2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, November 17, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 9

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: I wish to introduce a number of guests who are here to witness the introduction today of the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (“Holodomor”) Memorial Day Act, which will be introduced shortly.

The guests are as follows: Mir Huculak, the honorary consul of Ukraine in Vancouver; Stanley Osobik; Bryan Melnyk; Robert Herchak; Laura Walsh; Prof. Paul Thomas; Mary Ann Pylypchuk; Nadia Schulha, who is an actual survivor of the Holodomor; Anatoly Ciacka, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress of British Columbia; Mr. Roman Kowalchuk; Ivanka Maik; Kathy Miske; Gladys Andreas; Caroline Smudy; Alec Rossa; Olga Zachary; and Peter Zachary. I ask the House to make them all welcome.

L. Throness: It gives me great pleasure to welcome family to the House today. My brother Trevor has been spending the weekend in Victoria along with his wife, Jennifer, my nieces Julia and Ella, and my nephews Sam and Will. Will the House please make my beloved family welcome.

[1335]

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d like to join the member for Surrey-Whalley in welcoming the delegation from Ukraine. Especially, in the members gallery this afternoon we have the honorary consul of Ukraine, Mir Huculak, who I’ve gotten to know over the last couple of years. We are very pleased that the honorary consul is able to join us in Victoria and meet with members of government this afternoon to continue to grow the relationship between British Columbia and Ukraine.

Would the House please extend a warm welcome to the honorary consul.

C. Trevena: I hope that the House will make welcome Beat Steiner from the West Chilcotin Tourism Association, who is also a board member for Save the Discovery Coast Ferry. Beat has run Tweedsmuir Park Lodge for more than ten years. I hope the House will make him very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: As many members are aware, November is Diabetes Awareness Month. It is an opportunity to reflect on the impact this disease has on over 400,000 British Columbians.

In the gallery today are representatives from the Canadian Diabetes Association. They’re here to witness the proceedings. I’d like the House to welcome Penny Murray, who is the branch coordinator of Vancouver Island for the association, and Krista Marshinski and Susannah Feeney, who are volunteers with the association. Please join me in welcoming them to the House here today.

Hon. A. Virk: Today I’m happy to introduce three members of the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C. who represent thousands of technology professionals. It is one of B.C.’s largest self-regulating associations. CEO John Leech started with them in 1974 when they had 1,000 members, and they have over 10,000 members today.

I’d also like to introduce David Sparanese, who is a street operations manager for the district of Saanich. He’s one of the council members with ASTTBC. Also in attendance in the precinct today is Sarah Campden, who is a civil technologist for Herold Engineering and is a council member. I was honoured to be at the ASTTBC annual awards dinner, and Herold Engineering was recognized as one of the employers of the year.

Would the House please join me in making these three guests welcome.

D. Routley: I’d like to have the House help me welcome a constituent, Larry McCoy. Larry is a new resident of B.C., relatively — the last couple of years. He’s retired out here. He was born in Hamilton and grew up there. He tells me that it’s okay to live in Hamilton because you’re close to Toronto, but you still know what it means to work for a living and have dirt under your fingernails. Apologies on Larry’s behalf to all those from Toronto, but that’s the view from Hamilton.

Larry was a Toronto police officer and an Ontario Provincial Police officer. In retirement in B.C., he is a dedicated volunteer of the Ladysmith Search and Rescue and is a really pleasant addition to our community. So I’d like the House to help me to welcome Mr. Larry McCoy to the B.C. Legislature.

D. Barnett: Today in the House we have some very special people from the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the best place on earth. We have with us today Pat and Juanita Corbett, who are the owners of the famous, renowned 108 Hills Guest Ranch. They have just received an award. It was in London that they received this award. It was the World Travel Market in London, England, as part of the world Wellness Travel Awards presented by Spafinder, Inc., of New York. The award was Top Spa for People on a Budget, in recognition of excellence in delivering health and wellness programs and services.

With them today they have an employee, Heidi Hapalo, who’s been there forever, who is their righthand lady, who makes sure that everything is on time and is just wonder-
[ Page 5326 ]
ful at this spa. I would like the House to help me welcome them here today and thank them for all they do.

With them today is another lady, who is from Oak Bay. Shawna Walker is the co-owner, with her husband Kevin Walker of the Oak Bay Beach Hotel and spa in Oak Bay. I would ask the House to also welcome her here today.

[1340]

G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to join the Minister of Advanced Education in welcoming John Leech and the other representatives of ASTTBC. I, as well as the minister, was at their awards banquet. The best part of the recognition awards is hearing the stories of the recipients about the course of their career, the discoveries they’ve made, the building of different parts of the economy that depend on applied science technologists and technicians.

I’m sure everybody joins me and the minister in welcoming them here today.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: In the House today we have a special guest, Alexandria Mitchell. Alex is a recent UBC political science grad who is very passionate about the environment and Canadian parliamentary traditions. She’s a regular visitor to Victoria, I think because of a certain political staffer in my office. I’m glad she was able to make it today to join us for QP. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M207 — UKRAINIAN FAMINE
AND GENOCIDE (“HOLODOMOR”)
MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 2014

B. Ralston presented a bill intituled Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (“Holodomor”) Memorial Day Act, 2014.

B. Ralston: I move that a bill intituled the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (“Holodomor”) Memorial Day Act, 2014, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

B. Ralston: This bill recognizes the famine and genocide that killed millions of Ukrainians in the winter of 1932 and 1933, during the period of forced collectivization in the Soviet Union. This tragedy — as many as ten million Ukrainians died, one-third of whom were children — is known as the Holodomor in the Ukrainian language. The name is derived from two Ukrainian words: holod, meaning hunger, starvation or famine; and moryty, to induce suffering, to kill.

The Holodomor was set in motion because the Soviet leadership at the time feared the national awakening of Ukrainians and their aspirations for cultural expression and an independent state. Survivors of the Holodomor have emigrated to British Columbia and made a positive contribution to British Columbia society. Some of them join us in the gallery today.

The government of the Ukraine; the Parliament of Canada; the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec; UNESCO; the United Nations; the United States House of Representatives and the Senate; the European Parliament; and many other jurisdictions worldwide have officially condemned the Holodomor or recognized it as a genocide.

This bill will proclaim the fourth Saturday in November of each year Holodomor memorial day to remember those who perished as victims of the Holodomor. I seek the support from all sides of the House in recognizing this tragic episode of Ukrainian history.

I therefore move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M207, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (“Holodomor”) Memorial Day Act, 2014, 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)

DIABETES AWARENESS

P. Pimm: I’d like today to celebrate Diabetes Month. Did you know that there are close to 400,000 British Columbians, about 6 percent, or nearly two million Canadians and nearly 5 percent of the world’s population who have this disease?

This disease does not care who it attacks, with nearly 2 percent of all British Columbians under the age of 45 and 15 percent of all adults over the age 55 being affected. There are some races that have a greater chance of being affected by diabetes than others, but nobody is safe.

Over this past year I became diabetic myself. After I had my cancer surgery, I had to take follow-up chemo treatments, and chemo triggered my diabetes. The next thing I knew, I was in intensive care with a blood-sugar level that doctors in my community had never seen previously. I had a blood-sugar count that measured 90.4. My kidneys and pancreas completely shut down, and things got a little tense for a few days.

But we’re extremely fortunate, as diabetes can be monitored and controlled with proper diet, regular testing and proper insulin tablets or injections. British Columbia has 13 effective treatments for the management of diabetes. There are nine oral medications and five classes of insulin, as well as vials, cartridges for pumps and pens being covered by PharmaCare.
[ Page 5327 ]

Our ministries have recently worked together to develop standards to support children with type 1 diabetes in our schools. These standards include additional training and information about how to care for children with diabetes in a school setting, as well as special care plans for students in the task of administering insulin and glucose monitoring.

[1345]

By providing access to high-quality, specialized care and promoting the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, we’re helping British Columbians with diabetes to live healthier, stronger, longer and better lives.

LOCAL ELECTIONS

S. Robinson: This weekend I was reminded of the well-known introduction to a sports television show: “Spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of sport, the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, the human drama of athletic competition, this is ABC’s Wide World of Sports.”

Here in British Columbia this past Saturday we could have had an introduction that went something like this, “Spanning the province of British Columbia to bring you the constant variety of campaigns, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, the human drama of British Columbia local elections, this is B.C.’s world of local election results” — words that are all too familiar to those of us glued to the local election results this is past Saturday.

With 162 local municipalities, 27 regional districts, 60 school boards and two parks boards going to the polls, there was plenty of drama to witness. There were winners, and there were losers. I wanted to take this time to offer congratulations to those who managed to win a seat at their community decision-making table.

To those who won, they now have the responsibility to make decisions on behalf of their neighbours. There will be days ahead when they will wonder why they ever thought it was a good idea to put their name on a ballot.

Representing your community is not about making friends. It’s about understanding the community, understanding the opportunities and challenges that lay ahead and making the decisions that make sense in that context. I wish all of the new elected officials wisdom, thoughtfulness and patience in whatever tasks lay ahead of them.

Of course, there were those who did not win a seat at that table. I think we ought to thank them for taking the risk, for putting themselves out there on behalf of their communities. We, collectively, are stronger when we have good people interested in serving others. When a choice of leadership is put out in front of us, then we have an opportunity to participate in democracy.

Our democracy is strengthened because people decided to put their names on a ballot and to engage their neighbours in conversation about the community that they call home. We are better, stronger communities because people decided to put their name on a ballot. I want to thank them all for contributing to our democratic process and wish them well with their new responsibilities.

GULF OF GEORGIA CANNERY

J. Yap: Steveston was home to a major canning centre for salmon at the mouth of the south arm of the Fraser River on the southwest tip of Lulu Island. Back in 1894 the Gulf of Georgia Cannery, the leading producer of canned salmon and the largest plant in British Columbia, was situated in Steveston village.

Fast-forward 100 years, the cannery remains open, this site having been preserved, maintained and promoted by the Gulf of Georgia Cannery Society in partnership with Parks Canada, which is the society’s major funder. The cannery has hosted numerous tours and educational programs to individuals, families, schools and other groups, including creating annual feature exhibitions related to fishing history, and producing unique events such as the Cannery Farmers Market. In 2013 there were over 45,000 visits to the site.

I’m very glad that our government has been supporting the society through the community gaming grant program. For example, in August of this year the society received a $10,000 gaming grant to support a feature exhibit describing changes in salmon habitat in five of B.C.’s major rivers over the past 150 years. The exhibit will use interactive technology to allow visitors to learn about differences in the rivers’ ecology, economy and cultural use over time.

I’m very proud of the great work of the Gulf of Georgia Cannery Society and wish to thank current chair Dave Semple and his team, all the directors, staff and volunteers — in particular, past chairs such as Lorne Slye, Ralph Turner, Bruce Livingston, Bud Sakamoto, Joe Bauer and Audrey Matheson — for their contributions to protecting and promoting this important cultural asset of British Columbia.

Lastly, I encourage all members to visit the site during the coming Christmas season. Check out its gift shop, which features a wide selection of unique souvenirs and heritage-related merchandise to help to fundraise for the society.

VICTORIA COOL AID SOCIETY
AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

L. Popham: I rise to speak on the accomplishments of the Cool Aid Society. As is well-known in this House, the Cool Aid Society is the lead organization in the capital region helping homeless people. At the moment Cool Aid is providing 374 supportive housing apartments and shelter for over 1,700 people every year. Cool Aid does tremendous work, and its staff and supporters have our heartfelt thanks.
[ Page 5328 ]

[1350]

One of Cool Aid’s remarkable success stories is Olympic Vista located in Saanich South. It was completed in 2011 and provides long-term supportive housing for 36 seniors who have struggled with homelessness. I visited the site last week, and I was so impressed by the staff that work at Olympic Vista because they are dedicated to ensuring that this is not just a facility addressing a serious problem but a safe, welcoming home with access to the help and the respect that these residents require to thrive and make their housing situation successful.

One feature that Olympic Vista has incorporated is something I found quite remarkable and very innovative. In the basement they have created a bedbug sauna. The new residents have all of their possessions baked in the sauna before they move in. This feature not only kills bedbugs using heat instead of toxic chemicals, but it allows residents to deal with a physically and psychologically disturbing problem in a respectful and efficient way. Features like this add to the success of Olympic Vista.

Looking the other way while a person lives on the streets costs taxpayers, on average, $54,000 per year — in large part because of hospital and other emergency services. Cool Aid can get people off the streets, house them safely and give them a chance to turn their lives around for less than $37,000 a year. That means that on average, every homeless person who Cool Aid helps saves the taxpayer $18,000 a year.

Homelessness remains a crisis. I thank Cool Aid for their work and wish them success on their next project in the capital region, Cottage Grove. It’s shovel-ready. It has significant financial and community support. From what I’ve heard, I think the provincial government is interested in partnering financially as well.

RESTORATION OF
CHINOOK SALMON IN BROTHERS CREEK

R. Sultan: Here’s a riddle for you: what swims by a few steps from your MLA door and can easily climb up to the Hollyburn ski area half a mile high? A chinook salmon, of course, in Brothers Creek, a tributary of the Capilano.

On the North Shore we’ve gotten used to seeing dolphins playing in Howe Sound, killer whales exploring Burrard Inlet and even whales nosing around Gambier — tributes to this government’s cleanup of the Britannia mine, careful marine spills practices and sensitive development by organizations such as British Pacific Properties, under the watchful eyes of almost 1,000 streamkeepers in my community.

That all helps us now see chinook salmon where they’ve really — within memory at least — never been seen before — great big ones. It makes headlines in the North Shore News. Reporter Brent Richter recently described how John Barker, who leads the West Vancouver Streamkeepers, could hardly restrain his jubilation over the big run of chinook working their way up Brothers to Hadden almost onto the Capilano Golf Club grounds.

