to his

thriving architecture practice.

[1:35 p.m.]

At 38 years of age, Alan became Victoria’s first Chinese-Canadian

mayor, 23 years before Vancouver voters finally followed suit, and I want to

congratulate Mayor Ken Sim for his recent victory. Alan’s election to mayor

of Victoria in 1999 was a fitting and very cathartic way to end the 20th

century, which was a century full of painful discrimination, racist laws, a

very long struggle for equality and the ultimate perseverance of Chinese

Canadians here in Victoria and across British Columbia.

As members will know, Victoria’s Chinatown is the second oldest on the

continent of North America after San Francisco. Our friend Alan has been a

champion for Victoria’s Chinatown. He’s most recently helped create the

Chinese Canadian Museum here in Victoria, in Fan Tan Alley. They had tens of

thousands of visitors this summer, the first season that they were

open.

Alan also recently organized the 100-year commemoration of a very

important but very rarely understood and remembered part of the Chinese

community’s struggle for civil rights here in Victoria. In 1922, the

Victoria school board suddenly and swiftly announced the imposition of

segregation of Chinese students from white students. They designated four

derelict schools as Chinese only.

A month ago and 100 years past, students responded by going on strike

and boycotting these facilities and segregation policies more generally. For

a time, 100 years ago, the Chinese community stood alone, with virtually no

allies in the community showing support. Students as young as six, seven,

eight, nine, ten years old went on strike for months, carried that battle in

the community by themselves against the school board to reverse and

eliminate discrimination, and they eventually won. So 100 years ago not only

did they stand up; they won.

Alan, to his credit, organized a re-enactment on Labour Day Monday, a

month ago. We re-enacted the original march of students. The chamber of

commerce was there. Police representatives, multicultural communities and

faith organizations were present. The school board read out a powerful

official apology about this shameful and painful episode in our community’s

history.

I have to say that when you look at the mission of the Chinese

Canadian Museum in British Columbia and in communities like Victoria, it is

to have a living museum. I can’t think of a more powerful way to do that

than to bring hundreds of citizens out to re-enact an event that occurred in

our past.

On behalf of all members of this House, I would ask them to sincerely

thank Alan Lowe for his continued and important contributions to our

community.

May the House make him most welcome, and his friend John Adams, who is

here today with him.

Tributes

ANNE EDWARDS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise today to inform the House of the passing of Anne Edwards,

who was an MLA in this chamber from 1986 to 1996. She was the member for

the Kootenays, and she was the first woman Minister of Energy and Mines

in the province of British Columbia.

She was predeceased by her husband, Mike Edwards; her sister,

Mary-Leone; and her parents. She was a graduate of the University of

Saskatchewan in 1955.

She was born in 1935, and she began a career in journalism,

working in Saskatoon and Calgary. She got married and had children. She

had the untimely death of her husband in 1969, and she moved to the

Kootenays, where she raised four kids, being a journalist. If that

wasn’t enough, she became an educator at East Kootenay Community

business and technical writing. She spent 11 years in academia and then

entered politics as the MLA for Kootenay and, as I said, was the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

When she retired from politics, Anne devoted more time to writing

and tending to her home at Moyie, in the wonderful Kootenays. She

authored and/or contributed to a variety of projects, including

Exploring the Purcell Wilderness in 1978, and provided the

text for Cranbrook: 100 Years of Heart and Soul , which was

published in 2004. In 2007, she contributed material for The

Purcell Suite: Upholding the Wild and finally, Seeking

Balance: Conversations With B.C. Women in Politics in

She was a remarkable individual, who I had the pleasure of serving

with, as did, I know, the member for Abbotsford West. Funeral services

will be held later next year, and they will follow with more

detail.

On behalf of the B.C. Legislature, we extend our deepest

sympathies and condolences to her family.

[1:40 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to introduce Tatum York, who is shadowing me here today. He’s

a student at Langara College and very interested in political science. He’s

going to have the opportunity to listen to hours of debate at committee

stage. I use the term “opportunity.” It actually will be, I think, really

interesting.

I want the House to make him welcome.

B. Anderson: Today I would like the House to please welcome my dear friend Keith

Page, who is visiting us from Nelson. Keith was just re-elected onto

Nelson’s city council, and prior, he was also serving as the alternate

director for the regional district of Central Kootenay. Keith owns a small

business — it’s The Repair Factory — and is a strong advocate for right to

repair.

He is an incredible housing advocate and supported me with active

transportation. He is really into rural tech and making sure that we have a

strong rural tech community here in the Kootenays. He’s a proud member of

the LGBTQ community, and Keith and I just love to attend many cultural

events together, including Shambhala.

Will everyone please welcome Keith

Page to the House.

Hon. G. Chow: I also want to echo the welcome speech by the minister to Alan Lowe,

as well as John Adams. John Adams is a historian. He has taken a lot of

tourists around this area, Chinatown as well. I saw him the other night. It

was around eight or nine o’clock, and he was telling ghosts stories to a

group of tourists. I said: “Well, that’s a very fitting place to be, around

the Legislature. I’m sure there are quite a few skeletons in our closets

there.”

Welcome, John.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2022

Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2022.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 41, the Workers Compensation

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022. This bill makes important improvements to

British Columbia’s workers compensation system.

These improvements include amendments to add a legal duty for

employers to return injured workers to work, establish a fair practices

commissioner, expand access to independent medical opinions when a

medical issue is before the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal,

require that the interest be paid on benefit payments owed to a worker

for more than 180 days following a review or appeal decision, provide an

explicit prohibition on employers suppressing workers compensation

claims, improve the fairness of annual inflation adjustments to pensions

and other compensation benefits, and allow WorkSafeBC to increase the

maximum compensation for non-traumatic hearing loss.

These amendments support government’s priorities for the workers

compensation system, to enhance worker and employer confidence in the

system, ensure fair compensation for injured workers and surviving

dependents, have a worker-centric focus and also consider employers’

interest.

With these improvements, government continues its commitment to

supporting all those who rely on a workers compensation system during

some of the extremely difficult times in their lives.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 41, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 42 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act,

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act,

2022. This bill amends the Provincial Sales Tax Act to authorize an

additional major events municipal and regional district tax on sales of

short-term accommodation. This tax will be separate from the current

municipal and regional district tax, or the MRDT, that applies in over

60 areas throughout British Columbia.

The amendments provide that an additional major events MRDT of up

to 2.5 percent can be imposed upon request in a designated area where

the Minister of Finance is satisfied that an event is a major

international tourism event of provincial significance in or near the

area.

The amendments to the Provincial Sales Tax Act also include

transitional provisions that relate to both the current MRDT and the

new, additional major events MRDT to provide clarity on which applicable

tax rate is payable depending on when accommodation is purchased, as

well as to provide regulation-making authority for the new

tax.

Following enactment of these amendments, orders-in-council will

allow specific municipalities, regional districts or eligible

tourism-focused not-for-profit associations to have the major events

MRDT temporarily applied in their jurisdictions for the purpose of

raising funds dedicated to paying for the costs of planning, staging and

hosting designated major international tourism events.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 42, Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M215 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

(USED PASSENGER

VEHICLES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

P. Milobar presented a bill intituled Provincial Sales Tax (Used

Passenger Vehicles) Amendment Act, 2022.

P. Milobar: I move that a bill intituled Provincial Sales Tax (Used Passenger

Vehicles) Amendment Act, of which notice has been given in my name on

the order paper, be introduced now and read for a first time.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

P. Milobar: As British Columbians face a worsening cost-of-living crisis,

people are looking to their leaders for relief. Right now 42 percent of

British Columbians report being less than $200 away from insolvency at

the end of each month, 51 percent of people are saying it’s becoming

less affordable to feed themselves and their family, and 46 percent say

that transportation has become less affordable. It is clear that action

is needed to help people cope with skyrocketing costs.

This bill, the Provincial Sales Tax (Used Passenger Vehicles)

Amendment Act, would amend the changes around taxing used vehicles made

last spring that took effect in October and set the PST rate of zero

percent for vehicles costing less than $20,000 that have been previously

purchased and driven at least 6,000 kilometres. This measure would

provide up to $2,400 of tax relief on used vehicle purchases and would

help many people who can’t afford an electric vehicle and who are facing

increased costs of living.

This measure would take effect whether it was purchased on a lot

or in a private sale. As everything from gas to groceries to housing

gets more expensive, we must take steps to finally provide real,

tangible support to the millions of British Columbians who are

struggling to make ends meet.

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

Motion approved.

P. Milobar: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M215, Provincial Sales Tax (Used Passenger Vehicles) Amendment

Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY INCLUSION MONTH

A. Walker: As October draws to a close, there is still time to recognize and

celebrate this month as Community Inclusion Month in British Columbia.

For the past 24 years, the province has proclaimed this month to

highlight the rights, achievements and contributions made by people in

our communities living with developmental and intellectual

disabilities.

October has been a month to celebrate inclusion and diversity as

well as a time to recognize the dedication of volunteers, individuals,

self-advocates, families, friends and caregivers who continue to provide

supports and care while working to create inclusive communities for all

British Columbians. During this month, communities all across this

province held events to build awareness about inclusion for people with

diverse abilities.

[1:50 p.m.]

The last two years have been exceptionally challenging, especially

for British Columbians living with developmental and intellectual

disabilities who have faced an increased risk of poverty and

isolation.

Inclusion B.C. has been a long-standing champion for Community

Inclusion Month, and this year they are shining the light on the

importance of inclusive housing, employment, health and well-being and

Indigenous culture. They work with community partners to enhance the

lives of children, youth and adults with intellectual and developmental

disabilities and their families. They also help build relationships and

support vibrant, diverse and inclusive communities where everyone can

feel as if they belong.

In the constituency of Parksville-Qualicum, we are fortunate to

have the Inclusion Parksville Society and the Clay Tree Society, both

founded in the 1950s to serve clients with diverse abilities and their

families, the Nanaimo Association for Community Living and other social

service agencies, and of course, the countless home-share providers

offering highly personalized care and support in our

community.

I would like to invite all members of this House to join me in

recognizing October as Community Inclusion Month as we work together to

make our province a champion for inclusion.

DONALD VOTH

B. Banman: Today I rise to acknowledge the recent, unexpected passing of Don

Voth. Don led a truly amazing life. Don had a strong entrepreneurial

spirit, owning several construction companies, branching into real

estate development and, in his later years, farming.

Don was born on September 9, 1949 in Chilliwack and was the eldest

of four kids. Don married the love of his life, Elma, and they were

married for 53 years and raised three children. Don and Elma welcomed

nine grandchildren into the family and was a very proud papa. He

attended anything they chose to do and was a huge cheerleader. One of

Don’s favorite things to do, which brought him immense joy, was when he

was surrounded by family and friends enjoying dinner on the home patio,

and on many a summer night he did exactly that.

Don was known not only for his socializing at home but often could

be found at either a Starbucks or a White Spot. He had a love of iced

Starbucks coffee and White Spot burgers with extra Triple O’s sauce. In

fact, after his celebration of life, those who attended were treated to

exactly that.