Behind Har El on Taylor Way, which I’m sure many of you drive by regularly, he discovered five chinook that you could watch while you’re in there at the synagogue at worship. Above Highway 1 he found 32 chinook and on Stevens Drive, between multi-million-dollar homes and a very busy high-traffic school, another 20 chinook. This is unprecedented. We should all be very proud. Give it half a chance, and nature will do the rest.

DIABETES AWARENESS

J. Darcy: I’d like to join the minister and the member opposite in acknowledging Diabetes Awareness Month. This year the Canadian Diabetes Association has issued a challenge to all of us. “Don’t be risky” is the theme of their awareness campaign, and they’re urging all of us to go on line at dontberisky.ca and take a simple test to check out our personal risk factors for diabetes. I did it this morning. It only takes a minute.

As 400,000 British Columbians are already living with diabetes, it touches every single one of us, as we’ve already heard today. Thousands more have the disease but don’t know it — one in 33 British Columbians. If diabetes is not detected early, it can lead to life-threatening complications like chronic kidney disease, heart attack and stroke, blindness, foot problems and even amputation. Diabetes is often called a silent killer, because it is. But the good news is that diabetes can be treated, and type 2 diabetes can be prevented.

[1355]

Anyone over the age of 40 should be tested for diabetes every three years, but if you have one or more risk factors — like high blood pressure or high cholesterol, or a parent or a sibling with the disease — you should be tested more often. The earlier you’re diagnosed, the sooner you can take action to stay well.

I want to encourage everyone listening today, the thousands who listen today, to go to www.dontberisky.ca to take the test yourself, and please spread the word by sharing the page of the Diabetes Association on Facebook and using #dontberisky on Twitter. There’s a time to be a risk-taker, but when it comes to diabetes, the watchword for all of us is dontberisky.ca.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF
FERRY SERVICES REDUCTIONS ON
ECONOMY AND TOURISM INDUSTRY

J. Horgan: Twelve months ago the Minister of Transportation cut services to the Discovery coast route. There was no consultation at that time, and there was no economic impact assessment. While the minister was
[ Page 5329 ]
making that announcement, representatives from the West Chilcotin Tourism Association were, in fact, in Europe trying to drum up more business for that route and more business for the people of British Columbia.

Recently the minister said that impact assessments that had been done by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, a reputable organization in most people’s minds, were fiction and not worth the paper they were written on.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. We now have a study by the West Chilcotin Tourism Association. One would expect that the minister would have some regard for their point of view. That report shows us that ridership is halved and revenues are way down. Could the minister stand in his place and justify why he made the decision 12 months ago without any economic impact assessment?

Hon. T. Stone: I always appreciate questions from the opposition on B.C. Ferries. As I have said many times, as I’ve stood in this House in question period, through the budget estimates process and certainly out in the public domain, this government is going to continue to do everything we possibly can to drive down fares at B.C. Ferries. Now, to get to a place where B.C. Ferries is affordable and sustainable for the long term — and this may come as a big surprise for the Leader of the Opposition — tough decisions are required.

Now the route 40 that is the subject of the Leader of the Opposition’s question…. Let’s just rehash the facts here. This route loses $7.35 million per year. This route also would require a new vessel, the replacement of the Chilliwack, which was estimated at $100 million. That would bring the loss up from $7.35 million per year to between $14 million and $15 million per year.

Now, we believe that for the volumes of traffic that this route actually moved, that kind of continued and growing loss is completely unacceptable and does not help with the strategy and the call that we’re hearing from coastal communities across British Columbia, and that is: “Please do what you can to drive down fares.”

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, yes. The minister’s comments would have rang true if he said that the government was committed to driving down ridership, because they’ve been very successful at that — a 46 percent reduction over the past 12 months on the Discovery coast route, to be more precise; $3.9 million in lost tourism activity in a region that was driving, after 2006, with the creation of conservancies and the Great Bear rainforest, to create a new and robust tourism sector. In fact, the government was advertising for this route the minute they made the cut.

Again, my question to the Minister of Transportation: if, in fact, it’s true — inconceivable as it may seem to those of us who live on the Island and in coastal communities — that your intention is to drive down rates, why wouldn’t you start by tabling the economic impact assessment results that you did do before you made the cuts in the first place?

[1400]

Hon. T. Stone: Let’s be clear. The debt at B.C. Ferries right now stands at about $1.4 billion. I know the opposition doesn’t want to hear this, but the vast majority of that debt is about $532 million, which was the fast ferry program to build ferries that were never used in this province. One of the most significant cost drivers at B.C. Ferries is amortization costs relating to assets that the members opposite built but were never used by the people of British Columbia.

Now, our focus has been consistent from day one. We are going to continue to do what we can to ensure that the ferries are sustainable and that the fares are as affordable as they possibly can be. That’s why this government has invested a record level of $180 million in B.C. Ferries over the last fiscal year, and it’s why we’re going to continue to work with B.C. Ferries on a wide array of other initiatives to apply downward pressure on fares.

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

J. Horgan: Hard to know where to start, hon. Speaker. I am pleased that the minister has been let off his leash by the Government House Leader and the Premier so he can now speak his mind.

He spoke his mind last week and said that he was going to shut down ferry terminals on the Island until he heard, he said, from two members of his caucus — two Liberals. Two Liberals were able to wrestle him down.

My question: if it’s just the voices of two members of the Liberal caucus that can get one cockamamie idea taken off the table, will the minister listen to the thousands and thousands of people who are dependent on ferry services as an extension of public roadways in this province, that need these ferry systems for their economic viability? Will he listen to them, as he listened to his two measly members from Vancouver Island, and reverse the bad decisions he made on the Discovery coast?

Hon. T. Stone: I think on any day of the week, I’ll take our two measly Vancouver Island members over the entire NDP caucus.

I think it would also be instructive, perhaps, for the Leader of the Opposition to clarify yet again what appears to be a significant difference of opinion within his caucus on the ferries file.

We have heard consistently from the member for North Island, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and other members of his caucus: “Pour more
[ Page 5330 ]
money into B.C. Ferries. Raise British Columbians’ taxes if you need to in order to do that.”

Two weeks ago, when asked directly, the Leader of the Opposition poured cold water on that concept. Perhaps he could stand in this House, and he could tell British Columbians whether or not he supports his colleagues who believe that the taxes of all British Columbians should be increased so that more dollars could be put into B.C. Ferries.

C. Trevena: The minister seems to forget he’s the one who is supposed to have the answers. He is the minister in charge, who is actually destroying our services. There has been a huge economic impact, which he tries to laugh off. But it’s impacting not just the coast; it’s impacting the whole province.

This report that has come out today has found that his cuts are having an extraordinary impact on tourism in the Cariboo coast region and in my constituency of North Island. Nearly two-thirds of the operators there lost income in 2014 because of the cuts, and three-quarters expect further losses. Many fear they’re going to have to close their doors.

[1405]

Beat Steiner, the co-owner of Tweedsmuir Park Lodge in the Bella Coola Valley, is in the gallery. I introduced him earlier. I’d like the minister to explain to Beat, in a rational way if he can, and to the other tourism operators why he will stand by cuts that are costing the province money, costing people on the north Island and in the coast their jobs and ruining the tourism industry of the central coast.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, let’s get back to some facts here. I know that the member for North Island likes to speak in hyperbole and engage in all kinds of exaggerations and so forth. But the fact of the matter is that what used to be called route 40 on the straight shot from Port Hardy to Bella Coola only ever had a utilization rate of 25 to 30 percent and only moved between 500 and 600 vehicles in the season that it operated. That subsidy was $2,500 per vehicle.

Again, I appreciate that the members opposite…. Their solution is for the province to go into deficit, increase British Columbians’ taxes and pour more money into B.C. Ferries. But on this side of the House, in government, we’re opting to make the tough decisions so that B.C. Ferries is there for the long term.

Madame Speaker: Member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I can’t believe the level that this minister is going to go to, to insult the people of B.C. — not just their intelligence but generally the people of B.C.

Even if he doesn’t understand the fact that B.C. Ferries should be part of our highway system, he should understand the economic importance of them. He’s had two reports. He’s had the UBCM one, which showed the massive impact to the province as a whole. He’s had today’s one, which has shown that nearly $4 million in one year has been hit because of their action without any planning.

The minister has talked about this as a first-class tourism product. The people who travelled on the Nimpkish this summer on that product, on that 16-vehicle vessel, have given it a failing grade. We have people who have been out trying to market the central coast. What they are marketing, people don’t want to use. So I’d like to ask the minister to get his head out of the sand and stop his exaggerations and see whether he still sees this as a first-class tourism vessel.

Hon. T. Stone: Well, the member for North Island wouldn’t have a clue if this was a first-class tourism product because she’s never been on the Nimpkish. She’s never actually taken the journey.

This summer I took my young family on the journey, on the Nimpkish, the entire Discovery coast circle tour. My ten-year-old daughter, who did a travel blog each and every day of that trip, is more intimately familiar with the Nimpkish than the member for North Island is.

So let’s get real here. This government has invested a record level, $180 million, in Ferries this last fiscal year. How much did the NDP invest in Ferries in their last year in office? It was $5 million.

FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
ON FERRY SYSTEM

G. Heyman: Perhaps the minister responsible for transportation could get his facts right, because as presenters to the Finance Committee hearings in Williams Lake representing the tourism industry in the region stated, his figures on utilization and the number of vehicles don’t match B.C. Ferries’ own numbers.

[1410]

Even the Finance and Government Services Committee can unanimously agree that we need to make sure our ferries are supporting communities and tourism. In the final committee report all members agreed there’s a need to work towards a long-term strategy for the coastal ferry system that will “ensure the sustainability of coastal communities, tourism and the ferry service.” The affected communities know this is important. They’re seeing their businesses and livelihoods threatened.

Will the minister respond now to the voices of affected communities and tourism operators and act on the Finance Committee’s recommendation?

Hon. T. Stone: This government is going to continue to work as hard as we can to drive down fares at B.C. Ferries and to ensure that the ferry service is sustainable
[ Page 5331 ]
long term. Again, on route 40…. This particular analysis that the opposition has referenced from this morning leaves one very inconvenient truth out of their analysis. That is that the ferry in question, the Queen of Chilliwack, needed to be replaced, and the replacement cost on that vessel was $100 million.

Now, the amortization cost that rolls through on Ferries’ books is about $7 million per year, which would take the loss from the current $7.35 million up to about $14½ million. This was all to move about 500 or 600 vehicles on that straight shot.

This government is going to continue to make those tough decisions. That was a tough decision. From day one I said, on behalf of government, there were going to be impacts. But I want to also say that we have extended our hands to the tour operators from the Bella Coola–Williams Lake corridor. The minister of tourism has been up there and met with the operators. I’ve been up there. We invested $100,000 through Destination B.C. to assist with marketing, and we’re going to continue to work with operators.

I think a good place to start moving forward would be for those in the industry and certainly those in the opposition to stop trash-talking what is a very good tourism product.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair needs to hear the answer and the question.

IMPACT OF
FERRY SERVICES REDUCTIONS ON
ECONOMY AND TOURISM INDUSTRY

G. Heyman: I’m sure that the tourism operators in question will be disappointed after producing an economic impact analysis to hear that the minister believes they’re trash-talking.

In this House the minister recently encouraged members who raised concerns about route 40 to “help get the good word out about this service.” But a survey of ferry users travelling between Bella Bella and Bella Coola found that an overwhelming percentage would not recommend this trip to others, and the negative experiences of travellers are now appearing on major travel review websites. This level of customer dissatisfaction does not bode well for the sustainability of tourism in the region for years to come.

To the minister. His cuts created this economic mess. What is his plan to clean it up?

Hon. T. Stone: We are going to continue to attack the challenge of rising fares at B.C. Ferries in a number of different facets. This is why it was so important earlier this year to implement a series of service reductions on minor and northern routes, which we acknowledge have had some impacts on coastal communities but were very important to squeeze some underutilization out of the system.

Again, I give you an example of the utilization, which the members opposite clearly think is okay. On the Skidegate to Alliford Bay….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

[1415]

Hon. T. Stone: The Skidegate to Alliford Bay off-peak last round trip on Monday evenings, which was eliminated, had a capacity of 26 vehicles and 146 passengers. The utilization rate on that particular sailing was one vehicle and one passenger. This is an example of utilization that is not sustainable.

So yes, we’re making tough decisions, and we’re going to continue to make those tough decisions to ensure that the ferry service is there for generations to come.

B.C. PAVCO CONTRACT
WITH PARAGON GAMING

D. Eby: In 2009 PavCo issued a request for proposals to build a mega casino resort at B.C. Place. Two companies made proposals. In the middle of the one-month RFP process one of the companies decided to give their proposal an extra chance of success. Their investor and director, Richard Turner, made an unprecedented, one-time $50,000 donation to the B.C. Liberal Party. Not surprisingly, his company, a small Las Vegas–based casino developer, was chosen by PavCo to develop B.C. Place.

Does the minister responsible for B.C. Place stand behind this tendering process that selected Paragon?

Hon. T. Stone: This process, as the member should know well, was a very robust, rigorous process and very defensible. The decision that was taken by the PavCo board was one that we believe was the right decision, based on the process that the decision went through.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: I’m glad the minister is sitting so close to the Minister of Education because in March of 2013 the Minister of Education and the Minister of Justice approved a 70-year master development agreement with Paragon. The agreement halved what B.C. taxpayers could expect from Paragon from $6 million a year to $3 million a year. But despite being chair of the PavCo board at the time, the Minister of Education went on the radio
[ Page 5332 ]
and told taxpayers just before the last election that no such contract existed.

Can the minister responsible for B.C. Place explain why the Minister of Education misinformed the public about the existence of the 70-year contract between PavCo and Paragon?

Hon. T. Stone: This is, yet again, another example of the opposition playing footloose and fancy-free with timelines. At that particular point in time no decisions had been taken by the PavCo board. For the member to suggest anything other at this point is simply false.

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF
PARAGON GAMING AND
CONTRACT WITH B.C. PAVCO

S. Simpson: Paragon has only ever built two casinos in Canada. One of them was the Eagle River Casino. While Paragon promised that they would turn a profit by 2012, Eagle River was losing $1 million a month in overhead alone. Since then Paragon has filed for bankruptcy protection and left its First Nation partners with $81 million in debt. There’s an empty lot where Paragon promised a hotel.

Does the minister for B.C. Place still agree with his government’s press release that describes Paragon Gaming as one of North America’s leading destination resort developers?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, on behalf of government, I can say that I have confidence that the board at the time, as well as the board now, did its due diligence. This was and is a competent group of individuals who are discharged with exactly those types of negotiations, and we stand by the decisions that have been taken.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

[1420]

S. Simpson: Paragon’s other Canadian casino was the River Cree Casino. When things at River Cree went sideways, Paragon notified their creditors of their intention to seek bankruptcy protection after defaulting on a $111 million loan. In the ensuing mess, Paragon’s development partner spent so much on legal fees that they needed an extra $2 million from the Alberta government just to pay for lawyers.

We know this scheme with Paragon was supposed to supply the money to pay for the cost overruns on the roof. Can the minister responsible for PavCo tell the House: what due diligence did PavCo do before they signed this 70-year agreement to build a mega-casino in downtown Vancouver?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, we continue to stand behind the diligence and the decisions that the PavCo board have taken. There have been delays that have been encountered from time to time on this particular project. There are complex First Nations consultations that have had to be undertaken. There was a need to ensure that the financing was in place, and there are complexities with respect to certain requirements of the city of Vancouver.

We’re going to continue to work with PavCo and the board there as they continue to do their due diligence with Paragon on this particular project.

FUNDING AND SUPPORT FOR
ENGLISH-LANGUAGE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

K. Corrigan: Three weeks ago hundreds of students came to the Legislature to protest the end of English language programs at several B.C. colleges and universities. The minister dismissed these students’ concerns as fearmongering. Today dozens more students from Camosun College came here to tell the minister again that these programs are important.

My question to the minister is: why is the Minister of Advanced Education doing nothing to save the English language programs that help 9,000 new British Columbians every year build a life here?

Hon. A. Virk: It’s consistent behaviour that the member opposite continues to mislead the vulnerable new learners….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. A. Virk: As the member opposite certainly knows, as a result of the changes made by the federal government, they’ve changed the manner in which ESL is provided. In fact, there are over 35 organizations in British Columbia offering English language training at approximately 80 locations. The member opposite certainly can look up those 80 locations and provide that information to her constituents.

We are working continuously with universities and colleges across British Columbia to find a solution that is sustainable and equitable.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: So 9,000 students at post-secondary education institutions are going to be losing their programs, starting with VCC, in December — 9,000 students. I’m wondering what the minister expects these students are going to do once their programs wrap up. Maybe he expects them to enroll in the newly announced Vantage
[ Page 5333 ]
College at UBC, which will offer advanced education for non-English speakers.

The only problem is you can’t be a Canadian student, and students who can’t afford the $50,000 per year in tuition need not apply either. But we’re not losing Vantage College. We’re losing accessible, inclusive programs for people who live here in British Columbia.

[1425]

My question to the minister is: what are you going to do for these students, these 9,000 students a year that are losing their programming?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, the member opposite is certainly trying to bundle a number of issues. First of all, Vantage College — and the member knows this; the member absolutely knows this — is self-funded entirely by UBC based upon the tuition of international students.

The member ought to know, as well, that international students provide such an economic value to British Columbia. In fact, these international students provide an economic value to British Columbians. They provide a social value. They provide business connections.

In fact, let me read something out. Here’s something I’ve read. “They buy food. They buy alcohol” — hopefully not too much. “They pay for entertainment. They use taxis. They ride on transit. They go to grocery stores. They benefit our economy in a whole bunch of ways.” I didn’t say that. That’s the MLA for Nanaimo that said that. Maybe that side of the House could get their facts straight. You have members that support international students. The rest of these anti-immigrant views here — this is unfortunate.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

D. Eby: I rise on a point of privilege in relation to the comments of the Minister of Transportation.

Reports from Committees

D. Ashton: I have the honour to present a report by the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. This report covers the public consultations for Budget 2015.

I would move at this point in time the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

D. Ashton: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

D. Ashton: Moving the adoption of the report, I’d like to make a few brief comments. This report contains the results of the committee’s annual consultation on the next provincial budget. This year’s consultations took place over a six-week period beginning September 9. During that time we travelled across the province and held 16 public hearings in different communities. We also held video conference sessions to hear from four additional communities from the province.

In addition to the hearings, the committee invited written, video and audio submissions through our website. British Columbians could also participate by completing a short on-line survey. In total, 1,782 submissions were received. This was the largest number of submissions received by the Finance Committee since 2009.

Today’s report makes a total of 58 unanimous recommendations for the government to consider for Budget 2015, including recommendations on fiscal policy and taxation, health, education, community and social services, transportation, technology and the environment. As the Chair of the committee, I’m pleased to say that all the committees worked very collaboratively throughout our travels and the deliberations on the report.

In closing, I would like to thank the committee members for their hard work and dedication in this busy process, especially the Deputy Chair, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who unfortunately is not here today and is convalescing at home. On behalf of myself, I would like to wish her the best and a very speedy recovery.

In addition, I would like to thank the wonderful staff in the parliamentary committees office and Hansard Services. The group that represented those offices are absolutely exemplary employees of the government who are a godsend to all the committees within this government.

Last but not least, I would like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to all British Columbians who took time to participate. We have heard many excellent presentations during our travels, including a lot of thoughtful ideas for the budget of 2015.

[1430]

On behalf of the committee, Madame Speaker, I would like to thank you and everybody else for contributing to this very important report.

G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the committee Chair’s motion on behalf of the opposition members of the committee and, in particular, the Deputy Chair, who’s unable to be with us this afternoon.

First of all, I’d like to join with the committee Chair in thanking the staff from the Committee Clerk’s office and from Hansard, who did just tremendous work during the committee hearings as well as helping us with the background material and the assembling of the themes that we heard throughout our travels around the prov-
[ Page 5334 ]
ince. That came in on line and in other formats. Without them, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to complete this task.

I also want to thank all members of the committee, from both sides of this House, for making the committee work. I think in our travels around the province we had discussions — during the hearings, aside from the hearings, during travel time and other times and of course when we were entering deliberations. It was useful to have the time to hear and explore each other’s perspectives, particularly as they related to the very significant and heartfelt submissions that we heard around the province.

I’d also like to particularly thank the public, the groups and the organizations for their very thoughtful recommendations to the committee, for their descriptions of the activity in their communities and the kinds of things that made a difference in the lives of their families, their neighbours and in their communities. It certainly gave us a lot to think about.

It’s useful to note, as the committee Chair has, that we received 1,782 submissions this year. That is almost a 250 percent increase over the previous year.

I encourage members of this House as well as the public to read the report, the description of the submissions as well as the recommendations. I encourage the Finance Minister to look very carefully at the recommendations. They reflect the views of the public. They reflect the experience and the needs and the wants of the public. They reflect the views of the committee, as the Chair has pointed out, unanimously through the recommendations.

Motion approved.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

E. Foster: I rise to reserve my right on a point of privilege.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call committee stage of Bill 5, the Container Trucking Act.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — CONTAINER TRUCKING ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On section 1.

C. Trevena: I’ve got a few questions in the definitions section, Minister. A number seem to be defined as we go through the legislation, so I’m not going to pick up my questions about the definitions here. Hopefully, if that’s okay, when we get them in the various parts of the legislation, we can get a bit more clarity. But I did want to ask a few questions here.

We have, in “Definitions” 1, “‘container’…meaning prescribed in the regulations.” Could the minister talk…? That is, as we go through the bill, I’m going to be referring back and forth a lot. There’s a lot that seems to come up in regulations, so I’m going to be looking for a bit of clarity as we go through, whether it’s the right time to be asking the question.

But where it says “‘container’…meaning prescribed in the regulations,” could the minister explain what that means?

Hon. T. Stone: This particular definition, the definition of “container,” which is going to be prescribed in the regulation…. The intent here is for government, through regulation, to make the definition consistent with the definition of “container” as it’s applicable at the port of Metro Vancouver.

The port of Metro Vancouver has a definition that from time to time could potentially change. We want to make sure that the definition of a container for the purposes of this act, considering it involves the port of Metro Vancouver…. We want to make sure that there’s consistency between the two. We’re leaving this to regulation so that we can ensure that it’s absolutely consistent with the port of Metro Vancouver’s definition.

[1440]

C. Trevena: Then why couldn’t the legislation have just said “as is defined by Port Metro Vancouver”? Or is this because it’s going to be different if we’re talking about another location?

Hon. T. Stone: No, we’re not contemplating this being applicable to any other locations or being different than the definition that Port Metro Vancouver has for container at any given time.

It’s important that we get this right, and that’s why we’re working very hard on this particular regulation — and a number of others which I’m sure we’re going to get into in our discussion this afternoon — with industry, with the port and other stakeholders.

C. Trevena: That does raise a point to me. I know there was an urgency in getting this legislation forward and everything that happened in the spring to get the truckers together and moving on with this. We’ve got the Ready-Bell report. But there do seem to be a lot of question marks around it. I’m wondering whether that is because we just have the haste to get something tabled and that
[ Page 5335 ]
we’re going to be filling in the blanks, or LGIC is going to be filling in the blanks, as things go along.

Hon. T. Stone: It’s a very good question that the member has posed, and the simple explanation is this. The action that we’re taking here with this piece of legislation is intended to represent our effort to enable and be complementary with the actions that the federal government and the port are undertaking with respect to the reform of the TLS system.

The port of Metro Vancouver has recently released the criteria through which the granting of new licences under the new TLS system that they’re developing will be granted. They are in draft form. They’re working on those points of criteria with the stakeholders, not the least of which are truckers. They’ve had a number of meetings with the various trucking groups to solicit feedback, and they will continue to be working on that through November and December is my understanding.

We were not able to be, nor did we feel it was desirous to be, overly prescriptive in this piece of legislation, understanding that a lot of what we put in place legislatively here in British Columbia really turns on where the federal government goes and where the port of Metro Vancouver goes with respect to their downsizing of the licence piece.

Once they’ve got that sorted out, we believe we’ve provided maximum flexibility from a regulatory perspective to ensure that our legislative piece is as complementary and enabling as it possibly can be.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Minister. I hope this — because of the evolution and whether we’re putting the cart before the horse — is all going to mesh together, and it’s not going to end up meaning that there are going to be lots of amendments later on or changes to the act.

But there is the concern that there’s so much in regulation that there’s a lot that isn’t defined. I’ll just move on a little bit, and maybe we can get some more clarity. I think some is, as the minister is talking about, what is already being discussed between the stakeholders and the port.

Still in the licences, I wondered what the…. We can start off with licensee. What is a deemed licence?

[1445]

Hon. T. Stone: I’m happy to answer the question at this point. This is somewhat jumping ahead, but by dealing with it now, maybe we don’t need to deal with it when we get to section 17. That’s the section that deals with the trucking authorization deemed to be a licence.

Really, at high level, this is what’s going to happen. The port of Metro Vancouver, supported by the federal government, is engaged in an exercise of right-sizing the fleet and reforming the truck licence system that is currently the responsibility of the port of Metro Vancouver. As they work through those efforts — at some point between, I would hazard to guess, early to mid-December and some point in January — there will come a point in time where those efforts will, from the perspective of PMV and the federal government, be concluded.

The starting point for the provincial commissioner, the container trucking commissioner, in assuming responsibility for not just rates but licences would be for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, through regulation, to point to the new licences that have been created under the reformed truck licence system that the port is working on now — to essentially point to those licences and deem those licences to be provincial licences.

Now, we have purposefully left this to regulation because we’ve made it very clear to the port and to the federal government that the province will not be assuming responsibility for those licences until the province is satisfied that the work that the port is undertaking — in terms of reducing the overall number of trucks serving the port — is actually completed. That’s heavy lifting. That is the responsibility of the port and the federal government.

I’m pleased to say that by all accounts to this point it would appear that that work is well underway. The truckers are very much engaged. While I think that there continues to be a spirited exchange of ideas and concerns — rightfully so — I think good progress is being made on that. That would enable us through the next two months to get to a place where the independent provincial commissioner will assume responsibility for the licences. Again, that would happen through order-in-council.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. Then to make things easier, if I can be quite straightforward, should I be discussing in section 17 about the licence? Would the minister prefer it? Secondly, would it be in section 17 that we are, then, discussing the reduction in licences — losing those extra 500 licences — and how that is proceeding?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, we’re really talking about section 17 here, but that’s fine.

[1450]

The province has no intention of engaging in a discussion or debate in regard to the minute details of the truck licence reform process which is underway on the federal side. Without question, 110 percent, that’s a federal responsibility. That’s a port responsibility. Thankfully, the federal government and the port have stepped up. They’ve taken it on, and they are working through their reforms.

Once they are finished that work — which we, again, expect at some point on this side of Christmas or shortly on the other side of Christmas — assuming it’s to our satisfaction, we will then, through order-in-council, empower the independent provincial commissioner to assume the reformed truck licence system from the federal government and the port. Concurrent with the provincial regulation, the federal government will be bringing
[ Page 5336 ]
in federal regulation that would essentially point the TLS system to the new provincial regulation, once we have actually brought that in.

C. Trevena: The linkages. Yes. I did ask the minister whether I should ask these questions in section 17, so I’ll move on and pick up some of them in section 17, because I know that in my list of questions I have definitely some for there.

But if I can carry on, just a couple more questions in the definitions section. Again, the question of a licensee. It’s defined as “means a person who holds a licence.” Is this also the use of “person” in the sense that the person can also be a company? Or is this specifically an individual?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. The member is correct. The word “person” here is intended to represent a person in law or a company.