Don was also an avid car nut. His passion for automobiles started

at a young age, and he was fortunate enough to own a huge collection, a

few of which were prized Foose cars. I recall him telling me the story

of Elma’s grocery-getter, a ’65 Chevy Impala named the Imposter, which

was highly modified to fit on a 2009 Corvette platform. I had the

privilege to see this car in person, and when Don brought it up to the

Abbotsford Tradex, it was indeed breathtaking. It won the highly coveted

2015 Ridler Award, one of the most prestigious automotive

awards.

Don also had a great sense of humour and gut-laughed when I

jokingly mentioned the reason the Imposter weighed so much was due to

excessive Bondo, a joke perhaps only true car people can

understand.

But by far, Don was a man of faith. He devoted much of his time

serving various boards, and he was not shy about it as he shared his

faith with friends and colleagues alike. He will be sadly missed. Rest

in peace.

ART HIVE COMMUNITY ART STUDIO

AT CAMPBELL RIVER ART

GALLERY

M. Babchuk: I’m very excited to highlight a wonderful program that’s happening

in the core of the city of Campbell River. The Art Hive is a community

art studio that welcomes everyone as an artist. It’s an inclusive and

respectful space of learning where people can respond creatively to

things that matter to them. Inspired by the project walk with me, which

is developed in response to the illicit drug toxicity crisis, it brings

together diverse stakeholders to reframe the crisis and imagine new ways

forward.

While participating in the walk, the Campbell River Art Gallery

quickly realized the impact it was having on folks — not just the

physical walk and the storytelling but the fact that members of our

unhoused community had a place to go that was consistent, where they

felt empowered and valued. After participating in the walk, they

listened to the cultural leaders, and they were clearly asked to keep

this going.

For our community front-line workers, families and people with

lived and living experience, this crisis can feel insurmountable, but

out of this extraordinary initiative, this outstanding program began.

The program is now entrenched in the Campbell River Art Gallery and was

created for the unhoused community to create art with peer staff member

Agnes Thomas and facilitated by artist Nadine Bariteau.

[1:55 p.m.]

This program is changing people’s lives, allowing them to channel

their energies through their creativity all while being embraced by the

community as a whole. Although they receive some funding from the city

of Campbell River through the art gallery, they’re sustaining the

program and the artists by screen-printing T-shirts with Indigenous

designs created by the program’s participants and selling them through

the gallery and at community events. For the artists, this has been a

game-changer.

In conclusion, I’d like to congratulate the Campbell River Art

Gallery and its executive director, Sara Lopez Assu, for her compassion

and leadership, her vision and dedication to the unhoused population in

Campbell River.

MAUREEN MACKELL AND

SQUAMISH HELPING

HANDS

J. Sturdy: Today I’m pleased to recognize someone who has devoted herself

wholeheartedly to making sure no one in the Sea to Sky gets left

behind.

Although she’d be the first to acknowledge the work of her team

and of the community, Maureen Mackell is truly an extraordinary citizen.

Maureen has served as the executive director of Squamish Helping Hands

since 2010, leading the organization that provides safe and secure food

and shelter for homeless and at-risk members of the

community.

Maureen has had an outsized impact on support services in

Squamish. Her latest venture was as a driving force behind the

development of Under One Roof, which is a facility in downtown Squamish.

Under One Roof is an integrated hub providing supportive housing, food

programs, connectivity and compassion for homeless and at-risk. It seeks

to build pathways — I think this is really important — to independence

for vulnerable people.

The new building, located in downtown Squamish, opened in October,

2020. It is a collaborative project between the district of Squamish,

Squamish Helping Hands and partners with B.C. Housing, Squamish Food

Bank and Vancouver Coastal Health.

In Maureen’s words: “Ultimately, we strive to help people find and

rebuild their own capacity and agency, leading to meaningful and

productive independence.”

In June, the Rotary Club of Squamish presented Maureen with the

Paul Harris Fellow Award for her service to the Squamish community. This

is the highest award that a Rotary Club can bestow on a non-Rotarian and

is given to those who work to support the community and make it a better

place to make sure that no one gets left behind. The Paul Harris Fellow

Award is named after one of Rotary’s founders and has been awarded to

the likes of U.S. Presi­dent Jimmy Carter, polio vaccine developer

Jonas Salk and Mother Teresa.

I’m sure you will all join me in congratulating Maureen on her

award and her inspiring contribution to the community.

RICHMOND CARES, RICHMOND GIVES

CHRISTMAS

FUND

H. Yao: It will be November soon. Just as Costco in Richmond is displaying

Christmas decorations, toys and chocolates, many British Columbians are

in the process of planning their celebration of the holidays with their

loved ones. However, some British Columbians don’t have the financial

means to prepare a festive meal, let alone purchase gifts.

That’s why I’m grateful to Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives for

hosting their annual Richmond Christmas fund. Richmond Christmas fund

distributes grocery vouchers to individuals and families in need.

Children 11 and under also receive toys, books and sports equipment,

while youth aged 12 to 17 are given gift cards.

The program is well supported by many Richmond residents,

businesses and community groups. This year, Richmond Cares, Richmond

Gives is offering a variety of opportunities for the community members

to come together and support.

The eighth annual Richmond RCMP toy drive will be taking place at

Lansdowne Centre, next to the Canada Line, on November 19 from 8 a.m. to

1 p.m. Richmond RCMP is asking the community to bring a new,

un­wrapped toy for the Christmas fund or make a minimum $10

donation and get a bag of warm, mouth-watering mini doughnuts. This

event will be filled with excitement, with the promise of a dunk

tank.

From November 21 to December 7, there will also be online auctions

with hundreds of items for bidding. No matter who wins the silent

auctions, the community of Richmond will come out on top. The link will

be available soon on the Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives

website.

On December 7 at the Newport Centre in Richmond, an in-person

event called Not So Silent Night will be happening. The event will

feature a carefully curated selection of food and drinks, holiday-themed

entertainment and the exclusive live auction, with some truly

jaw-dropping luxury packages. Tickets can also be purchased on the

auction site.

[2:00 p.m.]

For anyone who is interested in supporting Richmond Cares,

Richmond Gives, please call 604-279-7020.

RECOVERY FROM

WHITE ROCK LAKE

WILDFIRE

T. Stone: It was August 2021 when nearly 30 homes and businesses in Monte

Lake and the Paxton Valley areas of my riding were destroyed by the

White Rock Lake fire. Losing your home is an incredibly traumatic event

— fleeing the danger, no longer having a roof over your head, losing

precious family items and facing a long road of uncertainty.

But perhaps the worst feeling of all is the feeling of being

forgotten. It breaks my heart to have constituents wonder where the help

is, nearly 15 months after their lives were changed forever — families

with no drinking water, because they can’t afford to put in a new well,

and water lines were burned in the fire. Imagine toting water up from

your neighbour’s house every time you need to flush the toilet or

spending a second winter freezing in a trailer during cold snaps of

minus 35.

Today only four homes have been rebuilt, and it was an outside

agency, the Mennonite Disaster Service Canada group, that completed the

work. The organization coor­dinated every detail, worked

diligently with contractors and with the TNRD and spared residents any

sort of stress or concern. The Mennonites descended into the community

to rebuild homes but also helped with debris cleanup, and they even

raised $5,000 from their own volunteers to help those who lost

everything.

“Too good to be true” is how Paxton Valley resident Lynda Hanton

felt when she moved into her new home.

Then there are residents like Anita Jacobsen in Monte Lake, whose

home was spared. Her home was one of two out of approximately 45 that

didn’t lose anything. She said: “We were spared, but our neighbours

weren’t.” She took it upon herself to raise more than $30,000 for her

neighbours in need, saying: “These are hard-working, everyday people,

and they are facing tens of thousands of dollars in debt after this

fire.”

She recently shared that as proud as she is of her hard work

raising these dollars, she’s also frustrated and angry, because she, as

one person, doesn’t think she should be required to do it. She implores

those responsible for taking care of our citizens in their most dire

times of need to please step up and do more to help.

Oral Questions

INCIDENTS IN NORTHWEST B.C.

AND ACTION ON COMMUNITY

SAFETY

S. Bond: Over eight months ago, masked, axe-wielding assailants violently

attacked workers and a construction site on the Morice River. Last week

eight vehicles, including four RCMP vehicles and an ambulance, were

burned in Smithers, in another brazen criminal act.

Yet there have been no consequences for these attacks, which come

on top of the escalating violence and disorder that we see in

communities right across British Columbia as a result of the behaviour

of prolific offenders. Apparently, under the NDP, the rule of law no

longer matters.

When is this Attorney General going to take some action so that

people in our province can begin to feel safe again?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question.

I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that when she makes

an outrageous statement that we don’t take public safety seriously, she

should know that in the case of the events that took place up on the

pipeline, Morice River, last fall and the reprehensible and despicable

attack on the police vehicles that took place just recently, there is an

ongoing RCMP investigation into that. That member knows that. The police

are doing everything they can to ensure that those responsible for those

acts are brought to justice and charged and prosecuted.

Investigations don’t just happen with the wave of a wand or a

flick of a switch. They need to be thorough and comprehensive to put

together a strong case. To somehow suggest that because the police have

yet to lay charges or conclude their investigation that that does not

matter to government, or that is being dismissive of public safety, is

erroneous, and the member should know that.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

[2:05 p.m.]

S. Bond: What this member does know is that in community after community

across British Columbia, people feel afraid, they feel unsafe, and they

want this government to do something and take action to deal with that

in their communities.

Every single day in this House and in British Columbia, there is

one serious issue after another. In fact, we have an Attorney General

that continues to fail to do his job.

Let’s talk about his record when it comes to the job that he’s

done. His MOU with only the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs…. We’ve heard

very little about any progress that he has made. He was paid $142,000 as

a facilitator, and apparently that was a complete waste of money. And

his soft-on-crime approach has done nothing more than embolden criminals

in British Columbia. Frankly, he has been hopeless on this file, and it

is time that he stepped up and did his job.

A simple question to the Attorney General: when will violent

criminals who are causing havoc start to feel consequences again in

British Columbia?

Hon. M. Rankin: We are, of course, working with the Wet’suwet’en. We have tried to

get them to agree, with the federal government, to attend a summit. We

continue to hope that that will take place.

The root of this problem, as the member well knows, is the

decision of the Supreme Court in the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa case, a case

with which we’ve been working with the hereditary chiefs in the

Wet’suwet’en as well as the other members, elected chiefs, of the

Wet’suwet’en for many years. It’s no secret to this House that there’s

great disagreement on the issue of the pipeline.

Notwithstanding that, we are trying to find a way forward using a

memorandum of understanding approach, and we will continue to try to get

those negotiations concluded in the interests of everyone in this

province.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

REPEAT OFFENDERS AND

DIRECTIVE TO CROWN COUNSEL

E. Sturko: For over six months, we’ve called for a directive to prosecutors

to put community safety ahead of the criminal’s right to reoffend. But

just like the push-back experienced by their own expert, Doug LePard,

the NDP continue to push back on our call to get tough with violent

prolific offenders who breach their conditions over and over

again.

The next Premier’s own handpicked expert, Doug LePard, confirmed

this is a unique B.C. problem because of government policy not to remand

violent prolific offenders.

Will the Attorney General table the legal advice he is relying on

to avoid taking action on violent prolific offenders?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the hon. member for her question.

On Friday, I had the opportunity after question period to speak to

Mr. LePard, and I can confirm that we are very much on the same page. My

counterparts in other provinces agree that repeat violent offenders —

people out on bail — is an issue across this country, an unintended

consequence of federal bail reforms and Supreme Court

decisions.

To clarify, the data that Mr. LePard commented on was for total

remand populations, not specific to people who had committed repeat

violent offences. More recent Statistics Canada data, in fact, shows

that fully half of the provinces and territories have fewer people in

remand than before the pandemic.

Repeat violent offences are an issue across Canada. The

Conservative Manitoba Justice Minister, Kelvin Goertzen, said, after our

meetings in Halifax, the following: “The Manitoba government came with a

clear message that too many violent offenders are being granted bail

only to then victimize someone else while on bail. I was pleased that

all provinces agreed that there needs to be changes to federal bail

provisions in order to protect our communities.”

This is a problem that has to be addressed on a national basis. We

are doing so. I’m determined to get the federal government to step up

and do their

part in bail reform and address this issue, just as we are

working closely with local governments to make sure we have the supports

needed, the enforcement measures necessary to take concrete

action.

They’ll be announced. There’ll be discussion later with our

colleagues across government so we can have an all-of-government

response, and things will be announced shortly.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.

[2:10 p.m.]

E. Sturko: Well, I’m glad to hear that the Attorney General is on the same

page as Doug LePard. He must agree, then, that they have been pushing

back on stricter bail conditions for violent prolific offenders that are

putting our communities at risk by breaching their conditions over and

over again. You know what? It’s happening every day, all over this

province.

Recently in Prince George, a prolific offender with a history of

dangerous driving and trying to flee police was released and then rammed

three police vehicles.

Last week in Victoria, a woman was sitting in the living room of

her own home when rocks smashed through her window, hitting and cutting

her face in another violent random attack.

On the weekend in Vancouver, five people were stabbed in less than

an hour. A man was slashed in the face, and another victim in Chinatown

was attacked by a stranger with a knife.

Since the incoming soft-on-crime Premier was named

Premier-designate, nearly 50 people have been the victims of random

violent attacks in Vancouver.

How many more victims must be assaulted before the NDP puts the

rights of people to feel safe in their communities above the rights of

violent prolific offenders to continue to cause harm in these

communities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s funny. I hear, across the way, commenting because I stood up.

It’s funny, because the member across the way was complaining the other

day that I don’t stand up. I guess you can’t keep the opposition

happy.

Anyway, I thank the hon. member for her question, and I want to

point out a number of things. First off, we take this issue incredibly

seriously. That’s why we worked with local government to put together

the LePard report to put in place what additional recommendations

government could be initiating to deal with the situation, because it is

unacceptable that there are random stranger attacks. Police are doing

everything that they can to deal with that.

At the same time, what we have also seen and that we recognize is

that these types of crimes that we’re seeing involve, often, people with

mental health, substance abuse addictions and violent criminal records.

That’s one stream.

We also see the antisocial behaviour that we saw the other night

in Downtown Vancouver, which is caused by people drinking far too much

and confrontation with groups of people that know each other. The police

are dealing with that as well. They made a series of arrests and charges

in relation to those events.

But what we also want to do is…. We can change the laws and see

changes in the laws that have brought unintended consequences that made

it difficult to deal with some of those violent offenders that concern

all of us in this House.

That’s why it was crucial that we had the meeting that we did in

Halifax, where every single Solicitor General and Attorney General from

across the country and the provinces and the territories all agreed that

we need Ottawa to make some significant changes that allow us to deal

with some of these issues.

As I’ve said before to the hon. member, we have reverse onus when

it comes to firearms. We’d like to see that on other kinds of weapons,

as well, that people engage in violent attacks on people with. We are

determined to make that happen, just as we’re determined to make sure

that there are supports in place to deal with the mental health and

substance abuse problems that people are facing.

It is a comprehensive approach that’s been taken. It’s a

comprehensive approach that this government is committed to. It is a

comprehensive approach involving local government, the province and the

federal government that we are going to continue to work to until we get

the results that all of us want to see.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY AND

EXPANSION OF LNG CANADA PROJECT

S. Furstenau: Last week the incoming Premier said: “We cannot continue to

subsidize fossil fuels…. We cannot continue to expand fossil fuel

infrastructure and hit our climate goals.” This seems like a pretty

clear statement, but I would like to get it on the record in the

House.

To the Minister of Mines, can he assure the public that there will

be no phase 2 expansion of LNG Canada?

Hon. B. Ralston: In fact, our government eliminated the largest fossil fuel subsidy

in B.C., the deep-well royalty program. We’ve also eliminated other

outdated, inefficient programs, such as the marginal well, the

ultramarginal well, the low productivity well rate production and the

clean growth infrastructure royalty programs. Those royalty programs

have been eliminated.

[2:15 p.m.]

In fact, that was noticed, and we received some recognition from

members of the public.

This one may be familiar. Let me read it and I’ll identify the

person afterwards. “Kudos to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low

Carbon Innovation and the B.C. NDP for eliminating the deep-well royalty

credit in B.C. This was the most egregious B.C. Liberal oil and gas

sector handout B.C. ever saw. Literally, B.C. gave out more credits than

it earned in royalties.” That was Andrew Weaver on Twitter, May 23,

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I guess some things never get tired for this government. However,

what they aren’t tired of is not answering questions,

apparently.

I didn’t ask about oil and gas subsidies. I asked about whether

LNG Canada will be expanding into phase 2, which would be entirely

contrary to what their incoming Premier has said on the record, which

is: “We cannot continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure and hit our

climate goals.”

Let’s see what others are saying about this government’s climate

record. Last week, they got an F on their climate change report. They

have known who the incoming Premier will be for months.

They all support him. Surely, they should be able to answer this

straightforward question about his priorities and, I’m assuming, their

government priorities. But perhaps because this government is meeting

with the owners of LNG Canada regularly, and LNG Canada very much

intends to expand to phase 2 of its plant, despite the fact that LNG

Canada will make it impossible for us to meet our targets, despite the

fact that this province is experiencing climate crises on all

fronts….

My question, again, is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Will

there be an expansion to phase 2 of LNG Canada in B.C.?

Hon. B. Ralston: In this very turbulent time, when energy security is vital around

the world yet our climate targets are very important as well, it’s vital

that we strike a balance between those two objectives.

As government, our role is not only to work with LNG projects on

their permit requests but, importantly, to ensure that these projects

benefit all British Columbians by providing jobs and training

opportunities for the people who call British Columbia home, providing

British Columbians with a fair return on our resources, respecting and

forming meaningful partnerships with First Nations and meeting

world-class standards and best practices for environmental

protection.

By that, I mean our CleanBC program. No project will proceed

unless it fits within the emission targets set out by

CleanBC.

2030 WINTER OLYMPICS BID PROPOSAL

DECISION AND ROLE OF

FIRST NATIONS

M. Lee: Last week we learned from the Minister of Tourism that the

Premier-designate has abruptly slammed the door on the Indigenous-led

2030 Olympic bid, the first of its kind in the world. “Blindsided” is

how Chief Wayne Sparrow of the Musqueam Nation describes the

decision.

To the minister, when did the Premier-designate make his decision

to kill this Indigenous-led Olympic bid, and why weren’t First Nations

allowed to meet with the next Premier before he made his

decision?

Hon. L. Beare: I want to begin my answer by first thanking the four host First

Nations as well as the Olympic committee here in Canada. They mounted

what is an incredible bid, the first First Nations–led bid.

It’s a model that truly deserves to be applauded and one that I

hope the IOC takes a look at, moving forward. I know the nations are

extraordinarily disappointed. This was a difficult decision.

We were asked by the committee, after we received their proposal

just a few weeks ago, to provide a letter of support to move forward

into the next targeted dialogue for the Olympics. After cabinet reviewed

that proposal, we ultimately decided that the costs and the risks

compared with the benefits, as well as the priorities that our

government is focused on — like health care, like public safety, like

education…. We ultimately decided this wasn’t the right time to pursue

the bid.

[2:20 p.m.]

I know that’s extraordinarily disappointing to the nations. We are

sitting here in Victoria right now, so I did meet with the nations on

Monday to relay cabinet’s decision and offered a further follow-up

meeting to the nations to talk through the decision if they

wish.

I remain excited to work with them on all aspects of

reconciliation, moving forward.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.

M. Lee: It’s a simple question. And nobody believes this wasn’t a decision

of the tainted incoming Premier who spent day after day

protesting…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

M. Lee: …the 2010 Olympics as a radical activist.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member for Vancouver-Langara, I encourage members not to

get personal.

M. Lee: We’re referring, Mr. Speaker, to the incoming Premier

here.

Mr. Speaker: You don’t need to use this kind of language in the House. Let’s be

respectful.

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s important, though, to

understand why the incoming Premier wouldn’t even meet with the four

host First Nations leading the bid prior to killing the bid. It was

highly disrespectful not to do so.

Coun. Wilson Williams of the Squamish Nation calls it a kick in

the teeth and says: “We were suffocated in a true colonial

process.”

Again, to the Tourism Minister, when did the Premier-designate

make his decision, and why didn’t he even respond to the First Nations

requesting a meeting?

Hon. L. Beare: This journey has been a year long in the making. We were

approached by the nations a year ago about the province possibly

supporting a bid for 2030. That work has been ongoing for a year,

alongside the nations, the municipalities and the tourism

partners.

We received the host proposal in the past two weeks. Cabinet

reviewed that proposal, and cabinet made a decision that, ultimately,

the $2 billion in direct costs and risks were just far too great and

that we would not be able to pursue the bid at this time. I relayed that

information to the nations and have provided an opportunity for them to

meet with me in person to discuss that, if they wish, and I will

continue to work with those nations, moving forward.

We’re doing work on reconciliation…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Beare: …every single day in our government, whether that means the

historic event we had last week here in the Legislature where we removed

the barriers for jurisdictions for children and families to be covered

by the nations. You know, this is work we’re doing every single day, and

we’re going to keep doing that.

T. Stone: Well, it’s outrageous, in these very simple questions, to hear the

minister respond by essentially refusing to acknowledge that what we’re

getting at here is: when did the Premier-designate make the decision to

cancel this project?

It is an outrageous assertion that the Premier-designate had

nothing to do with this, just like he had nothing to do with rigging the

NDP’s leadership race or nothing to do with ripping four days out of the

parliamentary calendar.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question, please. Let’s hear the

question.