C. Trevena: It’d be nice if it’s all so easy, wouldn’t it?

We now get to the definition of “trucker.” We have quite a long definition here, three parts: “(a) a person who has an ownership interest or a leasehold interest in a vehicle…(b) an employee, within the meaning of the Employment Standards Act…and (c) a person who drives a vehicle described in paragraph (a) on behalf of (i) a licensee, or (ii) a person referred to in paragraph (a).”

I wonder if the minister can clarify how this works, the relationship between the owner-operators and the employee drivers. Is it once more, because we’re talking about “person” in the legal sense, that it is a corporate person rather than an individual? I wonder if the minister could just clarify a little bit about what the single definition of “trucker” is.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. This definition of “trucker,” by breaking it out into the three different subcomponents, is intended to capture the full scope or full gamut of the different types of realities that come into play with respect to truckers. In sub (a), really, that language is intended to reflect owner-operators. Sub (b) is intended to reflect employees of trucking companies. Sub (c) is intended to reflect the situation of a subcontracted individual who works for an owner-operator. It’s not a hugely common scenario, but it does exist in the sector.

Between the owner-operator, the employee of the company and the subcontractor of an owner-operator, we think we’ve got an all-encompassing definition here of the word “trucker.”

[1455]

C. Trevena: Thank you for that. Owner-operators are often contractors, so they’re providing labour and equipment. They’re responsible for expenses, and the drivers are not. While we’re using the one definition for “trucker” here, which is subdivided for clarity, when we’re in the rest of the legislation as is before us, we’re still using just the single word “trucker,” although we are talking about three very different employment practices.

I’m wondering whether the minister is concerned that that is going to cause confusion, because we are talking about owner-operators, about contractors and about individual truckers and how we are, as we go through this, going to be separating out those individual roles. I notice in the legislation we just do talk about the single definition “trucker.”

Hon. T. Stone: We have considered the question that the member posed, and legislative counsel is of the opinion that the way this is structured is that it’s broad in its application and, therefore, is all-encompassing as you work through the different areas where the definition “trucker” is applicable through the act. Having it in the definition section written the way it is provides for all of the different potential scenarios.

So no, we don’t believe that this poses any challenges or conflicts and certainly stand behind the official recommendation of legislative counsel on the wording as is.

C. Trevena: As we go through the legislation and as the legislation is implemented, if there’s any question for “trucker,” it’s going to be: what does trucker mean in this specific instance? It will then be referred back to the definition, and it could be any of these three but not necessarily all three definitions at once.

I’m just thinking that one of the big issues, obviously, is rates, as well as licences, and the rates are going to be, possibly, different for these. So how that will play out — it will always be referred back to this definition and the interpretation of this definition.

Hon. T. Stone: The short answer is yes. The member is correct. I can’t help myself but to give a slightly longer answer. When it comes to rates — and the member is absolutely on point — through the regulation that will be developed, the regulation will break the truckers out into the different categories in terms of the rates that are applicable to each of those different categories. That’s just one example, but that will be dealt with through regulation.

C. Trevena: I think that as we go through, if the minister is happy with this, we might have some questions about what trucker means in separate sections, and we might be able to clarify a bit there, particularly when we do get to the rates section.

I know my colleague from Surrey-Newton has a couple of questions on the definitions. But I just wanted to ask…. Wait-time remuneration is, again, defined by regulation. So I’m wondering what this is going to be.

This is one of the issues that, obviously, was very cen-
[ Page 5337 ]
tral to the recent dispute. The fact that it is being put to regulation rather than getting some greater clarity here I think is a potential matter of concern, so I’m wondering if the minister can explain again why it is being put by regulation and what it might be. As I say, it was very central to what happened earlier this year.

[1500]

Hon. T. Stone: On this particular piece, the whole question of wait-time remuneration, the province and certainly the independent commissioner, once that office is established, will not be engaged in establishing requirements related to wait-time remuneration. As the member knows well, the whole issue of wait times really involves access to the port, and therefore, it’s entirely determined by the port and port action, as a result.

What we have determined is important, as we bring this legislation forward, is that if there is a wait-time remuneration component attached to the truck licence — which, we understand, there likely will be — then through provincial regulation, within the context of compensation and rates, we’re going to make sure that it’s crystal clear that 100 percent of the wait-time remuneration that has been deemed to be owed to a particular owner-operator must flow directly to that owner-operator.

H. Bains: Just a couple of general questions before we get into the definitions. I’ve got some further clarification questions, along what the member for North Island has asked.

This bill, in the explanatory notes, talks about: “This bill authorizes the appointment of B.C.’s container trucking commissioner and establishes the commissioner’s powers, duties and functions.” Now, that seems to be the entire bill: the establishment of a commissioner and the commissioner’s powers, duties and functions.

My questions around it would be…. The provincial government and the federal government and the other parties involved signed that joint action plan, setting out a number of conditions — the 14-point agreement that was signed here after that labour dispute.

My question is: is this bill going to cover all those 14 points somewhere? Or is the intention to make sure that those 14 points that were signed by all parties to end their dispute will be dealt with through this bill?

[1505]

Hon. T. Stone: The primary focus of this legislation — which represents, again, the provincial piece of the coordinated federal-provincial action that was announced a couple weeks ago — really is predominantly about rate-setting and ensuring rate compliance. All of the items in the 14-point joint action plan that relate to rates — items such as the hourly rate, the trip rates, the fuel surcharges and so forth — will be dealt with as part of this legislative component.

Certainly, there will be an assumption of the truck licence piece once the port and the federal government have completed their work. One of the joint action plan points was reform of the TLS piece. That’s being undertaken by the federal government, as I’ve said earlier. Once it’s done, that will be assumed by the independent provincial commissioner.

There are a number of other items that were agreed to in that joint action plan which are not the purview of the province. They’ve all been implemented to varying degrees — items like the GPS system, which was implemented. That was a port measure. That won’t be dealt with through regulation on the provincial side.

As I mentioned a moment ago, the wait-time remuneration, the actual requirement for there to be wait-time remuneration, is not something that will be required or included in the provincial legislation. However, the payment of any wait-time remuneration will be. It really depends….

Another example would be the extended hours, the extended gate hours, the night gates, that were implemented by the ports to help address the wait times. Again, that’s a port issue, not a provincial government issue. You won’t see every single point out of the 14-point joint action plan in the regulations and in the provincial action moving forward, but again, these efforts are intended to enable and complement the coordinated actions of the port and the federal government as we work together to get the port to a much better place.

H. Bains: So that we’re clear, every commitment the province made and has the jurisdiction for under that 14-point joint action plan — everything that the province agreed to that they can, on their own, implement: will all of those points be covered and addressed through this bill? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. T. Stone: What I’m saying is that all of the substantive issues that were dealt with in that joint action plan and that are provincial jurisdiction will be dealt with through this legislative process unless they are items…. For example, the offer of the province to support mediation in terms of the collective bargaining process with a number of companies and Unifor — we’re not going to be incorporating that piece into legislation because we’ve actually done what we can to encourage mediation and to support a mediation process for collective bargaining.

[1510]

Substantively, the issues of hourly and trip rates that were agreed to in good faith will be dealt with here — the enhanced audit function, the whistle-blower mechanism. These are the pieces which were really at the root of the dispute at the port in terms of provincial responsibilities, and they will be dealt with through this legislation and the related regulations that will follow.
[ Page 5338 ]

H. Bains: Just a concern. The minister used the words “all of these substantive pieces.” I just want to make sure that the minister meant to say that all of the areas of provincial jurisdiction that the province has the powers to implement and that they commit to in the joint action plan will be covered either through the bill here, which we will be discussing further on, or through regulations.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, I can confirm that any of the remaining items that were in the 14-point joint action plan that, again, were at the centre of the dispute that had not been fully addressed…. Again, these are issues of, largely, rates, but also the whistle-blower function, the audit function and so forth. These will all be 100 percent dealt with through this legislative package.

To be right to the point with the member, the other couple items, not the least of which was the offer of mediation to support the collective bargaining process…. That, we believe, has been checked off. That won’t be included here.

Really, the only two significant outstanding pieces aside from the provincial action that we’re taking through this legislation are two issues in which the province has no role. One is the creation and implementation of a common reservation system. That’s being worked on by the port in conjunction with all the different stakeholders. The second piece is the TLS reform, which, again, is well underway and is obviously the responsibility of the port and the federal government.

H. Bains: I think one other question is…. I think the Minister of Advanced Education has been quoted in the media, and I think the minister himself…. I’m not quite sure, but it was quoted somewhere that there will be a reduction of 500-plus truckers to be reduced, or at least that’s what was deemed to be an excessive number of…. That many trucks are more than what is needed.

Is this bill, or through regulations….? Are there mechanisms somewhere that would be a fair mechanism, that would be an objective mechanism, that would be implemented so that fairness would prevail and there is an objectivity that is kept in mind when that action is taken? Will that be covered through here or through the regulations?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, being very direct in my response to the member, no. This act and the regulations which will follow will in no way involve themselves with the reform of the truck licence system effort which is underway at the port of Metro Vancouver. The Minister of Advanced Education, myself and others have certainly encouraged the federal government and the port to be as fair and equitable as they possibly can be with truckers as they go through their process of reducing the number of licences.

We also are very strong advocates with the federal government, encouraging the federal government to put a transition package on the table for displaced truckers. Thankfully, the federal government has agreed to that, and they’ve announced the details of that transition program. But it would be beyond my jurisdiction as the minister responsible to speculate on the outcome of what is entirely a federal and a port effort, and that is to reduce the number of licences.

At this point it would be a wild guess to suggest whether it’s 200 less trucks or 500 less trucks. What we all know is that there are too many trucks chasing too few containers. Every trucker I’ve talked to acknowledges that as well, and the effort that the federal government and the port have underway is to right-size that reality.

[1515]

Once we’re confident that that job is done, then it’s at that point and only at that point that the independent provincial commissioner, through regulation, would then assume responsibility for that reduced number of truck licences.

H. Bains: Moving into the definition part and just a further clarification here. There are a number of places here that talk about “deemed licence”. Then there’s a “licence”. Then there’s a “trucker,” “licensee” and others.

On one hand, it’s been discussed and covered by this bill. On the other hand, the minister is saying that the licensing will still be under the jurisdiction of the federal government. But once the federal government pass their legislation authorizing and passing that authority over to the province, then the province will be responsible for licensing and maintaining those licences.

Will that be the work of the commissioner at that point? It means that the commissioner will not be in operation until that federal legislation authorizing the province licensing authority takes place.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I’ll lay out kind of the critical path here, the timeline between now — the work that we’re doing here in this assembly with this piece of legislation — through to late January, early February. That is the window of opportunity here during which time the coordinated federal-provincial action is taking place.

On the federal side the port, with the support of the federal government, is now working through, with truckers and other stakeholders, a series of new points of criteria respecting the truck licence system.

At a certain point between now and the end of January all of the existing TLS licences, the current TLS licences, will be declared null and void by the port, and the port will reissue new licences based on the new criteria to the trucking community at that point.

What that means in terms of how many licences there are serving the port versus the number that we understand today — somewhere around 2,000 trucks today — I don’t know what the numbers are going to look like. All
[ Page 5339 ]
of that will be federal action. The province will have no role whatsoever in that TLS reform process.

What we’re doing concurrent with that work that’s underway is that we are, through this legislation, establishing the commissioner’s office. There will be a number of very important regulations that will flow very quickly after this legislation is passed. One will deal with rates, which I’m sure we’ll get into more this afternoon. The other one will be a deeming regulation, or a regulation that will essentially deem the federal truck licence system licences to be provincial truck licence system licences.

Again, I can’t pinpoint the specific date that that would take place. What I can say is there’s mutual agreement between the federal government and the provincial government that all of this work would be completed by the end of January, early February.

Certainly, the province, through the independent commissioner, will only be assuming responsibility for the new licences under the new truck licence system when we’re satisfied that the TLS reform work has been completed.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

C. Trevena: I’ll get onto some of the meat of this now — the commissioner — and how this is all going to work.

[1520]

So 2(1): “The Lieutenant Governor in Council must appoint a British Columbia Container Trucking Commissioner and may appoint not more than 2 deputy commissioners” — so giving the ability to cabinet, to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to appoint this.

Obviously, there is a lot of sensitivity, given the role and both making sure that they know how the port works and how the trucking industry works. Also, they’re going to have to be independent.

I just wondered how the minister is going to square this circle. Who will actually make the appointment? How will that appointment be made? Will it be a board system? A panel application? How is the commissioner going to be, first, found, who can be independent but also have the detailed knowledge necessary? And then how are they going to be appointed? Will it be through an interview process or through others?

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the commissioner, we have opted for a strong commissioner model and one that’s relatively flat. We’re not looking at setting up a huge, grandiose office with all kinds of employees and costs. We’re looking for a strong individual who’s got depth, a solid reputation, good knowledge and good respect in terms of all issues pertaining to the port.

This position — and the person who fills it, more importantly — is going to be one of the most critical success factors to this entire initiative, frankly, because the heavy lifting is going to be in the first six to 12 months, as the initial rates are implemented, as the assumption of licences takes place and so forth. It will be rocky. I am certain of that. So it’s critical that we find the right person. On that point, we are actively engaged in a number of discussions looking for the right candidate for this role.

My goal, on behalf of government — and I think this is very important — would be to have this person in place or at least publicly announced as the commissioner, or the soon-to-be-commissioner, shortly after this legislation becomes law.

I think the longer any potential period of uncertainty in terms of the commissioner’s office after this act is passed and through the TLS reform process that the feds are undertaking and the need to provide certainty to truckers related to rates…. The longer the period of time is without that strong individual in that role, taking charge in an independent fashion, the greater the risk is for the overall success of this effort.

We are looking for a candidate now. We are hopeful. It is certainly our intent to have an individual in place on this side of Christmas.

C. Trevena: Effectively, it’s the tap on the shoulder, rather than the application process. It’s somebody who is going to be found and approached, rather than having an old-fashioned ad in the Globe and Mail or the National Post saying: “We are looking for a commissioner.” Am I correct?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes.