T. Stone: It just doesn’t pass the smell test at all, to the members

opposite.

Prior to this decision, First Nations had actually written to the

incoming Premier. They wrote to him and urged him to meet with them to

discuss any concerns that he might have with the bid, and the respect

that they were shown by the incoming Premier was not to get back to

them, not to meet them and then to have the rug pulled out from

underneath them.

First Nations don’t want to actually hear from the Tourism

Minister. They wanted a meeting with the incoming Premier. They want to

hear from the incoming Premier. But given the incoming Premier’s radical

past, it’s no surprise that he decided to kill this Indigenous-led

Olympic bid. He sided with anarchists trying to disrupt the 2010 games

and boasted about his “resistance to the oppressive Olympic agenda.” He

was even fearmongering that the Olympics back then would turn B.C. into

“a police state.”

Can the minister tell this House if the incoming Premier refused

to meet with First Nations before killing the Indigenous-led games

because he continues to believe the Olympics would turn B.C. into a

police state?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I reject every premise that the member just spoke of. In fact, it

makes me a little sad and a little worried, actually, too, because I

clearly don’t understand how the B.C. Liberals operate and how they

would operate a government.

Here in our government, this is a cabinet decision. This isn’t a

top-down decision; this is a cabinet decision.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

The minister will continue.

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you.

This is a cabinet-level decision. We were asked by the nations to

provide a letter of support for November. That is the timeline we were

working on as the next checkpoint to move into targeted dialogues with

the International Olympic Committee.

Cabinet reviewed the host proposal. Ultimately, we had to take a

look at whether the costs and the risks of over $2 billion could weigh

in with the benefits, as well as the priorities that we have in

government. We’ve made very clear commitments to the people of British

Columbia about the things we need to focus on, like health care, like

education, like housing. We’re going to continue to work on those

things.

We’re also going to continue to work alongside all nations on

reconciliation across this province, whether it be doubling forestry

revenues being shared with First Nations as part of our co-developed new

forestry revenue–​sharing model, whether it be sharing gaming

grant money — 7 percent, $350 million already shared with the

nations.

This is the important work that we do every single day in our

government, and we’re going to continue to do that work.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, when it comes to reconciliation, this government always has

the right words. They always know what to say publicly. But then what

happens behind closed doors is certainly not a demonstration of what

reconciliation is all about.

First Nations pursued this bid. It was the first Indigenous-led

Olympic Games bid in the world. They were led down a path by this

government for over a year. While the incoming Premier made time to

door-knock for the NDP mayor of Vancouver, he delayed killing the

Indigenous-led bid until after the municipal elections.

The reality is he made his position clear as a radical protestor

of the 2010 games. At that time, while anarchists engaged in rioting,

looting, property damage and assaulting police officers, the incoming

Premier stood by them and actually gave them legal advice on how to sue

the police. He even called for a boycott of Olympic sponsors and

described the games as “a spectacle” that will turn our city into “a

near police state.”

Again, a simple question to the Minister of Tourism. Can the

minister tell this House if the incoming Premier continues to boycott

anything related to the Olympics, and is that why he refused to even

meet with First Nations prior to pulling the rug out from under them

with respect to their bid?

Hon. L. Beare: That’s just simply over-the-top nonsense from the opposition.

Premier-designates don’t make decisions; cabinets make

decisions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. L. Beare: Our cabinet reviewed the hosting proposal that we received in the

past couple of weeks and made the decision that it was simply not the

right time to support the 2030 bid.

We need to focus on our priorities that the people of British

Columbia expect us to, and that’s what we’re going to continue to

do.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, that’s certainly not nonsense. All one needs to do is look

that up, and we’ll find quotes all over.

[2:30 p.m.]

Now, this is so disrespectful. First Nations have put so much

work, years of work, into this Indigenous-led Olympic bid, the first of

its kind in the world. The minister herself says it’s exceptional; it’s

amazing. Yet the anti-Olympics Premier didn’t even give them an

opportunity to be at the table and has refused to answer any questions

about his decision.

Dennis Thomas of the Tsleil-Waututh says: “A unilateral decision

without any of our input or feedback.” Shame.

Why did the tainted incoming Premier make this decision

unilaterally with such utter disrespect for First Nations in British

Columbia?

Hon. L. Beare: What was disrespectful was having a referendum on whether

Indigenous peoples have rights.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear this.

The minister has the floor.

Please continue.

Hon. L. Beare: I understand how deeply disappointed the nations are. This was an

exciting bid, and I absolutely applaud the four nations, as well as the

Canadian Olympic Committee, on the work that they’ve done over this past

year. This is truly a remarkable model. It’s something that should be

recognized and used again by the Olympic Committee, moving

forward.

Ultimately, cabinet was asked to make a decision for November. We

were provided the host proposal in the past few weeks. Cabinet reviewed

that proposal, and we had to take a look at the costs and the benefits,

the risks to the province. Ultimately, we decided it was simply not the

right time.

We’re going to continue our work on reconciliation. We are moving

forward on important areas all across our government, whether that be

investing in language revitalization and protection, whether that be

increasing the Indigenous graduation rates for education, whether that

be sharing our gaming revenue and forestry revenues, as we talked about.

We’re going to keep doing that work every single day because we believe

in true reconciliation.

P. Milobar: The cold reality is that this Tourism Minister has a track record

of somewhat implausible claims, whether it’s not being forthright about

the bungled B.C. Bid system, the role in the disastrous billion-dollar

vanity museum project, pretending she was consulting about an FOI fee

when the decision had already been made….

The NDP have earned the title for being the most secretive

government in Canada, and nobody believes their claims as to why this

decision was made. It was made, let’s be clear, by a radical incoming

Premier because of his dislike of the “oppressive Olympics,” in his

words.

Let’s be clear about how we got to this point. The outgoing

Premier actually met with the proponents of this Indigenous-led Olympic

bid at the front end. They left that meeting feeling they had his

support and encouragement to pursue the bid. Now, two weeks ago

everything changed. Suddenly we have the tainted incoming

Pre­mier….

Mr. Speaker: Member, please.

Continue.

P. Milobar: To be clear, we’re speaking of the process that was

tainted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Shhh, Members.

Let’s conclude the question period, okay?

Please, the member will continue.

P. Milobar: So let’s be clear. This was the very first decision of the

incoming anti-Olympics Premier, and he has yet to answer a single

question or be accountable to this House and, in fact, the public and

the Indigenous communities about this decision.

Again, when will the Premier-designate provide the information to

this House that he based the decision on, not the cabinet?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I really don’t know how much clearer I can make it to the

opposition. I don’t know how the B.C. Liberals operate, but over here,

cabinet makes decisions. Cabinet ultimately reviewed the package we had

before us. We had a November timeline that was provided…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. L. Beare: …as part of the host package.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. L. Beare: We ultimately made the decision that we were unable to support the

games at this time.

We are going to continue to work alongside the nations as we move

forward. We’re going to continue to support reconciliation in all ways

across the government. We’re going to continue to support and take a

look at bids as they come forward for international sporting events,

because that’s how we operate.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 40, Passenger Transportation

Amendment Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee on Bill 34,

Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2022

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’re going to begin now with Bill 40, second reading,

Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022, if you’re able to

take your conversations elsewhere. It’s important that we take the time

that we need for the debate that’s about to take place.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, can you please take your conversations outside. We’d like

to get going with the day.

Minister, please.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak

about Bill 40, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. These

proposed amendments continue our commitment to modernize the passenger

transportation industry.

Members will recall that four years ago, we enabled ride-hail to

operate next to taxis. We had a parliamentary committee process to make

best practices and recommendations and to conduct hearings in that

regard, which would provide a parallel ride-hail industry alongside

taxis to provide services for the people of British Columbia.

This new bill will both enhance passenger safety as well as

changes will allow the registrar of passenger transportation to operate

accessible vehicles and services. We have heard a great deal from people

who rely on accessible vehicles to attend appointments, to connect with

family and friends, to get to and from work. We have heard very loud and

clear that in recent times, coming through the pandemic, they’ve been

experiencing increased wait times and, in some cases, no service at all

in certain communities.

We’ve also heard from drivers trying their best to provide

higher costs of repairing and replacing accessible vehicles. This

of wheelchair-accessible vehicles by offsetting some of the additional

costs of purchasing, converting, operating and maintaining these

vehicles. The program will support learning opportunities for

wheelchair-accessible-vehicle drivers so they can provide the very

highest in customer service to the people who rely on them.

that the taxi industry increase the number of wheelchair-accessible

vehicles on the road. That is something that’s critically important. It

will also advance the province’s commitment made under the Accessible

transportation.

[2:40 p.m.]

The first funding stream will be launched this fiscal year, and it

will reduce maintenance costs for owner-operators of

wheelchair-accessible vehicles. In subsequent years, there will be

further funding streams, which will accomplish a number of things,

including reducing the earning disparity between drivers of conventional

vehicles and drivers of wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

This will make a real difference for people who rely on these

services, people who depend on wheelchair-accessible passenger

transportation. In developing this program, the ministry has extensively

consulted with a number of organizations and individuals, first and

foremost the province’s transit authorities, who have an incredible role

in the provision of handyDART systems that are complementary to

wheelchair-accessible taxis in getting these customers around their

communities.

We also consulted with representatives from the transit

of other organizations who advocate for and, in some cases, provide

services for the community with disabilities. The B.C. Aboriginal

Network on Disability Society is one. The B.C. seniors advocate was also

part of our engagement, the Richmond Centre for Disability, the B.C.

Coalition of People Who Use Guide Dogs and the B.C. Office of the Human

Rights Commissioner.

This bill will also prevent ineligible people from driving

commercial vehicles, which is vital to ensure that we keep passengers

safe in our communities. These provisions in the bill include clarifying

the evidence drivers must produce at roadside and keep on their person

or in their glove box in their vehicles to confirm that they are in fact

eligible to drive passenger-directed vehicles. This work was completed

in consultation with the transportation board and law enforcement

partners and treaty First Nations.

As taxi and ride-hail operators continue to recover from the

COVID-19 pandemic, our government remains committed to supporting a fair

and competitive passenger-directed vehicle industry that provides

high-quality services.

We worked with this industry through the toughest days of lockdown

during the pandemic. We worked with this sector when they were

designated an essential service to keep supporting British Columbians

who needed to get to medical appointments and go about their daily

business. We helped them survive financially through specific grant

programs by working alongside them and addressing gaps that were

appearing around federally regulated wage subsidy programs, as well as

our own small and medium-sized business grants.

I believe that by working closely and collaboratively with this

industry, we have come out the other side of the pandemic in a much

stronger way. It is wonderful now to see the return of some of the

activities that people enjoyed before the pandemic that are supported by

the ride-hail and taxi industry re-emerge in a strong way — seeing

sporting events, concerts, conventions, business association meetings

and people returning to work in large numbers in both the public and

private sectors. Those are activities that are all supported by the taxi

and ride-hail industries.

Seeing that recovery informs us that now is the time to continue

our modernization efforts which, as I said, began four years ago when we

worked across parties with an all-party committee to come up with

regulations that made sense, that we introduced, and then we were

disrupted by a global pandemic.

In closing, I would just further highlight a minor proposed House

amendment to the commencement

schedule of the bill that I have provided

advance notice of and will move when we get to that clause in committee.

This came up in briefings with some of our stakeholders and colleagues.

We have tabled that. They are on the orders of the day now and I believe

published this afternoon for members to look at here during second

reading debate. And of course, as I said, we intend to address that when

we get to committee stage.

With that, I look forward to the comments of other

members.

[2:45 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Thanks very much for allowing me to speak about Bill 40. I think

that this particular legislation is certainly long overdue in terms of

trying to make certain that accessible transportation is available to

everybody that struggles with disabilities and being able to get to

where they need to get to in a timely manner.

I just wanted to thank the minister, first of all, for the

briefing that his staff provided last week when the bill was introduced,

on Thursday. I know that it’s relatively straightforward and simple in

terms of what it brings forward. But, as I mentioned, it’s extremely

vital and important that these changes do take place, because one of the

things that anybody with disabilities would know is that both the

handyDARTs as well as the accessible vehicles that we’re talking about

here are in short supply. People are, frankly, frustrated by the fact

that they don’t exist — and how we can make that happen.

Certainly, this bill brings forward some vital and long-awaited

changes that are important to highlight, as well as several questions

about the structure of this legislation and the potential impacts that

I’m sure we will discuss in greater detail in the committee stage,

especially as we’re talking about funding and people that actually own

vehicles for accessible rides being able to get to their appointments,

etc.

The legislation finally makes the changes to the Passenger

Transportation Act that will authorize government to utilize the fees

that have been…. It has been collected since ride-hailing was first

introduced, and I think what’s really important is that the ride-hailing

industry is the source of revenue. It’s the sole source of revenue that

the government is talking about in Bill 40, to being able to help

support, subsidize the increased cost of what it does take to run an

accessible cab, whether it’s rear or side entry, etc. — more expensive

in many different ways.

On July 8 of 2019, ride-hailing was first announced in British

Columbia, and ride-hail vehicles that are not wheelchair-accessible have

been charged an extra 30-cent-per-trip fee with the money going to the

nothing substantial has been done to use the money to improve

Now, this fee will increase by 200 percent starting on January 1

to where it will be 90 cents per trip. I guess one of the things that

we’d like to know — and I think that the taxi industry would certainly

like to know, because they have these fleets of vehicles that they’re

looking for — is: how much has been collected to date? What is this 30

cent per trip and the new 90 cent per trip, effective January 1, going

to actually amount to? What is the revenue stream that is going to be

generated?

How much of that is actually going to be distributed, and how much

will be used for other functions that maybe the Passenger Transportation

Board may want to use or subsidize other programs that they see that are

important? Because with ride-hailing legislation came the three-way test

and also the other conditions that the minister just spoke of that are

important to making certain that taxis, transportation network services

and accessible cabs are something that have safety as primary — both in

vehicles and the drivers that are operating it — and that they carry the

right amount of insurance.

It’s important that we identify and are able to articulate so that

I think that the public knows how much is being invested. Is 90 cents

enough? I don’t know. How many trips per year are in ride-hailing? I

guess one of the questions that many of us are asking is: when is

ride-hailing going to be expanded to other regions?

It has been over three years since the initial rules came out, and

I know that there are other communities that it’s not available in, or

there may be licences, but there’s certainly not something that most

people would have any relationship with or know that the transportation

network service exists in their community.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think it works both ways. This bill is about getting money from

the ride-hail industry transportation network services into the hands of

the taxi companies that operate this fleet of vehicles or somebody that

chooses to do that. Maybe there’s an opportunity for expansion of that,

as I said, as there are shortages in that.

It’s absolutely critical that people with disabilities have the

right to the same transportation options as people without disabilities.

And it’s frustrating that for multiple years now, the government has

been collecting the money that I just mentioned and hasn’t yet used that

to increase the accessible options, as it was announced and intended,

for those that need them. Now, after two terms and over five years in

government, it is nice to see that the NDP government takes the concerns

that’s important.

I know that the member that has questions, etc., will want to hear

more about what remarks I have on this — about times when it was taken

very seriously. I know we spent a good portion of question period

talking about a bid for the Olympics in Vancouver, and I know that in

that Olympics. Although we’ve made some progress, I think that there’s

always a lot more to do.

So I think that starting to implement this program…. The details

aren’t in the bill. That’s still left to discussions to be worked out

with the PTB, the Passenger Transportation Board, in how that money is

going to flow and how we’re going to get that money into the hands of

people that either own or operate these accessible vehicles. We need to

make certain that we do that sooner than later, because collecting the

fee is one thing; getting the hands into the hands of the people that

are trying to provide a service is important.

We want to see the system improve and become more equitable for

all those looking to access additional transportation options. While it

is an important and encouraging step, there are a certain number of

questions to be asked about the legislation and why it has taken

in ride-hailing.

As we have these conversations, it’s also important to consider

the fact that accessible vehicles are more expensive to buy, insure,

maintain, fuel — the cost of fuel. And I think, more importantly, it

does limit the operator’s revenue that he may share with the taxi

company or the taxi owner of that vehicle. I think that it’s only fair

that they be treated equitably.

As we know, drivers of such vehicles spend far more time in

assisting passengers of these vehicles. I’m glad to see that in my

briefing, it was talked about that there would be increased training for

making certain that people that do operate are doing the right thing in

terms of being not only respectful but understanding of how difficult it

is to be in a situation where you have to depend on an accessible

transportation option. I think that that is a good thing.

We must ensure that the changes that are made make sense for the

system as a whole and provide the best results for all involved,

transportation options limited by a lack of accessible vehicles in the

current ride-hailing fleet.

One of the things that we haven’t talked about — and I hope the

minister can answer when we do get to committee stage on this — is what

the wait times are for somebody that’s waiting for accessible

transportation options. Are we doing enough? Are we going to make

certain that we’re going to help those people so that if they are

waiting, they do have reasonable options and turnarounds?

I understand a lot of them are dependent on this for appointments,

getting the supplies that they need. It’s mission-critical, because in a

lot of cases, those people are not able to operate a vehicle on their

own.

When we move to the committee stage on this bill, we look forward

to examining these changes and exploring how this amendment bill will

help achieve the select standing committee’s recommendations on whether

ride-hail company drivers of wheelchair-accessible vehicles will receive

a trip bonus — and how a certain percentage of ride-hail vehicles on the

road will be accessible.

[2:55 p.m.]

We also look forward to exploring how this amendment bill will

encourage owners of existing accessible vehicles that often sit idle

during the day could be used to earn extra income for the owners or be

leased to other drivers who work for ride-hail companies. Additionally,

we look forward to examining how this bill will support the taxi

industry, which is mandated to have a certain number of accessible taxis

on the road through their licences, a requirement that does not

currently exist for ride-hail companies or transportation network

service companies.

also note that this legislation makes several changes to the Passenger

Transportation Board, expanding its authority and powers. I think we do

want to understand what that exactly means. They, obviously, have great

and important powers in terms of the taxi business. But unless the

government is prepared to step up and direct them to allowing

transportation network services, ride-hail companies, the taxi industry,

we are still going to be plagued with the same challenges that we have,

in the sense of not only higher costs but during peak periods there is a

limited number of vehicles and sometimes people are finding

that….

Take a hockey game in Vancouver in your riding, Mr. Speaker. I’m

sure that there are many times that you look around and you probably

wonder how all these people are going to get home, being that they can’t

depend on the SkyTrain system, buses or any of the other options. And,

especially important if they’ve been out imbibing, we want to make

certain that they’re in a vehicle that they’re not operating.

Its authority and powers need to be understood, and I think that

everybody understands that they are the regulator, but it’s most

important that we understand that the regulator can make constructive

decisions and move things ahead in a swift manner. It will be important

to explore these changes in the committee and explore what difference

they will make to the daily operation on the board.

Now, I do want to speak a little bit about the record on

ride-hailing. When the current government, the NDP, originally committed

to matching the previous B.C. Liberal government’s promise to introduce

ride-hailing by Christmas of December 2017, they broke that promise

within months of taking power. The NDP also broke their own promise of

ride-hailing by the end of 2018, and they have made the path to

ride-hailing as complicated as possible, creating obstacles and

uncertainties for the ride-hailing industry in a way that no other

jurisdiction has ever had.

I only say that, meaning that…. Recently, because of the pandemic,

I was out of the country in an area where ride-hailing was utilized, and

I couldn’t rent a vehicle for the week or ten days that I was there. I

ended up using a ride-hailing service. To be honest, I had not used it

before, and I have to say it was a pleasure to know when a vehicle was

arriving, how much I was going to have to pay and the fact that after

the trip, I could tip the driver and rate his service or cleanliness of

vehicle. I find it’s very common sense, in terms of what it is

today.

I think that there’s nothing restricting the taxi industry, and I

think that they’ve been given ample opportunity and even, in some cases,

have tried to enter into the business of being in the ride-hailing

business on that. And I realize that it’s a software-driven approach,

but they understand the drivers, the training and all of those things.

And I don’t think that this is meant to be an exclusive for the

brand-name ones.

I think that what’s important is that we make it so that there are

competitive forces in British Columbia and that it’s not taxi companies

against transportation network services. What it is, is that we’re

looking towards the idea that we can make certain that there is healthy

competition and not forgetting about the fact that we need accessible

transit services for the people that have disabilities.

The official opposition has twice introduced a bill that would

bring certainty for real ride-hailing and opportunity for the public to

benefit and on a much quicker timeline. But both were dismissed by the

NDP at both times, extending and delaying the process. Even once the

ride-hailing companies were finally given the ability to operate in

B.C., they have remained limited to a small list of regions, which has

been expanded very little since.

I think that what you have to ask is what the plan was from 2017

when they were going to have ride-hailing in the province to where we

are today, where there’s virtually just the few companies that were

licensed three years ago that are now still in operation.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think it was kind of a wait-and-see approach, etc., especially

we’re talking about here in Bill 40.

it’s taken them years to do anything with that money or take any real

Chilliwack has a comment on that. Anyways, ride-hailing is available in

every other part of the world, but the NDP has always made it as

difficult as possible for British Columbians to have the same service as

everyone else.

It’s also impacting affordability. The fact that people…. I mean,

we’ve got them pigeonholed into whether they should be driving a taxi or

whether their only job is driving an accessible vehicle, which limits

their income, or whatever. Maybe they would like to be in the

ride-hailing business. The bottom line is…. Clearly, there’s a need for

this service, and the fact is that it does help increase people’s

ability for affordability.