C. Trevena: And is that the same for the “not more than 2 deputy commissioners”?

Hon. T. Stone: At this point in time we are not planning on looking for and appointing two deputy commissioners — or one deputy commissioner, for that matter. But we felt that it was important, in the context of this legislation, to provide for the possibility.

[1525]

That would certainly be one of a number of items that we would be looking to the new commissioner to provide some advice on. We see, in other models, where having a really strong commissioner, backstopped by an equally effective deputy commissioner, is a model that works. The Ferry Commissioner comes to mind — the work that the Ferry Commissioner and the deputy do in tandem. The priority here is to find and put in place a strong commissioner as quickly as we possibly can after the passage of this legislation.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. I’m not sure, again, whether this is going to be the right section to be discussing this, but since we’ve started off on it…. The minister
[ Page 5340 ]
has talked about — and he made the comparison that I was going to make about the Ferry Commissioner — that it’s looking at quite a small operation. But the commissioner has got a huge amount of authority as deemed through this bill, right through to auditing companies and so on.

I am just wondering what the office is going to look like. It’s going to be one strong person picked by the government — basically, people who the minister’s staff and others know might be a good person, a good fit — who will have responsibility for a huge amount of…. They’ll have a huge amount of responsibility to keep the port moving. What sort of accountability is there going to be for the commissioner?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, our thinking on this is really as follows. We would like this office, the office of the commissioner, to be as lean as it possibly can be, but to be really nimble. We believe that we’ve structured, through the legislation…. We’ve set this up in that manner. While there will likely be a spike of activity for the commissioner in the first six to nine to, maybe, 12 months, we really expect the activity of his or her office to very quickly decline.

As with the Ferry Commissioner, we would view this role, the commissioner’s role, as very much a part-time function that would largely involve the commissioner making decisions related to audits that are done, overseeing the whistle-blower program and making critical decisions on an annual basis, likely, respecting continued rates and rate compliance in the sector — really, to provide, again, a stabilizing influence for the drayage sector.

[1530]

I should also point out…. It’ll likely come up a little bit later as well, but we also intend on ensuring that there’s an industry advisory committee that is constituted. This will not be a professional board in the sense of, say, the board of any of the Crown corporations and so forth. It’s intended to ensure that the commissioner is surrounded with representatives or individuals from across the sector that are able to provide some advice and some input to the commissioner as she or he makes decisions related to rates and audits and other aspects of the functions that the office will be responsible for.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for raising the industry advisory committee at this stage. I know it’s something that was agreed to in discussions earlier in the Ready-Bell report. It had come out, but it’s not actually in this legislation anywhere. So it’s an assumption that by will of the joint action plan, the Ready-Bell report, there will be this advisory committee set up, which leads me to another question. If the minister could just give me acknowledgment on that — that it is a committee that’s going to be set up on an advisory system.

The other question that I have…. It’s still on 2(l), on the appointment by LGIC for the commissioner. Will there be any consultation with others on that appointment — any of the industry experts, whether it’s Unifor or others — and on actually finding the right candidate who will be suitable for everyone?

Hon. T. Stone: We are, as I said earlier, engaged in a number of discussions with potential candidates for the role. Over the past number of weeks, to get to the point where we’re actually talking to a few people today, we’ve had very good conversations with a broad spectrum of individuals from across the industry. Some of those discussions took place at the steering committee table — the group that met on a weekly basis. Some of those conversations have taken place with other business interests at the port.

Certainly, Vince Ready and Corinn Bell have had strong opinions on potential candidates that they felt would be a good fit for this particular role. As with all of the industry stakeholders, Corinn and Vince — their opinions register significantly with me.

I would encourage…. If the member has any names in and of herself that she thinks would be worthy of consideration, let me know. If any other organizations or industry stakeholders are indicating to the member that they have names of potential candidates, again, I would encourage the forwarding of those names to my office for consideration.

No final decisions have been made, though we’re working as hard as we can over the next two to three weeks to get this done.

C. Trevena: There’s some concern, particularly for Unifor, which worked very hard in coming to the agreement here. The possibility of continuing consultation seems to not be evaporating, but they want to make sure it continues. This is a prime opportunity to have very important consultations with them.

There is a certain sense that not necessarily the provincial government but that there is…. Things have slipped a little. There were some discussions happening that the union was not aware of until after the event, and that was…. We don’t want to have the consultation in bad faith. So it’s just to ensure that the minister is actively seeking, himself, the opinions of other organizations.

[1535]

I do have some other questions through section 2 about the commissioner. I know my colleague from Surrey-Newton has some as well.

I’m not sure whether the minister would like me just to cover off my questions on the commissioner, sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and then hand it over. I’ve been doing largely section 2(1). Would you like me to just continue on that or break it up into back and forth? I will give the minister the option there.

I also wouldn’t mind a response on the discussions with Unifor and discussions in good faith with the union on this.
[ Page 5341 ]

Hon. T. Stone: I’m really fine either way, in terms of whether you want to continue asking all your questions and then jump over to the member for Surrey-Newton, as you’re quite the tag team, I’ve got to say.

I will say, in terms of the member’s question about the level of consultation or the type of engagement that we’ve done in terms of looking for the commissioner, that I certainly haven’t gone through the A to Z of all the stakeholders, including unions, and reached out proactively to ask of each and every industry representative if they have any suggested candidates in mind for the commissioner role. But we certainly have put out — very clearly, I think — in a number of different venues and a number of different manners a call for candidates.

Certainly, if Unifor or any of the other unions at the table have any thoughts on this, I would be more than happy to talk to them personally. They just need to let me know they would like to have that conversation. Certainly, my staff would be very willing to engage in that conversation as well.

C. Trevena: Moving on then to 2(2). The LGIC will, “subject to this section, determine the remuneration and the terms and conditions of appointment” of the commissioner.

I wonder if the minister can say at this stage what that level is going to be. Are we talking about payment at a deputy minister level, or what sort of level are we expecting the commissioner to be paid?

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of the issue of compensation or remuneration for the commissioner, as I’m sure the member is aware, there is a Treasury Board directive which specifically outlines the maximums that can be paid to commissioners in any particular commission in the province. We will certainly be abiding by those requirements or those rules under the Treasury Board directive.

I don’t have the numbers here with me today. I’d be more than happy to provide the member with those remuneration details at a later date.

[1540]

C. Trevena: I’m going to take the minister up on that offer. If he could provide that, I’d appreciate that. I’m assuming at the same time…. There’s a remuneration package, so there are other benefits there. If the minister could at that time provide details about that, I would appreciate it.

My other question here is on (5), where we’ve got: “The commissioner may perform or exercise other powers, duties or functions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe.” This piece of legislation already gives the commissioner a very broad range of powers — licensing, auditing and a number of others. We’re talking about rates and a number of other issues that are central to the ease of movement of goods at the port — which is what everybody really wants to see.

I’m just wondering what the minister might be envisaging with saying that any other…. How might this be expanded? I think that’s the question, because this is a pretty broad remit as it is.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, subsection 2(5) is a very common section that I think we see in lots of legislation. It’s intended to provide maximum flexibility for things that perhaps we are not thinking of today and that may be required towards the success of this initiative and, in particular, of the commissioner’s efforts.

To her specific question about whether I have any examples of what we might be contemplating here, one very good example, which the member actually alluded to in a previous question this afternoon, is the industry advisory committee. The industry advisory committee — rightfully — as she pointed out, is not specifically dealt with in this legislation. However, we have said — through our public communications when we announced this legislation and the joint effort with the federal government — that one of the items that the province would be compelling the provincial commissioner to undertake would be the creation of an industry advisory committee.

That’s one example of an order-in-council that will cover off a facet of this initiative that is not presently dealt with, strictly speaking, within the legislation itself.

C. Trevena: I’m just wondering why the industry advisory committee wasn’t included in this. It seems quite central. The minister has just alluded to it as one of the things that is going to be an extra under the commissioner’s powers, in this catch-all, common clause that is in legislation. I’m just wondering why it wasn’t there in the first place.

Hon. T. Stone: The consideration here was, when we really looked at the intent behind the industry advisory committee…. The intent here is to ensure that there is a group of people that are highly representative of all facets of the industry, that are able to provide the commissioner with ongoing advice and support as and when required.

The advice that we received from leg. counsel was that because the intent here in establishing the industry advisory committee is not to establish a formal governance structure — much like we would see through a traditional board of governors at a university, for example — but rather that this is an effort at establishing, essentially, an advisory group, it was not necessary or advisable to include the industry advisory committee concept within the legislation.

[1545]

H. Bains: A couple of questions, just around the commissioner and the deputy commissioners. Will the deputy commissioners be full-time positions, or will they be brought in as and when required?
[ Page 5342 ]

Hon. T. Stone: The commissioner’s role, in and of itself, we don’t believe will be a full-time role. Now, it may be busy in the first six months. We certainly anticipate that as all of this is being put in place, the transition that needs to take place from the current TLS system to the new TLS system and then that being assumed by the province, and the establishment of the rates regulation and its application and so forth… There’s a lot of dust that needs to settle over the next three to six months on this effort.

But even through that, we do not anticipate that the commissioner will be a full-time role. Should any deputy commissioners be brought into play as well, we certainly don’t anticipate or believe that those roles would be anything more than part-time.

H. Bains: Given the complexities that surround this whole issue — and we have seen how complex it is — the minister is saying that for the first few months, until all these issues are resolved, that even the commissioner will be a part-time position and the deputy commissioners certainly will be part-time positions? I think we’ll talk more about that a little later.

If you look at the auditing, you look at the enforcement, you look at setting the rules, look at the licensing, I mean, the mandate of a commissioner…. At the end of the day, if you look at the mandate of the commissioner under the definitions and further on, it seems to be more than a full-time position. It seems to be that you need more resources.

I’ve seen in my previous nine years here in this House that you can have all kinds of offices set up with all kinds of very, very aggressive goals and objectives and outcomes, but if you don’t provide resources, then none of that will work, and they will not be able to work through the task that is given to them.

So my question to the minister is this. If we’re really serious, are you prepared to give the resources that are needed to establish this office and to carry on the office’s duties and the mandate that is listed in this bill?

Hon. T. Stone: We’re not going to be prescriptive here and suggest that it has to be part-time. The more important thing is to make sure that the office has the resources it needs to discharge its responsibilities and, at the end of the day, to do its part to ensure stability at the port.

I think if we can look at this in the appropriate context, we’re talking about a subset of this industry and a small component of a very large supply chain. We’re talking about somewhere well south of 2,000 trucks, once the TLS reforms are all done. The federal government and the port are in the midst of a lot of heavy lifting in terms of the new criteria that they’ve established. They’re working through consultations with industry right now in terms of that TLS reform.

We certainly don’t intend for this office to be more than it needs to be, but we will certainly ensure it has the resources that it needs to be successful.

[1550]

My final point would be this. I would argue that the ongoing role that the Ferry Commissioner has and the scope of responsibility there…. One could make a strong argument there is a lot more effort required on an ongoing basis with the Ferry Commissioner’s office than there will be with this office. The Ferry Commissioner, I believe, if it’s still correct — I will stand corrected if I’m not correct on this — continues to share office space with the Auditor General. It’s a very lean operation. Where they need additional resources, those resources are brought in on a contract or consultant basis. We would be envisioning a very similar model here.

The port of Metro Vancouver has offered, after the truck licence piece is handed over, to make additional resources available if the commissioner would like to take the port up on that in terms of supporting the commissioner’s efforts from an administrative perspective. Again, I’m not going to predetermine what the commissioner may or may not want to do in that situation. It’ll be up to him or her.

We’re intending on this office being very flat. We’re not intending to set up a huge bureaucracy here. We want to find a really strong commissioner who’s going to be able to take the reins on this and work their magic over the next three to six months with the industry to ensure as smooth a transition as possible to what will be the new reality at the port of Metro Vancouver.

H. Bains: I just want to re-emphasize here. Consider the role of the commissioner and the task that we are giving under this bill about licences, rates and fuel surcharges. You talk about enforcement. You talk about audit, inspections and investigations. I understand it is going to be a much, much busier office in the first few months. But even after that, it’s even more important to enforce the rules that are set by the commissioner and the rules that are set through this legislation so that we have a smooth working of the port and the product is moved and shipped out.

Consider also that we had three shutdowns at the port in the last decade or so. Our reputation is on the line all the time, and there is that risk. We have a reputation issue all across the world. We have truckers who brought this whole industry down to a standstill because they were not making any money. They were not getting fair remuneration for the work that they do. Many of the businesses suffered as a result of this.

I hope that the minister will not take this lightly and not compare this particular commissioner’s role with any other commissioner’s, because we are talking about apples and oranges here, if you try to compare those roles.

I think my question would be to the minister, that the minister is committed to provide the resources that the
[ Page 5343 ]
commissioner needs to run that office as efficiently as they can. No one is asking about a huge bureaucracy here, but enough resources for the commissioner to do the job that we will be tasking that commissioner for so that we don’t have the experience of the past.

We have smooth operation of the ports, where the truckers are making a fair living, and the product is moved, and the businesses don’t suffer, and our reputation doesn’t suffer across the world. I think that’s the commitment that…. The bill is here. I mean, everything is here, but if you don’t put resources behind it, then none of this would be useful — or as useful as it should be.

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly concur with the member at the importance of ensuring that we’re doing everything we can to avoid any further shutdowns of the port. That’s in no one’s interest — the truckers, the shippers, British Columbians in general. As the member knows well, $126 million of cargo every day goes through the port of Metro Vancouver. It’s the largest and most important port in this country.

[1555]

The last shutdown, which lasted four weeks, cost, we believe, about $3 billion to $3½ billion worth of cargo that wasn’t able to move through the port. Of course, from a trucker’s perspective…. There were a lot of truckers that went the whole month without pay, which makes it pretty tough to put food on the table.