I just want to talk a little bit about the B.C. Liberals’ record

priority to make certain that the games were as accessible as

possible.

see that it’s still being considered and, hopefully, successfully

implemented in this bill. We’ve always believed that everyone has a role

to play to ensure that people with disabilities have every opportunity

to fully participate in society. It was something that members on this

side of the House worked hard to advance when we were in government. In

appointed.

We all take great pride in the former member for Surrey South in

has her work cut out for her. We have a lot of work to do, not just in

Canada but in British Columbia, where she spent a lot of time advocating

for that, as did the member for Courtenay-Comox.

We took substantial action to help support employment

opportunities and financial security for people with disabilities,

including being the first province to annualize earnings expectations

for people with disabilities as well as the first province to fully

exempt child support payments for families on income or disability

assistance. Additionally, we increased asset limits for people on

disability assistance from $5,000 to $100,000 for a single person and

from $10,000 to $200,000 for a family where two people are on disability

assistance.

It’s important…. We try and make improvements on a continual basis

as we try to…. I know that this bill, Bill 40, goes towards making

sense that it’s just as easy to get an accessible ride as it is to find

ride-hailing or a taxi.

People on disability assistance can now receive cash cards or

inheritances with no impact on their assistance.

The simplified disability assistance application process for some

people with disabilities, if they’d already qualified for comparable

disability assistance programs….

Simplifying the process. I think one of the things that we can all

agree on as MLAs is that it’s most challenging when we have to try and

help people navigate through processes where they’ve already

accomplished and applied and been recognized. On the other hand, we have

a new agency, a new program or a new ministry, and the situation is that

we don’t share that information and make it more easy for them to try to

get through the process.

As of October 1, 2016, employment insurance maternity and paternal

benefits and EI benefits for parents of critically ill children were now

fully exempt for the people on income or disability assistance. B.C. was

the second province, second only to Quebec, to implement these

exemptions.

[3:05 p.m.]

We also released the How to Start and Manage a Registered

Disability Savings Plan in B.C. guide. Also, technology at work

has provided assistive technologies to more than 316 people.

The illustrated Building Access Handbook 2014 , on access

requirements in the 2012 B.C. building code, is now available online. I

think that that is something that we all probably need to learn more

about. I say that, having, years ago, been a member of the Kinsmen Club

of British Columbia. I can tell you that G.F. Strong, which many of you

still know today, and what we called the K.R.F. foundation worked

together hand in hand to increase abilities for people that were working

with disabilities.

I was amazed, some 35, 40 years ago, seeing people operating

things through blow-straws and things like that, being able to change

their lives. I think that this is important, when it comes to an

accessible part of British Columbia, that Bill 40 addresses that and

that we’re making certain that we are doing everything

possible.

Again, I come back to the fact that this is three years in the

making. We have the bill in front of us. We have the fees being

collected. We have the fees going up, but we still don’t have a plan as

to how we’re going to roll that out.

Back to some of the changes that we did. We put in the home

renovation tax credit for up to $1,000 a year.

Deputy Speaker: Is it possible for the member to help the Chair understand the

connection between what you’re talking about now and the current bill,

just to try and make sure that we’re connecting on the transportation

amendment act?

B. Stewart: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that when it comes to Bill 40, it talks

disadvantaged through disabilities and being able to get accessible

rides in the province. These other things are programs that, perhaps,

maybe, need to still be looked at. We have a program, as I just said to

you, that’s three years in the making. We now have Bill 40 in front of

us, and we still don’t have the details as to how that’s going to impact

their lives. I think that it directly impacts the issues around

What I am just trying to say is that the bottom line is that

there’s no reason that people that have those challenges are not getting

a priority. I realize it takes time to work these things out. I mean,

I’ve met with the taxi industry on many occasions. They have raised the

question about the increased cost, the lack of equality in terms of what

an accessible cab can earn in terms of the fact that — whether it

carries as many people, costs more to operate, as I mentioned earlier,

the insurance, the maintenance and just the capital cost. There’s a

quantum difference between the two. Somebody buying an entry-point taxi

in the business or even in the ride-hailing business….

I think that the relevancy of these things is that these are

small, incremental improvements for people that struggle with

disabilities, and we need to get better there. What I’m looking for in

Bill 40…. I know that the minister and I will be talking about this in

committee, but I’m hopeful that we’re going to get not only the fact

that we’ve got the tools to being able to implement it, but what’s the

timeline? When are we going to actually be able to help these people? We

know that on January 1 the fees are going up, but we really don’t know

when the fees are going to flow to the people that should be receiving

them.

that I mentioned that this is important to this side of the House. I

think that there’s no question that we support the objectives of what is

in Bill 40. We want to make certain that we get the money out the door

to help the people that are operating the accessible cabs in the

province. If we can do something like that, that’s what we want to make

certain that we ensure that we do.

I think that I mentioned about the home renovation tax credit. We

also proclaimed the third annual Disability Employment Month in

September of 2016, and the third annual Registered Disability Savings

Plan Awareness Month in October of 2016. Those are just in one year. We

also proclaimed the second annual Aboriginal Disability Awareness Month

in November of 2016. We partnered with the Rick Hansen Foundation to

public spaces in the Lower Mainland for the PlanatTM website.

[3:10 p.m.]

Rick Hansen is another person that has shown what the abilities

are of somebody that has struggled. I was fortunate, again, being with

the Kinsmen. We were one of his sponsors as he toured across Canada. We

know that he’s a household name, but he’s an incredible, iconic person

that’s moving ahead. I know that in terms of what’s happened here, I’m

sure the Rick Hansen Foundation, maybe even Rick Hansen, has been

consulted to try to make certain that this works and how we can improve

it. That’s the objective of Bill 40. Are we doing everything possible to

the level that it could be at? Are we willing to listen? Are we

consulting?

I know the minister mentioned some of the people that have been

consulted. But I think that a more fulsome list of other organizations

that are out there that are trying to make certain that the world is

more accessible for everybody. There’s an emergency planning guide that

was done in consultation with the Disability Alliance of B.C. through

emergency management B.C.

industry. That’s just one. The ride-hailing or the handyDART is the

second part of it. The reality is that we just need to do better. I

would hope that this bill brings forward the opportunity for not only

the Ministry of Transportation but other ministries to improve things so

The last thing I just want to mention is that the amendment…. I

think that the minister mentioned that there is an amendment that’s

coming forward. I’m glad that that came up during discussions. I did

want to just make certain that we can work collectively on that. I look

forward to reading that amendment sometime later this afternoon, as he

mentioned that it was going to be on the order paper so that we could

have a look at it and just make certain. It appears that there

was….

It’s more of a timing issue about making certain when these funds

can be released, so that there is an overlap between the OICs and when

the Passenger Transportation Board takes over.

With that, I will look forward to other people that are interested

Bill 40. I know that some of our members that are very active with their

own taxi industries and their communities all across the province will

want to have a chance to speak to that. Thanks very much and look

forward to committee stage on Bill 40.

D. Coulter: I probably won’t take too long, but I just want to express what

this bill means for me and people like me, but I’m having a little bit

of trouble reading today. I’ve had eye surgery, so I won’t take that

long.

I’m very proud of our government’s record. I’m very thankful to

the minister and his staff for bringing this bill before the House, and

introduced the Accessible B.C. Act, which the minister referenced in his

remarks as being part of the impetus to this bill. We’ve come a long way

have accessible roadside washrooms now for folks with mobility issues.

We have accessible charging stations for folks who have electric cars.

There are some accessible cabins I often talk about in the House, near

where I live, at Cultus Lake, which are just wonderful.

I will say though, we don’t have the market cornered on

Abby South and then became Speaker. He was Parliamentary Secretary for

I’m sure none of us will be cynical, but if some of us were being

cynical….

[3:15 p.m.]

I’m just putting that out there.

I wanted to give a few of my own experiences. Whistler was named a

number of times in the previous speaker’s remarks, and we recently had a

reason to be in Whistler, the UBCM AGM. Whistler is not a very

accessible place. It has cobblestone streets. Most businesses, because

they’re going for a certain look in Whistler, have entrances and exits

that are on the side or rear of buildings, which are difficult to get

to.

I myself stayed in an inaccessible hotel room. I won’t name the

hotel, but they felt guilty, so they gave me a larger, inaccessible

hotel room. I’ll tell you right now, I tried to call a cab one day, and

the cab was going to be two hours to come and get me. So I’m just

putting it out there. The 2010 Olympics did not make Whistler an

accessible place.

You know, this type of bill means a lot for folks like me for the

reason I just presented. A two-hour wait for a taxi is unacceptable. No

one else would wait that long for a taxi, and it happens all the time to

folks with disabilities where they have to wait a very long time for a

taxi.

I referenced my eye surgery. I had a consult with the eye surgeon

here in Victoria last Tuesday, and it was going to take an hour and a

half for a cab to come pick me up from that consult. I was very lucky to

be there with a friend who was able to push me back to the hotel beside

the Legislature here. It was still probably a 35-minute haul just to get

here.

So a bill like this would really mean a lot to folks like me who

need this type of service. But it’s very difficult to also give this

service. The vehicles are so expensive. For instance, you would buy a

regular van. I’m going to say Toyota, because those usually make really

good cabs, the Toyota vans. Then you have to take it to a place that has

to modify it, and they have to cut the whole floor out of it and put a

new pan into it, put heavier springs onto the vehicle and a ramp on the

back. Sometimes they lift the roofs a little bit.

This is all very, very expensive work and isn’t done in a factory

in an assembly-line-type situation where there’s some kind of economy of

scale. This is done in smaller shops, and it tends to cost a lot of

money. These vans are $100,000 or more for a wheelchair van, and this

bill is going to help folks provide this service by helping them pay for

that exorbitant cost of these vehicles.

Also, someone who is operating one of these vans obviously would

only be able to do less trips in a day because of the loading and

unloading of folks that use mobility devices into these vans. So this is

a critical bill because it will subsidize folks’ wages who are doing

this very important work in our community, and it’ll make that work more

desirable for people to do it.

It’ll also make folks safer. I’ve taken a number of cabs in my

time using a wheelchair. I’ve taken a number of cabs, and they’re

rushing. They’re trying to really rush to get you in and out of the cab

and to get the ride over so that they can go on to their next fare. It

can be unsafe. Sometimes they forget to give you the seatbelts.

Sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they only rig three corners instead of

four corners of your chair. Then I’m not going to…. Sometimes cab

drivers drive a little fast, and it’s kind of bouncy in the back there,

so that can be a danger too.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s not just Whistler and Victoria. Victoria is the capital of

the province, and the cab service is not very good. I recently went to

For her colleagues, she was looking quite well. I went there, and the

conference.

the participants out for dinner. We ordered cabs. I was lucky to get

into one of the early ones, so I made it for dinner. This woman from

Ontario, who used a power chair, waited for a cab for three hours.

Dinner was over by the time she got a cab, so she just went straight

back to her hotel. That’s excluding people from full and equal

participation in life, which is what our Accessible B.C. Act is about.

It’s about identifying, removing and preventing barriers such as

that.

Now, we got to our place for dinner, and we ate. My assistant,

being on the ball, ordered the cab about an hour and a half before —

basically ordering the cab as soon as we sat down for dinner — and they

told us it would take an hour and a half to get there. At the

hour-and-a-half mark, we made a call, and then they said, “It’s another

hour,” and then maybe another hour after that. So we made the decision

to use an Uber.

The cab service was a little bit better in Gatineau, but the

Gatineau folks couldn’t drive to Ottawa to pick us up — an

interprovincial, intercity kind of thing going on there. So we chose to

use an Uber, and we were, thankfully, lucky enough to find a driver that

had no problem sticking my wheelchair in his trunk. I think some Uber

drivers wouldn’t do that. My assistant helped me into the cab, which is

actually kind of dangerous for me and for him. There’s the potential

that he could wrench his back or something. For me, there are also

issues with that.

I was in Vancouver one time, and I ordered a wheelchair cab with

my friend. They told me it would take an hour and a half to come. It was

Vancouver on a Friday night. A lot of people go out in groups. They

order the vans, and vans are kind of used up. So my friend and I made

the decision to use a regular cab.

Well, we did the same thing we did with the Uber — went to get in.

My foot went under the front seat a little bit, and as I was being

lifted in, I guess my leg was wrenched in a certain way. About three

days later my knee was about this size and beet red. I’d broken my leg,

actually broken my leg getting into a cab. Then I had such a bad

infection in it that I had to go to the hospital for IV antibiotics

twice a day for a week.

Now, this bill is going to make life safer for British Columbians

that require an accessible vehicle for transport. This is going to make

it so that people can get to their medical appointments, go out with

their friends, do a lot of other things. Often I drive my own car — I’m

lucky enough to have my own accessible car — but I will tell you that if

I had to use a cab exclusively, or some kind of mix of handyDART and

cab, it would be very difficult to get to where I need to go on

time.

[3:25 p.m.]

I think this bill is very important, and I hope that over time,

this makes British Columbia a more accessible place. I think it will.

Accessible B.C. Act. We’ve worked on

part 3 of that act this year, so we

committee. We have a feedback mechanism, which we just

launched.

I actually did an interview on Access Radio this morning about the

website if you would like to give the government feedback about the

services it supplies, or even if you’re a public servant and would like

We also have the Accessible B.C. Regulation. That prescribes over

750 organizations to do what government is doing — to have an

We aren’t the only government that has put a premium on

guess adjacent — to myself that we are working on this. I don’t know. I

don’t want to be cynical, but they had two cabinet ministers that used

wheelchairs and another one that was their caucus chair, and they didn’t

record, and I will end it there.

R. Merrifield: I was listening to the last speeches and to the member for

Chilliwack, who was talking about having, over the last 5½ years, done

some committees and some plans. I heard the member for Kelowna West talk

about our time in government as a lot of actions, and I’m not going to

go through the full list of actions and all that we did to support

member for Kelowna West was absolutely monstrous, and anything that the

member for Chilliwack just said would pale in comparison to what was

done under our time for government.

I am excited about the opportunity to rise today and continue

debate on this Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, because I think

we can all agree we need more transportation, and it needs to be

accessible. One of the concerns that I have is that we want to ensure

that this isn’t just about fees but about action and implementation. As

you can see from the B.C. Liberal record that was read out, we are all

about action. We’re all about implementation. We’re all about

outcomes.

There are some vital and long-awaited changes in this bill that

are really important and that are exciting, but we’ve also got some

questions that we’re going to be tackling throughout committee stage to

make sure that the details line up with the intention of this bill. This

is about safety. We need more transportation, and we need more transit

options.

It was less than a year ago that I received a very frantic phone

call at about two o’clock in the morning. Now, my phone is off when I go

to sleep, and there are only five phone numbers that can actually get

through. Those are the phone numbers of my kids. But I got a frantic

phone call from my daughter, who was out with a group of friends, and

she said: “Ma, we’ve been waiting for almost two hours for a cab. We

can’t seem to get one, and we’re scared. We’re being sort of

followed.”

[3:30 p.m.]

I gave her directions to the police station, and I told her to

wait there for me, as I could get there and give her a ride

home.

We don’t have enough in Kelowna. In our riding, and alongside the

members for both Kelowna–Lake Country and Kelowna West, we have been

asking the Minister of Transportation for more ride-hailing options

within our ridings, for more transit options within our

ridings.

This legislation actually finally makes the changes to the

Passenger Transportation Act that will authorize government not only to

get more transit but, hopefully, utilize the fees that are being

collected for more accessible transit. They’ve been collected, actually,

since ride-hailing was very first introduced. But in the years that

ride-hailing has operated, the ride-hail vehicles that are not

wheelchair-accessible have been able to charge a 30-cent-per-trip fee,

fund.

I’m asking the question: where’s the money? Where are the

substantial actions — the actions that would mirror the monumental list

of actions that the B.C. Liberals took — rather than just a fee that’s

collected and put into a pot of money somewhere but that really hasn’t

During an affordability crisis like we have on our hands today,

being able to actually invest wisely and efficiently with money

collected from consumers is really at top of mind for us as we examine

this bill further.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

We need to make sure that consumers pay for efficient delivery and

action, not just money going into a pot, because according to this bill,

this fee is going to increase by 200 percent, starting on January 1 of

2023, to 90 cents per trip.

Don’t get me wrong. It is critical, absolutely critical that

people with disabilities have the right to the same transportation

options as people without disabilities. And it’s really frustrating that

for multiple years right now, the government has been collecting money

that has not been used to actually distribute this. It has not been used

for more accessible options. It has not been used to increase transit

In my former work as an employer and as a business owner in my

community, we had several employees that required accessible transit to

get to work. We ended up, as an employer, to arrange those rides because

the transit system was so defunct in being able to provide the rides

that were required.

After two terms and five years in government, well, it’s nice to

see that this government is starting to take some actions. To quote the

member for Chilliwack, they’ve got some committees and some plans, but

we want to see action. We want to see implementation. We want to know

what this program is going to look like that they’re using the fees for

— these fees that have been collected over the course of the last three

years.

I want to see tangible improvement. I want to know what the

improvement is. What are the outcomes that are going to be measured? How

are we actually going to make the transit system more equitable? Pat

ourselves on the back because we collected a fee? I would hope not,

because that’s just decreasing affordability without actually increasing

[3:35 p.m.]

While I celebrate this as an important and encouraging step, there

are a lot of questions still out there, and there’s a lot of information

that’s still going to be required about this legislation. I would say

one of those questions is: why has it taken so long? Why has it taken

this government two terms, almost six years, to actually create, again

in the words of the member for Chilliwack, committees, plans and now a

program?

Delays are too frequent with this government — great ideas but

slow rollout and no measured outcomes on any of these programs. I’m

concerned, because accessible transportation takes so much more money

and so much more time.

I do appreciate the education that the member for Chilliwack gave

us on how we actually have to modify a vehicle for accessible transport.

It’s significant. It’s costly, and there does need to be some form of

remuneration for this to take place. But then there’s also the time of

the loading and off-loading. Again, we need our taxi system and our

ride-hailing system to be adequately compensated.

I would urge us, through committee stage, to make sure that the

changes make sense, that it will do what we want it to do, that we will

hope that we will see this bill, this fee, these moneys actually

When we move into committee stage on this bill, we’re going to

examine these changes. We’re going to look at how this amendment bill is

going to help achieve the Select Standing Committee’s recommendations on

whether ride-hailing company drivers of wheelchair accessible vehicles

will receive a trip bonus or how a certain percentage of ride-hailing

vehicles on the road will be accessible.

Yes, in Kelowna, you have to wait for a taxi. We have very, very

few options in terms of ride-hailing and have not been allowed to have

Uber come to our city. But it’s even longer for those that have special

three hours — that could be four hours or never in Kelowna.

So will this actually help us get more accessible vehicles on the

road? How will we measure that number, and will we be able to change

trajectory if that number isn’t sufficient, if it doesn’t achieve the

outcome that we desired? We need to make sure that this fee is used for

We also look forward to examining how this bill is going to

support our taxi industry, because, yes, ride-hailing is one thing, but

we also need to support the taxi industry, which is mandated to have a

certain number of accessible taxis on the road through their licence, a

requirement that doesn’t exist for ride-hail companies. How are we going

to remunerate the taxi companies? Wow. While we want to see more

ride-hailing available for British Columbians, supporting our taxi

industry and making sure that they are up to date on services is

critical.

The population of Kelowna over the course of this last couple of

years has increased by almost 10 percent. It’s a massive population

increase, and there simply are not enough taxis or ride-hailing cars on

the road right now. Yes, many take transit, but transit is limited in

the routes and the time frames.

Aside from the core of this bill, which really concerns

to the Passenger Transportation Board. Why? Why is it being changed? Why

is it expanding its authority and its powers? How will it be used? Will

it be used to expedite change? Will it be used to be a bureaucratic

hinderance?

[3:40 p.m.]

We need to explore this. We need to understand this. My hope is

that this expansion of authority and powers will actually be used

positively to enhance the speed and the time at which things can be

expedited. It’s going to be important to explore these changes in

committee stage and to understand what kind of differences these are

going to make in the daily operation of the board.

We’ve seen some boards fail over the course of this last year, so

it’s okay if we’re not completely trusting. We don’t want a board

wholeheartedly fired like B.C. Housing. We want to make sure that this

board is given the best chance for success. Through committee stage,

we’ll explore this and make sure that this is the intention and the

outcome. We need to make sure that British Columbians are always at the

centre and focus of what we do.

absolutely vital, because we want to connect with each other, we want to

be with each other, but we also need to live and work. Transportation

needs to be a top priority. Transportation infrastructure needs to be a

top priority, especially for those that have disabilities.

This is a long time coming. The NDP originally committed to the

previous B.C. Liberals’ promise to introduce ride-hailing by Christmas

of 2017. Well, it is 2022 — almost the end of the year of 2022 — and

this is nothing more than a broken promise in Kelowna. The NDP then

broke their next promise of ride-hailing by the end of 2018.

This is a huge issue for Kelownaites. I get asked regularly about

when we are going to see the larger ride-hailing companies actually

arrive. It is desperately needed, but this NDP government has made the

path to ride-hailing as complicated as possible and has done nothing but

create obstacles and uncertainties for the entire industry in a way that

no other jurisdiction ever had.

This takes me back to the passenger transportation board and the

expansion of their authority and powers. If these are going to be used

to create more complexity and bog the system down even further, well,

that simply would not be a good use of power.

Getting taxis are incredibly difficult. I hope you never have to

get a taxi in Vancouver in the rain. It’s almost impossible. Coming

back, before becoming an MLA, from a speaking engagement…. Well, I can

tell you that hiking that hour-and-20-minute walk, ruining a great pair

of shoes…. It’s dangerous walking alone in the dark and in the

rain.