That all being said, my personal instinct, and that of this government, is not to establish new regulation when we don’t have to. This took a bit of arm-twisting on my side here to convince our team that this was the right thing to do to move forward. We are essentially establishing a new regulatory regime here. This runs a bit contrary to our DNA in government.

But it’s the right thing to do. It’s required to take this coordinated action with the federal government to ensure that, on the one hand, the truckers get paid what they rightfully have earned — and that, in good faith, was negotiated as part of that joint action plan so that truckers can put food on the table for their families — and on the other hand, that we ensure that our port is open for business and is as competitive as it possibly can be.

I would point out again to the member opposite, a tremendous amount…. If you consider this issue in its totality — the licence side, the rates and all the other pieces — a huge amount of the effort that is needed to get to a place of long-term stability is the licence reform that’s taking place.

That work is all being done on a track, through the port and through the federal government. When those licences are pointed to and handed to the independent provincial commissioner, that work will be done. The work on the licence piece will be done. Those licences will be deemed to be provincial licences under that TLS at that point in time.

What we are talking about is, through regulation, in complement to those TLS reform efforts that the feds are undertaking…. Through regulation, the province will ensure that the rates that were agreed to in the joint action plan — the hourly rates, the trip rates, the fuel surcharges and so forth — are honoured and respected moving forward and that they’re put in place, as all truckers should rightfully expect.

H. Bains: Just a question on the advisory committee the minister mentioned here, although it’s not part of the bill. Is the expectation that the commissioner will be appointing the advisory committee members?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. As I indicated a little bit earlier, the legislation certainly provides the flexibility through order-in-council for government to compel the commissioner to have and establish an industry advisory committee. Certainly, in the context of that decision, that will be happening. There will be an industry advisory committee. We will establish that requirement through regulation.

I will certainly work very closely with the commissioner to ensure that that committee is comprised of individuals that are as representative of the industry as possible. We want to ensure that all the different facets of interests in this industry are represented on that committee, so I’ll be working closely with the commissioner to ensure that that ends up being the case.

H. Bains: I appreciate the minister’s notion that the advisory committee will be representative of the industry.

Specifically, perhaps the minister could answer: is the expectation of the minister to have representation from, for example, Unifor, Teamsters — if UTA is there — those that are deeply involved in an operation of the bill that the bill is about to cover?

[1600]

Hon. T. Stone: It certainly is our intention to ensure that labour is represented on this industry advisory committee.

C. Trevena: Just one quick question further on this section. Has the minister got a budget for this, for the commissioner’s office? I mean, we talked about remuneration — that it’s up to whatever level is set — but again, we’re talking about quite a lot of work, as my colleague mentioned.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the intent here, as I’ve said a few times now, is to keep this office as small as it possibly can be, all the while ensuring that it’s effective in the discharge of its responsibilities. We are currently working on
[ Page 5344 ]
a number of different models to determine what we believe the overall cost structure of this office will be. That expenditure will be included as part of appropriations in the Ministry of Transportation’s forthcoming budget. I don’t know what that overall number will be yet, because as I said, we’re still working on some modelling.

I will say this, though. We fully expect, and it certainly is our intent, that the licence fees that will be collected on an annual basis related to the new licences will cover the costs of this office. The fees will flow to the province, and the commissioner’s office would be funded through an appropriation within the Ministry of Transportation.

C. Trevena: One last question on this section. I know we’re a bit broad here, but it is our opportunity to really dig deep into this and, hopefully, save us some time in estimates as well. The office is going to be starting up as soon as possible after this legislation is enacted. There won’t be any money appropriated to it in the minister’s budget until next spring, from what the minister just said. So we’re working….

For the first three months of the operation the port commissioner will be coming from somewhere in the minister’s budget, which will, therefore, mean cuts in another area of the minister’s budget. Or is there some special contingency money somewhere in government that is going to be looking after this new creature of government for the next round of budget approvals?

[1605]

Hon. T. Stone: It is our expectation — and, certainly, in our discussions with the port and the federal government as they’re working through their TLS reform — that, again, as I said earlier, potentially as early as mid-December, once the new truck licence system is in place, the current licences have been revoked and the new licences have been issued…. The moment that those new licences begin to be issued, obviously they will only be issued upon payment by the licensee of the fees in question.

The prorated amount of those fees that at that point represents the work that the commissioner has already undertaken and is starting to do on this file will be directed to the province to cover those costs. Then, again, once we get into the full cycle, with a formal appropriation in the ministry’s budget and all of the licence fees flowing through to the province — at that time we expect this to be absolutely cost-neutral.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

C. Trevena: Minister, I think I only have one question here. I just wondered. I think I’m getting a sense, from the urgency that the minister is talking about, that we need to get this one through so we can appoint the commissioner. But we have the interim commissioner. Is the minister looking at having somebody…?

He’s been talking about having a commissioner in place possibly from mid-December. Is he still considering having an interim commissioner? If so, will this person be from ministry staff for the temporary position?

Hon. T. Stone: To the member, again, she’s correct in her analysis of my previous comments. It is certainly our sincerest intent here to find this strong commissioner who will be the permanent commissioner, hopefully well into the future, as soon as possible.

We’re making some decent progress on that front. We’re very hopeful that in tandem with passing this legislation or shortly thereafter, we’ll be in a position to announce the first commissioner for the container trucking commission.

This section was put here to provide for the possibility that we’re not successful as quickly as we would have liked to find that permanent commissioner, in which case we would then have the ability through this section to appoint an employee under the Public Service Act. That could be the Deputy Minister of Transportation. It could be one of the assistant deputy ministers. There are a number of capable people that we could look to.

The priority would be to ensure that with the passage of this legislation and with the progress being made on the federal side with the TLS reform…. There cannot be time lost here.

[1610]

We need to make sure that we get on with the rate regulation piece and that we get on with the discharge of the responsibilities of the office. If that had to be done through an interim commissioner for a short period of time, that’s certainly not the ideal, but at least we’ve provided for that in the act if we’re not successful in securing a permanent commissioner right out of the gates.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

C. Trevena: I apologize to the minister. I’m not going to be picky all the way through here. This is obviously a standard provision, but I wondered if the minister could provide some examples of what delegation the commission is going to have. We’ve got the commissioner, and we’ve got the deputy commissioner. What would this sort of delegation be?

Hon. T. Stone: This is a very standard legal provision that one will find in lots of legislation. It’s really intended to provide for the unlikely scenario, for example, of the commissioner not being able to discharge his or her responsibilities because of a medical condition or a short- or mid-term or mid-length leave of absence that’s
[ Page 5345 ]
required for some reason. Those would be the main examples that would come to mind. It certainly would not be a provision that we would likely see for a wide variety of other reasons.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

H. Bains: I just want to go into financial administration, section 7, if I may. As we talked a little earlier, section 7(b) is to “provide to the minister a budget, satisfactory to the minister, for an upcoming fiscal year identified by the minister.” I just want to clarify here that it is up to the minister to decide what the budget would be, and the minister will set the budget. What are some of the assurances that the commissioner will have the budget and resources that are needed?

I know the minister answered that a little earlier, but in this particular case it’s a yearly thing, an annual thing that they need to put a budget together. Is it going through the discretion of the minister, or is it the commissioner deciding how much is needed to operate the coming year and the minister approves it?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, the intent here…. As is the case, frankly, right across the government, if you look at any other number of agencies, boards, commissions, there is a relationship that is in place between government and the commission in question on an ongoing basis where there’s dialogue around budgetary requirements for the office.

It will be important for the province to ensure that we’re well informed as to what the commissioner feels he or she needs for their office based on their workloads and their projections and so forth, but all of that will have to be related back to the reality that we will have to account for every penny in appropriations. This all, obviously, needs to be related back to the level of fees that are generated in terms of the licence fees that will be coming back to the province.

Our position, our intent at this point, is that the commissioner’s office will be cost-neutral. I expect that there will be an ongoing dialogue with the commissioner to ensure that the commissioner’s office has what it needs, but not a penny more.

[1615]

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

C. Trevena: So point (1): “If a licensee fails to comply with any provision of this Act or the regulations or with the licensee’s licence, the commissioner may order the licensee to comply with those requirements promptly or within a period that the commissioner may specify.” What sort of “failure to comply” is this referring to?

Hon. T. Stone: This section 9 is arguably the heart of the legislation. This is really the section that gets right to the point of ensuring that the commission, the commissioner’s office, has the authority required to compel truck companies to actually pay the rates that they’re supposed to be paying.

As the member knows, through regulation there will be an initial establishment of the rate regime that will represent a starting point for the commissioner’s office. Those rates will be set. If it is determined, through the whistle-blower mechanism and/or the audit function, that there is a company that is not complying with the rates and paying the rates required, then the commissioner will have the authority, through this section, to essentially order that company to pay those rates.

Of course, as we’ll get to later in the legislation, the commissioner will then subsequently have authority related to the ongoing provision of a licence to a particular licensee in the case of nonpayment of any rates.

C. Trevena: Does this apply retroactively — I mean, for agreements that have been made up until the actual appointment of the commissioner? The rates have been agreed back in March, so will this apply for that? Or is this a clean slate provision?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. Certainly, the intent here, as I’ve said quite a number of times publicly, is to ensure that the commissioner has the authority, has the teeth, through this legislation. And certainly, in conjunction with the rate regulation, which will be forthcoming soon as well, there is the authority there to ensure compliance with the rates.

Those rates, again, will be based on the rates that were negotiated in good faith back in March and April of this year — so the trip rates, the hourly rate, the surcharges. We will expect, the commissioner will expect, that any amounts owing that have not been paid by companies will have to be paid. In fact, it will be a condition of the licence.

The new licence system that’s being set up by the port and the federal government will likely have, as a requirement of the licence, the demonstration of not being in arrears, or ensuring that if you owe any trucker, you have paid that trucker.

[1620]

Certainly, the commissioner will ensure a similar requirement is carried forward under his or her office as well.

H. Bains: I just want to make sure, as the minister says, the power of the commissioners and the orders of the commissioners…. I think it is the key for this bill to work.
[ Page 5346 ]

I think the question was asked if a licensee failed to comply with the order. I didn’t hear the minister saying…. Although the enforcement, section 29, talks about some of these things, it doesn’t talk about what the commissioner has at his disposal if a licensee failed to comply. Is it enforcement through the courts, then? Is that order enforceable through the courts? Or do they have power to directly collect a garnishee — some sort of a mechanism the commissioner will have to have the power to make the order of the commissioner enforceable and to have a final conclusion?

Also, will there be timelines? It talks about here extension of the timelines. Are there certain timelines that the order must be complied with, or could it be an ongoing thing at the discretion of the commissioner?

Hon. T. Stone: The question that the member has asked with respect to penalties really relates to section 34. It actually is fairly prescribed, fairly detailed — the types of penalties that are applicable or that the commissioner can compel on a licensee. There are associated timelines relating to the imposition of those penalties. That’s, again, largely dealt with through section 34.

H. Bains: Just a final question on this. The reason I asked this question is that we have many situations…. Take, for example, the situation in employment standards where a director will make an order. There are cases where the employer who the order is against simply ignores it, and it sits there for months. I think that’s the kind of question I’m asking. If 34 covers that — that those orders are enforceable and they will be enforced in a timely fashion — then we can talk about it at 34, unless the minister wants to answer the question now.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I want to point back to…. There are kind of two phases here that I think are worthy of consideration as part of this discussion. There’s the work that is underway at the present time with the port and the federal government — the TLS reform that they’re undertaking.

[1625]

It would appear that the port and the federal government…. It’s in the draft criteria that’s been publicly announced and released, and they’ve discussed it with the trucking community and other stakeholders. It would appear that one of the conditions of the new licence will be that licence holders cannot be in arrears. They cannot be in a position of owing truckers any compensation. So it would be unlikely that a new licence holder coming out of the reformed TLS process would be a licence holder that owes any trucker any compensation.

Section 34 does provide for a range of penalty options, which the commissioner will be fully authorized to implement at his or her discretion. Not necessarily in this order, but the commissioner could order a licence holder who is found to be in the position of not paying compensation that they should have been paying. There could be a fine imposed, an administrative fine. There is a security that could be drawn on. And there’s also the authority of the commissioner to suspend and, potentially, revoke the licence entirely for that licence holder.

Again, it will be up to the discretion of the commissioner to determine whether or not he or she wants to escalate those penalties in the order that I just described them or to handle it in a different manner. Regardless, this is all dealt with in section 34 of the act.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

H. Bains: Just a clarification. You talked about “subject to the approval of Treasury Board, establish fees for the purposes of sections 16 (3) (b) and 20 (b).”

My question would be: are we talking here about fees? Because 16 talks about, as specified in the advertisement published under subsection (2), “a person may apply to the commissioner for a licence by submitting, in the form and manner the commissioner requires,” and (b) talks about the “required fee.” Is that the fee for the new licence being issued?

For example, on the ongoing basis, I guess, as the companies or their trucks leave and you need to hire new trucks in the future, your new licences are issued. Is that what we’re talking about here — that the commissioner may levy fees for anyone who is applying for the licence in the future?

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the fees that are dealt with in this section, section 16(3)(b) provides for the possibility of, let’s call it, an application fee.

Section 20(b) relates to what would be the annual licence fee that would be charged to the licence holder, and it would be that fee. The annual licence fee is the one that would, in its totality, cover the overall costs of operation of the commissioner’s office.

Now, on these fees, in terms of how this section is worded, it really will be at the discretion of the commissioner to come forward to government, through Treasury Board, with a proposal for what he or she believes those fees should be and even if there should be an application fee.

The commissioner could determine that the fees that are contemplated through 16(3)(b) are not necessary; however, the annual licence fee, which is the piece contemplated through 20(b), is necessary. Again, that would be at the discretion of the commissioner.

[1630]

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.
[ Page 5347 ]

C. Trevena: I just wanted to ask about section 11(d). We’ve got “orders made under section 22 (3) or (4).” These are referring back to LGIC setting these regulations. Can the minister give any example of what these regulations may be?

Hon. T. Stone: The regulations that are contemplated in this section will be the regulations relating to how the information detailed in this section will be published. That’s, again, any orders made under section 9, application requirements, annual fees and so forth. I can indicate to the member that, certainly at this point, it is our position that the method of publishing this information will be via a website that will be established for the commissioner’s office.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. I just wondered…. I mean, there are a number of areas in this piece of legislation where the commissioner is subject to as yet defined regulations. We’re going to be going through them in more detail as we go along, but I just wanted to ask the question right now because we’re going to be going through a number where we have this cross-referencing from what is set out in one section of the legislation to then referring it to LGIC.

I’m wondering, with all the regulations that are yet to be defined and that are going to come from cabinet, just how independent the commissioner will be. It seems to be, reading through the bill, in the cross-referencing, that they are going to be quite hamstrung by cabinet regulations.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly insofar as it pertains to this particular section, section 11, the reference to regulations, as I said in my previous response, is really intended to provide for the method of publishing orders and fees and rates and so forth.

[1635]

To the member’s more general comment in terms of just the overall scope of regulation that will be forthcoming after passage of this legislation, there has to be a starting point. The most important piece of this entire effort is the rate component — the establishment of starting rates and then the regime through which we will ensure, through the commissioner, that those rates are respected.

I have said many times — I’ll say it again — that the starting point for us on those rates that British Columbians will see in that initial regulation that we bring forward…. The starting point will be the rates that were negotiated in good faith with truckers earlier this year — rates respecting the hourly trip rates, surcharges and so forth.

Again, this section, the contemplation of regulations here, is quite common in terms of, again, setting up the framework within which we will expect the publishing of information for the purposes of transparency and accountability with respect to orders and fees and rates that the commissioner brings forward.

H. Bains: Just a final question on this. “The commissioner must publish, in accordance with the regulations, (a) orders made under section 9,” which talk about licensees failing to comply with the provision of this act. Will that include the names of those against whom the orders were made?

Hon. T. Stone: A very quick response. The answer is yes. If a licensee is found to be non-compliant with their licence requirements and the commissioner has made that determination and has gone through the processes available to him or her and has issued an order, that order will be published, as per my previous responses, via the commissioner’s website. The name of the licence holder would be included in that public information.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

C. Trevena: I’ve got a question on section 12(1), where the commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction in all cases. I just would like the minister to clarify. It appears to be that…. If you are reading later into the legislation, section 29(2)(d) and (e) seem to contradict the fact that the commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction. It seems to limit his jurisdiction.

So I just wonder if the minister could clarify that and, if he does have more limited jurisdiction because of courts and so on, why it says he has exclusive jurisdiction in this piece in this section.

[1640]

Hon. T. Stone: I’m happy to clarify for the member this particular section. Really, the intent here is that if a decision is made by another agency, another organization — let’s say the employment standards branch, the Employment Standards Tribunal or an arbitration process with respect to a collective agreement — the commissioner will not in any way be involved in those decisions because the commissioner will not have jurisdiction respecting those decisions.

However, with respect to the responsibilities that are detailed in this act and provided to the commissioner’s office, the intent of this section is to say that the commissioner will have exclusive jurisdiction over those matters — again, matters that pertain specifically to the commissioner’s responsibilities.

V. Huntington: With respect to sub 12(2), has this jurisdictional issue been agreed to by all of the stakeholders? Are the trucking companies, the licensees, in favour of this jurisdiction — unrestrained jurisdiction — in process or court? Is everybody satisfied with this approach — the truckers, the union and the potential licensees?
[ Page 5348 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, I can assure the member that whether it’s been a trucker or a trucking company or a shipper or a terminal operator — many other stakeholders in the drayage sector — one of the most consistent pieces of feedback we’ve received in terms of the course of action that we’ve decided to move forward with has been to make sure that the commissioner has teeth, and make sure that there is real authority in this office. Otherwise, there’s no point in setting it up.

In terms of providing…. As we discussed previously, with respect to section 34 where all the penalties are laid out and the processes are prescribed there, this section 12, which deals with the exclusive jurisdiction of the commissioner…. These are all of the necessary provisions that we believe need to be in this legislation to ensure that the commissioner has the authority that he or she is going to need to ensure rate compliance moving forward. If that were not to be the case, then this would be a wasted effort.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Surrey-Newton, can I request the members at the back of the chamber to please keep your voices low.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members in the back of the chamber, please, would you keep your voices low. Thank you.

H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair. Good job, good job.

My question here is on 12(2). The way it reads, “An order, decision or proceeding of the commissioner must not be questioned, reviewed or restrained by any process or proceeding in any court….” It seems to me — I’m not a lawyer, far from it — far-reaching powers that the commissioner is given here.

[1645]

Are we saying in this section here that the commissioner’s order cannot be even challenged in the court or be applied for judicial review?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, just to reiterate, the intent of this section is to ensure that for all matters that pertain to the responsibilities of the commissioner — which will initially be the rate regulation piece and then subsequently the licence piece as well — within those responsibilities the commissioner will have exclusive jurisdiction here.

Now, while this section, we believe, certainly narrows the scope for a judicial review process, it certainly doesn’t eliminate the opportunity for a licence holder, for example, to pursue a judicial review if he or she feels they’ve been wronged. But again, this section provides, we think, from a jurisdictional perspective, the clear lines of sight between the responsibilities of the commissioner’s office and the exclusive jurisdiction.

H. Bains: Just to clarify further on that. In other, different areas — the labour code, for example — every collective agreement has a clause that there must be a final and binding process of dispute resolution and by way of arbitration. Again, arbitrators’ decisions are final and binding, but then they are reviewed by the labour code, and a labour code decision can be challenged in the court for a judicial review. Is that a similar kind of process that we’re talking about here?

Hon. T. Stone: Quite simply, the member is correct. The situation he just described is very similar to the situation that we believe would unfold in relation to section 12 of this act.

S. Simpson: Just so I’m clear on this. I know that in the section where I look later on, on reconsideration of a decision, it’s reconsideration by the commissioner themselves, whoever they are. They could be asked to reconsider their own decision in that. There is no allowance here for any kind of third-party or independent review of that unless there is a judicial review, unless somebody wants at some point to go to the courts.

Maybe the minister could explain this section when it talks about not being “questioned, reviewed or restrained by any process or proceeding in any court.” To what degree does that hamper the ability of somebody who feels — on a penalty, for example — that they’ve been done wrong and they’re looking for some kind of review? The only review that I see here at the moment is reconsideration by the commissioner themselves.

Hon. T. Stone: The member is correct in his assessment here. The commissioner would be solely responsible for a reconsideration of any decisions taken by the commissioner. If a licence holder, for example, was not satisfied with the commissioner’s reconsideration, then the licence holder or the company that feels they’ve been wronged has the right to ask for a judicial review.

[1650]

While the scope is perhaps somewhat narrowed here on that front, we believe that it still does provide the opportunity for complainants in those situations to formally ask for a judicial review if they’re not satisfied with the commissioner’s reconsideration.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could just elaborate a little bit on a comment he made there. He said where the scope is narrowed on that front. I think he was talking about as it pertains to being able to go to the courts for a review if a licensee was not satisfied with the decision and not satisfied with the reconsideration and they then wanted to proceed to get some kind of independent assessment. But the minister talked about that being narrow. Could the minister elaborate a little bit on what he meant by that more narrow approach?
[ Page 5349 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Very directly, in response, what I’m talking about there in terms of narrowing the scope for a judicial review…. What that really means is that the judicial review can review, would look at the commissioner’s processes and procedures — insofar as the decisions, the decision process, the reconsideration process — to ensure that they’re fair. Within the context of that component, an individual or a complainant would still be able to seek a judicial review. Anything outside of that, not likely.

S. Simpson: So that would be a process issue.

I have another question in relation to this, to section 12. It talks about “exclusive jurisdiction in all cases…all matters in which jurisdiction is conferred on the commissioner by this or any other enactment.” We know that this is a collaborative effort of the two senior levels of government — the province and the federal government.

There’s a collaborative effort here. It’s my sense that, ultimately, there will either need to be some kinds of legislative or regulatory initiatives on the part of the federal government to complete these pieces for those areas that fall within federal jurisdiction to match up with what’s done provincially.

What is the expectation of the minister about the authority of the commissioner in relation to the federal side of any kind of legislative or regulatory tools that will be made available in the context of this broader issue?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, the federal government, as part of this coordinated action, will be introducing a federal regulation that will essentially require as a condition of access to the port that a truck will have to have a provincial licence. That’s essentially the federal regulation that would point to the provincial regulation on the licence and the rate piece, and it would be tied to the access to the federal port.

S. Simpson: I understand that. Presumably, it will be explicit that that regulatory change will fall under the authority of the commissioner named under the provincial legislation. I’d like the minister to kind of respond to that.

There are other aspects, I’m presuming, that fall under federal authority related to this — or maybe it’s the port authority, indirectly to the federal government. We know that the port answers to the federal minister in some fashion there. I’m just trying to get a sense here that this commissioner will have powers that will encompass the port and any federal decisions or regulations — the federal government and port.

[1655]

We have one commissioner, and they are going to be seen by all parties to be the person who has authority over all of this. We’re not going to have the potential for other folks coming to the table, saying, “I have authority over X” or “I have authority over Y.” It’s all going to come through one desk. Is that commitment there from the parties to this?

Hon. T. Stone: To the member opposite, he’s quite correct. Certainly, the intent here is to address what has been one of the main complications with this file for a number of years, and that’s been competing jurisdictions, overlapping jurisdictions. Who’s responsible for what, where, when and how?

The Canada Marine Act provides for a requirement for the port to have a TLS system in place. Essentially, the provincial effort, the new TLS system that will then be administered by the province, will be layered on top of that requirement under the Canada Marine Act.

Constitutionally, for this all to be constitutional, the federal government will pass a regulation that will require, as a condition of accessing the port, the licensee in question to have a provincial licence. It’s at that point that there won’t be a federal jurisdiction and a provincial jurisdiction.

Insofar as regulating rates, on dock and off dock, and insofar as managing the overall licence system, this will all be administered and will be the authority of the independent provincial commissioner. Again, for this to come about, yes, the federal government does have to pass a regulation requiring, as a condition of access to the port, the holding of a provincial licence.

H. Bains: Just another question on the jurisdiction portion.

Just because of the wording here, there may be overlapping jurisdictions here. For example, there may be labour relations, labour code issues. There may be employment standards and human rights.

My question to the minister is…. Maybe I could be a bit more specific. If there’s an organizing drive that takes place within the confines of the port, the commissioner is not going to stand in the way? It still will be under the jurisdiction of the provincial or the federal labour code? Or if there’s a human rights issue, that will be dealt with through the Human Rights Commission?

My question is to the minister. There are some distinct and separate lines drawn around those jurisdictions? The commissioner isn’t going to be one and all having to deal with all of those issues that I mentioned?

[1700]

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. Again, the intent here is to make very clear that the commissioner will have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters that are conferred upon the commissioner, meaning responsibilities which are specifically detailed within this act. Those substantially will involve rate regulation and compliance, including the audit program and the whistle-blower mechanism as well as — early next year, once the federal government and the port have done their work on the TLS reform — the authority over the licences.

This is in no way intended to confer upon the commissioner matters that are outside of the commission-
[ Page 5350 ]
er’s jurisdiction. As the member rightfully pointed out, any labour issues, employment standards issues, human rights issues — none of those matters are conferred upon the commissioner’s office. Those matters would continue to be the jurisdictional responsibility of the agencies in question.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

C. Trevena: Annual reports. It all seems pretty clear, except 13(c): “the financial statements…of the commissioner including full disclosure of the expenses of, and associated with, the office of the commissioner.” Where do the fees collected come reported? Is that in this section? Is that section (c), or is that going to be separate?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. Section 13(c), which deals with the provision for financial statements, is exactly where all of the revenues that are collected by the commissioner will be detailed as well as…. Again, the vast majority of those revenues will be licence fees. This is also where the expenditures will be detailed in terms of those expenditures required for the commissioner’s office and the discharge of his or her responsibilities.

V. Huntington: Perhaps the minister could confirm that these reports will be public. There’s no indication in the legislation that the commissioner’s reports are intended to be publicized or available.

Hon. T. Stone: The answer is yes. The annual reports, all orders, the rate schedules, the fee schedules — all of this will be published and made available via the commissioner’s website.

[1705]

V. Huntington: Does the public have to wait for the annual report for that information? Or is it going to be ongoing on the commissioner’s website — i.e., a website that’s kept up to date and that we’re fully aware of?

Hon. T. Stone: The annual report will be published once a year. There won’t be an ongoing tally of activities that at the end of the day comprise that annual report. It will be an annual report in the same sense of annual reports that Crown corporations and other government agencies and other organizations have.

Orders made by the commissioner will be published as and when, obviously, the orders are made. Fees and rates will be published in their respective tables, obviously initially as a starting point and then at any time when they change.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

C. Trevena: We keep saying we’re getting to the meat of this, but I think we’re getting to the meat of this now. I’d like to ask the minister…. I’ll ask two questions to start with.

In 16(1): “A person must not carry out prescribed container trucking services in a prescribed area….” I have two questions of this. What is the prescribed area? And then, when the minister has explained that, in section 44 it actually says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prescribes the area under section 16(1). This is a prescribed area set by cabinet. So why is this being left to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and what is the prescribed area?

Hon. T. Stone: The prescribed area, insofar as section 16(1) indicates here, is intended to reflect the Lower Mainland. I should point out again that at the highest level here we’re talking about ensuring that the commissioner’s office and the licence requirements and so forth capture all of the off-dock activity that is in direct association with the port.

Vince Ready and Corinn Bell actually, in their report of recommendations, which is a public document, very specifically detailed what they believed the prescribed area needs to be. We will ensure that the regulation adopts that specific description from the Ready-Bell recommendations.