We understand this. It’s why we, as the official opposition, have

twice introduced a bill that would bring certainty for ride-hailing

companies and opportunity for the public to benefit on a much quicker

timeline. You would think that if this is the goal of this House, it

would be widely accepted. But the NDP have dismissed it both times and

have done nothing but extend and delay the process.

Even once ride-hailing companies were finally given the ability to

operate in B.C., well, they remained limited to a small list of regions,

which have been expanded very little since, which is why Kelowna is

still without any of the larger players.

[3:45 p.m.]

fund, we have yet to see where it is. How much is in there? Why has it

taken them years to do anything with this money? I believe that we all

issue. So what gives us faith or trust now that raising this fee by 200

percent will actually result in anything different than what we

currently see, which is nothing? I want to know what those outcomes….

What are the tangible measured outcomes for this money?

Ride-hailing. It’s available everywhere else in the world. In

2018, a year after the NDP had promised ride-hailing, I had the

privilege to visit my spouse’s family in Portugal. Uber was everywhere.

One of our Uber drivers we got into a great conversation with…. Turns

out he was a brand-new lawyer, just graduated from law school, and he

student loans. Why is this so possible in every other area of the world,

yet we seem to just have our feet in quicksand here in B.C.?

this side of the House and the B.C. Liberals. It’s one of the things

that’s given me such confidence in who we are, in me and my ability to

because we have had a record of supporting initiatives, plans, actions

that have really impacted people’s lives. We do believe that expanding

considered, that this is something that we’re talking about in the

House.

But we don’t want just talk. We want action. We want change. We

something that members on this side of the House — maybe not me, because

I’ve only been here for a couple of years, but many of our members who

have been here much longer than I in government — have had the privilege

to change the trajectory and, yes, be educated by those members that

was first created and the first Parliamentary Secretary for

Officer for Canada was chosen. So I have to commend the B.C. Liberals

for the calibre of our advocacy, for the calibre of our actions, for the

calibre of our change, because it has been noticed not only in B.C. but

in Canada, on a world stage.

While my friend and colleague from Kelowna West has gone through a

comprehensive list…. I won’t take us through the full list, but I will

correctly and if it is detailed in a way that makes those outcomes

possible. But if not, it will simply become one more of the plans or

committees or conversations that the member for Chilliwack

mentioned.

Hopefully, it will actually become part of the action or activity

that has been a part of the B.C. Liberal government. Things like

supporting employment opportunities and financial security for people

with disabilities. Things like simplifying the disability assistance

application process. Action, significant action, that actually changes

[3:50 p.m.]

Also, technology at work has already provided assistive

technologies to more than 316 people — tangible action changing

someone’s life. I can assure you that if Bill 40 does that, it will be

tangible action that will absolutely affect someone that needs

My hope is that as we get into the details, as we get into

committee stage and as we get into the questions and answers, we’ll see

what outcomes we can count on, what outcomes will be measured and what

outcomes will actually be part of this bill’s promotion, because if it’s

not, then all we have is a fee being collected into a pot that has not

yet done anything, which is exactly where we are today.

Hon. N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to stand in support of this legislation because of

the effects it will have on our transportation system and the benefits

that will be derived by those who require vehicles that are accessible

to deal with various mobility challenges. I think it speaks to our

ongoing efforts as a government to further our work to make British

Columbia a more accessible province, work that started as soon as we

were elected with changes to income support programs and changes to

legislation.

In fact, the introduction and the passing of the Accessible B.C.

Act, something that had been called for by members of the public for a

considerable amount of time before we finally got elected…. We

secretariat, which I think is extremely pleased with the work that we’re

continuing to do to make British Columbia a more accessible place for

everyone.

This is important — that in the area of transportation, people who

require transportation, in terms of ride-hailing or taxis, have the

ability to access those vehicles that are modified. They’re expensive to

maintain.

With the new platforms for ride-hailing, we’ve seen a reduction in

the proportion of vehicles that are accessible, and this is an important

step towards addressing that lack. Drivers who have vehicles that are

modified spend more on the upkeep and maintenance required. We’re trying

to ensure that there’s an incentive and that there are supports to those

drivers to continue offering essential transportation services to

individuals in British Columbia.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that despite what the

previous member was saying about the accomplishments of the B.C.

Liberals, we have to remember that it was the B.C. Liberals that did a

review of everyone who was in receipt of disability. Over 4,000 people

had to resubmit all their forms in order to prove that they continued to

have a disability.

That caused great stress and anxiety and grief among British

Columbians. It was a mean-spirited act that was then followed by ten

years of absolutely no increase to the B.C. disability assistance rates.

When they finally did go up $62, they implemented a bus pass fee that

clawed 80 percent of that back.

I think that the record of the B. C. Liberals on this file was not

something to be proud of. I’m glad that we’ve passed the Accessible B.C.

Act, which has the support of members of the community from all across

British Columbia. It signifies our commitment to ensure that British

Columbia has a straightforward and careful and comprehensive approach to

[3:55 p.m.]

The legislation is being implemented with the assistance of

members of the community and various disability rights

organizations.

I would also point out that in terms of disability supports, we’ve

extended the period of time that people live together before being

considered a couple. The B.C. Liberals said it was three months. We’ve

extended that to a year. We’ve expanded the earning exemptions for

people with disabilities.

I would be the first to agree that more work needs to be done.

There is never any doubt about that. That work is being done by this

government, and I think the legislation before us today is evidence of

that. We are confident that this will accomplish the goal of increasing

the number of vehicles that are available to people who require mobility

vehicles that are accessible.

I think that the questions that members opposite have are

obviously going to be asked during committee stage. I’m sure the

Minister of Transportation will be able to provide reassuring answers,

and we will see continued support for this legislation. I expect it to

be in effect as soon as practicable and that we will increase the amount

of transportation options available to people wherever they live in

British Columbia.

With that, I’m happy to support this legislation, and I’m glad to

see that members on the other side have been indicating support.

Misrepresenting, perhaps, their record in government, but that’s part of

the job of opposition: to try to let people in the province forget about

their previous actions. But it’s part of our responsibility to ensure

that people don’t forget and that they can see actions being taken now,

and those actions are ones that will help the community.

T. Halford: I want to thank the previous speakers before me and especially the

member for Chilliwack. I’ll speak on his words in a second.

I will point out this, because I think it’s important. The

previous speaker, the Minister of Social Development, made some remarks,

and I will point out very clearly that it is this NDP government that is

taking away funds from children with autism and clawing that back —

money that families need, families deserve and families have fought for.

When I have to stand in the rain with parents day in and day out, and

this minister, this cabinet, this Premier will not meet with them…. I

think it’s absolutely shameful for this minister to get up and tout

their record. This minister should speak….

Interjection.

T. Halford: This minister can ramble on all he wants, but at the end of the

day, he just sawed off his political attack. And I will say one thing.

If this minister has the courage to stand in front of parents of

children with autism and listen to their concerns, then maybe that would

be a good start.

Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member that we are speaking to Bill

Thank you to the other members who gave input, but the Chair is

quite aware of what we’re discussing.

T. Halford: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll speak to the bill.

I think it’s important that we stand up for individuals with

the remarks from the member for Chilliwack, and it was an important

conversation that he was having in this House. The fact that he suffered

an injury like he did trying to get access to transportation, I think,

first time I heard that story, and it was obviously a very traumatic

experience that that he endured. That is truly, truly

unfortunate.

I will say that my friend and my former colleague the member for

Surrey South, Stephanie Cadieux, was transformational in what she fought

was attempting to dissuade people of that notion.

[4:00 p.m.]

Knowing that former member as well as I do and watching her enter

this House in 2009 and the changes that happened within this House

because of her presence…. Then we had other members on both sides of the

building is better because of it.

I think those are important steps. I don’t think…. You know,

titles are important, but Stephanie did not need a title behind her name

to make that change. That’s a change that she’s going to fight for every

single day. She’s, obviously, got a massive platform where she is right

now to make those changes. I think members on both sides of the House

will do everything possible to support her on that.

The member from Chilliwack spoke about Whistler. I think the

previous UBCM, in 2022, was in Whistler.

A UBCM before that, a couple of years ago…. I was there in my

previous life. I was attending a reception that the former member for

Surrey South couldn’t attend. She couldn’t get her chair in. I think a

number of her colleagues and, I think, my colleague to my immediate

right made the decision that they were going to support her and also not

attend that reception. I don’t think that there was any ill towards the

organizers. I just think that it wasn’t properly thought out.

I can tell you the amount of times that the former member had

issues with hotels when she was travelling for Public Accounts or the

Finance Committee, being in very remote areas of this province and

having to wait hours for transportation, if that transportation even

existed. In many cases, she would wait a couple of hours and then find

out it did not exist. She was then forced to, with assistance, try and

find other means.

As we’ve heard before from the previous speaker from Chilliwack,

those other means can be quite dangerous, whether you’re having to, all

of a sudden, then modify…. I know in Stephanie’s case, she was trying to

assist herself into a car that wasn’t manufactured or altered for

where you are in the province, that an individual with those challenges

should be facing.

If we look at all of our communities…. In every community, there

In my riding — I’ll focus on White Rock for a second — we have a

lot of seniors that have mobility issues. One of the challenges that

they had, when it was time for them to get their vaccinations at the

South Surrey recreational centre, was…. There was not adequate public

transportation to that facility, and they were using

ride-hailing.

When you’re dealing with seniors that are going to get

vaccinations…. It was, obviously, a very apprehensive time for them to

go, given the current circumstances. This is another added layer of

stress. It’s another added layer of cost.

I think something we all have to consider when dealing with our

constituents is the challenges that they face, day in and day out, in

terms of how they are going to access British Columbia. I think that

this legislation…. This Bill 40 is, hopefully, an attempt to get to a

better place.

When we have communities…. We talk about the importance of

inclusivity. We really have to take a step back and think about what

that means. It means that there’s a place for all.

When you think about the stress and having to not be able to be as

spontaneous as one would like…. I know, from having friends that have

that, that you can’t all of a sudden make a decision that you want to go

out in downtown Vancouver and hail a taxi. That’s a

challenge.

[4:05 p.m.]

That’s one where you almost have to have that planned out a day in

advance or hours in advance. How are you going to access…? How are you

going to get to different things, whether it’s a concert, a football

game, a Canucks game or your child’s play at school?

It’s not only the individual that has to take this on; it’s also

the family. I remember four years ago. It was my son Ben’s birthday. At

that time, both my grandparents were able to live at home, but they were

in wheelchairs. We were able to, the day before, make sure that we had

ordered a wheelchair-assisted vehicle and for a specific time. They also

lived in South Surrey, but that vehicle was 45 minutes late. Then you

have to have a specific time when they’re going to get picked up. Again,

it actually was worse, as the vehicle didn’t show up. We were then in a

position where we had to get my grandparents and safely get them into

another car.

It’s a very, very unfortunate event that I think British

Columbians deal with day in and day out that we don’t fully realize.

It’s something, I think, that’s vitally important when we’re talking

about transportation. People need to be able to access all areas of this

pro