C. Trevena: So this prescribed area that the minister talked about is the whole Lower Mainland. If a truck comes off Deltaport, picks up a container, moves it to an off-dock facility, is then moved on and comes back to the dock, that is still going to be a prescribed area?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, the member is correct.

[1710]

C. Trevena: This is the prescribed area that is, then, in the Ready-Bell report. It’s not set by the port? It’s all on the Ready-Bell recommendations? I’m sort of looking through to find it just to cross-compare.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, and I’ll actually read right into the record here the prescribed area as per schedule 2 of the Ready-Bell report. It includes: Abbotsford-Clearbrook, Annacis Island, Burnaby North, Burnaby South, Chilliwack-Sardis, Cloverdale, Coquitlam, Delta North–Tilbury, Fort Langley–Aldergrove, Haney–Maple Ridge, Langley City, Langley South, Mission, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Pacific Highway — in the city of Surrey — Pitt Meadows, Port Kells — also in Surrey — Port Moody–Port Coquitlam, Richmond North, Richmond South, Surrey North, Surrey South, Vancouver and West Vancouver.
[ Page 5351 ]

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. Just for a point of clarification and to make sure that I’m understanding completely, there will be prescribed rates even if a container is left somewhere and then picked up and moved back to the port. If it’s delivered, comes back and then goes back to the port, they will still get the prescribed rate, even though you’ve got sort of the off-dock as well as the on-dock. That nodding is a yes; I’m getting this right?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, you are getting this right.

V. Huntington: Just on the list that the minister read into the record, does he mean North Vancouver when he said West Vancouver? I think it’s the North Shore, the North Vancouver area.

Hon. T. Stone: Actually, the prescribed area will include the district of North Van and the city of North Van, as well as the district of West Van.

C. Trevena: I have a couple of other quick questions on section 16, like in section 16(1). My first part, 16(1), is referring to section 44, so it’s back to regulation. Then 16(2) is the section on: “The commissioner, by publishing an advertisement in accordance with the regulations, may invite applications for a licence.” And 16(4): on receiving an application under subsection (3), the commissioner may issue the licence or refuse to issue the licence. These, again, are regulated by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I’m wondering. Again, it’s the question I’ve had previously. Given that we have this cabinet oversight — and I know there is the desire to get this piece of legislation written quickly and enacted soon so we get the stability — it does seem to keep throwing things back to cabinet authority when we’re supposed to have an independent commissioner.

[1715]

If I might — it’s a bit of a segue — we have these discussions regularly about ferries and the independence of the Ferry Commissioner vis-à-vis the influence of the ministry. So I just want to make sure that when we’re talking about this commissioner and the ministry, where the boundaries are — where the independence starts and where the oversight ends.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, there will have to be a starting point for the initial licences. That starting point will come once the port and the federal government have completed their work, through order-in-council as a starting point. An order-in-council will deem those TLS licences to be provincial licences.

But after that point it will be at the discretion of the commissioner to oversee and manage licences from that point forward. That won’t be done on an ongoing basis through order-in-council. It will be the responsibility of the commissioner to manage those licences once they have been deemed to be provincial licences.

C. Trevena: In 16(5) it requires the…. “If the commissioner refuses, under subsection (4) (b), to issue a licence to an applicant, the commissioner must provide notice to the applicant of that refusal.” Is the commissioner expected also to provide a reason for the refusal?

Hon. T. Stone: In addition to the regulations which will be forthcoming, there will also be rules provided to the commissioner, standard rules of practice and procedure that the commissioner will be expected to follow, within those rules of procedure. It is very clearly detailed that the commissioner will have to provide reasons for the refusal of a licence application.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

C. Trevena: I know that a number of people have questions in this section too, but I will just kick it off.

I just wondered if the minister could explain when “trucking authorization in a specified class” might be deemed a licence to operate at the port.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the intent of this section is to simply provide for the TLS licences, which the port and the federal government are working on now. The rationalization that’s taking place, again, will result in a reissuing or an issuing of a new licence to a number of licence holders.

[1720]

Once that work is done to our satisfaction, we will then, through regulation, deem those TLS licences to be provincial licences. So if a licensee has a licence in that new TLS system, that licence will be deemed to be a provincial licence once the authority is transferred to the commissioner’s office.

C. Trevena: One other question on this to the minister then. Is there any way of preventing the licences getting some sort of market value? In the taxi industry you sometimes see the licences having a market value. Is there any balance here to keep the licences having a free value?

Hon. T. Stone: These licences will be non-transferable. That’s, I think, a very important point for this discussion. As the member knows, there will be an annual fee for the licence. It’s not transferable. In fact, section 16(1)(a) — I know we’ve passed that — is where, basically, the non-transferable nature of the licence is provided for.

One further point I would make. There is not a cap on the number of licences either here. We’re not saying that once the commissioner has authority for licences, there needs to be a hard cap of 500 licences or 200 licences or 1,200 licences. It will be up to the discretion of the commissioner to determine, to evaluate, each and every licence application that comes in.
[ Page 5352 ]

The intent here is for the market to determine how many licences are required to serve the market. If a company applies for an additional licence or a new licence and meets all of the requirements of the licence at that time, that company will be provided a licence. But again, if that licence is suspended or revoked, it essentially goes away. It cannot be transferred to any other party.

V. Huntington: I’m trying to understand here where…. Here, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can deem a licence. I’m assuming that means that it is already a trucking authorization under the Canada Marine Act. Or has that whole process been transferred to the province at this point? What are you deeming? It’s a trucking authorization that you’re deeming licensed, but I’m just not quite clear how the mechanism is working if it’s not a specified authorization. Or is it?

Hon. T. Stone: I’ll very quickly walk through this process for the member. The port of Metro Vancouver and the federal government are working on the TLS reform piece as we speak. They have, in fact, published a draft licence criteria. They have met with all of the facets of the trucking community and other stakeholders, have walked them through the draft licence criteria, and are engaged in those discussions over the next number of weeks.

There will come a point in time, sooner rather than later, where PMV and the federal government will say: “We have received all of the feedback and the input required to finalize the licence criteria for the truck licence system.” They will do that.

[1725]

At that time, or shortly thereafter, there will be a process — again, that is completely driven and managed by the port — whereby all existing licences will be revoked and there will immediately be an opportunity for companies to apply for a new licence based on the new licence criteria.

It is after all of that work is done — which, we expect, will be done at some point between now and late January, at that point in time — when reforms will be done. There will be a much smaller number of overall licence holders. It’s at that time that through order-in-council we, the province, will deem those TLS licence holders — which up to that point are holders of a port of Metro Vancouver–federal government licence — to be holders of a province licence under the authority of the commissioner’s office.

H. Bains: Just to clarify a couple of points here. I’m talking about the process, after late January or the beginning of February, when there are new licensees, the new licences are issued and they’re all established. But in the future, the minister said, the market will decide how many trucks are needed.

My question is on the process of advertisement. Is it the commissioner who will be taking that initiative of how many additional trucks are needed? Or is it going to be the individual licensee — or the company, for that matter?

If, say, they can initiate on their own and apply for new licences — for example, if they have ten trucks now and they think they have more work — can an individual company or a licence holder apply for additional licences? Will that particular company be issued the licence if the commissioner decides that it is justified? Or will it be advertised universally so that anyone can apply for those licences?

Hon. T. Stone: There really are two avenues here through which licences will be granted or the need for licences determined.

One is, certainly, the commissioner at any time…. This would largely be based, I would think, on the input of the industry advisory committee and so forth. The commissioner will be fully within his or her rights at any time to put out a call for companies to step forward and ask for additional licences. That would, obviously, be based on the perceived need for added capacity at the port insofar as drayage services go.

The other opportunity. The act provides, through section 19, the opportunity for…. This section is called “Amendment of licence.” It provides a path for existing licence holders to ask, or seek permission from the commissioner, for additional licences above and beyond those that that licensee already has. There are two opportunities here for licence holders, both existing and new.

H. Bains: Just on that. In the event that a company or a licence holder applies for additional licences under 19, as the minister mentioned, then will the commissioner only consider that particular application for that particular company to issue additional licences? Or will the minister, under its powers, advertise for every company to apply?

[1730]

Now one company is saying that it needs, for example, ten new licences, ten new trucks. Will the commissioner, then, advertise for all other companies, to say: “Look, I have the request here. Are you interested in competing for these ten licences that this particular company is asking for?”

How will that be? Is that going to be just limited to that particular company that applies, or will it be offered to all companies? I don’t know — whatever the process they may have after. How do they allocate that?

Hon. T. Stone: Any company that wants to apply for a licence will be able to apply for a licence. In fact, that will happen as the TLS reform process is unfolding over the next six to eight weeks on the port and federal government side of things.
[ Page 5353 ]

Certainly even after the responsibility for the truck licence system is transferred and that authority is transferred to the independent provincial commissioner, any new company that wishes to get into this business and apply for a licence will be able to do so. The commissioner will consider that company’s application based on the licence criteria in place at that time. Again, through section 19, any company that’s doing existing business that has existing licences will be able to apply for additional licences, and the commissioner will consider that application based on the licence criteria that exists at that time.

Beyond those two scenarios, if at any point the commissioner believes there are capacity challenges and a need for more trucks to serve the port and that need is not being met by new companies just proactively coming forward and/or existing companies asking for more licences, then it absolutely will be within the right of the commissioner at any time to put out a call for companies to step forward and apply for a licence.

H. Bains: The minister said that these licences are non-transferable. I thought that’s what I heard. I just want to have that issue confirmed.

In a little different scenario…. For example, a company after February 1 that is determined to be the licensee or licence holder decides in the future that that particular company is selling off that business. Can they actually sell these licences to a future prospective company to take over? Or if that company leaves, the commissioner will advertise for that many additional trucks to be advertised by a new company?

My question is…. Once these companies are established after February 1, or whatever that day is, they cannot sell or transfer that licence to another company. If they leave at some point, how will those vacancies be filled? Will that be through advertising and offered to the existing companies, or could a new company come in and apply for those?

[1735]

Hon. T. Stone: First off — I’ll respond to the member’s question in one second — I just wanted to clarify so there’s no miscommunication on my part.

The way that the new TLS system is going to work — and certainly once the federal government and the port are done their work and it’s transferred to the provincial commissioner — is that there will be one licence per company. But that licence will provide for a certain number of trucks that are authorized to operate in association with that one licence.

I don’t want to misrepresent any of this to the member or this House generally. If a company has an existing licence, they would have one licence. They might be licensed to have 20 trucks, for example. If they determine that based on their business needs, the needs of their customers, they needed another ten trucks, they would be going to the commissioner and requesting an amendment to that one licence for the addition of ten more trucks.

Really, this will be determined by the market. As I said earlier, there will be no hard numbers set for a maximum number of licences. Furthermore, and specifically to answer the member’s question, these licences will be non-transferable. A licence holder will not be permitted to sell or otherwise transfer their company’s licence to any other entity. That’s specifically provided for in section 16(1)(a).

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

C. Trevena: Section 18. We are on the conditions of the licence. My question to the minister is…. It says: “In issuing a licence under section 16 (4) (a), the commissioner may impose any conditions that the commissioner considers necessary.” Does this mean that the commissioner has the authority and the free rein over absolutely all conditions except for those regulations that may be set by cabinet — except for terms of employment? If so, why was that area reserved for regulation by cabinet?

Hon. T. Stone: This section, the intent here, is to provide the flexibility and the authority to the commissioner to make any changes he or she sees fit to the licence criteria. Obviously, this would be applicable only after the TLS licences have been deemed to be provincial licences.

I will again read into the record just some of the licence conditions which we understand — because they’ve been published by the port and the federal government in the last few weeks — are likely to become requirements of the TLS licence. These requirements would then be assumed by the commissioner’s office as a starting point of conditions of licence.

Again, they include the minimum of five trucks per company and a payment of provincially regulated rates on a go-forward basis. The owner-operators must be sponsored by trucking companies by contractual arrangements. Companies can allocate truck tags to employees or owner-operators. A licence fee per licence, which will cover both the cost of the commissioner’s office and PMV’s costs. Likely an additional fee per truck in the range of $2,250 per truck. A security fee. Requirement for compliance with the national safety code.

The minimum age of the truck — at the moment it would appear that they’re considering the minimum age to be 15 years for existing and ten years for new. A minimum of a 2.5 chassis per truck tag, proof of truck utilization, ownership or availability of land assets for truck and chassis parking, and so forth.

There’s quite an extensive list of licence criteria, which, as I just indicated, will be attached to the new licences as part of this TLS reform.
[ Page 5354 ]

Section 18 here provides the authority for the commissioner to make any changes to that list of criteria as he or she sees fit into the future.

[1740]

C. Trevena: Parsing it down, in section 18(2)(a) we’ve got “the payment of wait time remuneration by the licensee to truckers employed or retained by the licensee.” How does the minister see this is going to work with that specific section?

Hon. T. Stone: Hoping that I’ve understood the member’s question correctly, in terms of section 18(2)(a), “the payment of wait time remuneration by the licensee to truckers employed or retained by the licensee,” again, as I said earlier, the intent here is to ensure that…. Assuming this is a condition that is attached to the licence, which we understand it will be as part of the TLS reform that’s taking place, it is absolutely critical when these licences are deemed to be provincial licences, that this particular piece continue to be there as a condition of the licence.

As I said earlier, the province is not…. Because waiting times really involve port access, which is not what we’re dealing with, with this legislation broadly…. That notwithstanding, we wanted to ensure it was very clearly specified in this act that if wait-time remuneration is attached to licences as a requirement, that that flow through or carry forward and continue to be a requirement when those licences are deemed to be provincial licences.

H. Bains: Just on that, the minister mentioned a number of conditions that perhaps would be part of the conditions on these licences, a number of examples. My question to the minister would be: will those conditions be in compliance with the joint action plan? And there are a number of provisions that cover some of the examples that the minister mentioned?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows, the joint action plan in and of itself had, as one of the 14 points, a commitment to the TLS reform process. The details of that process — how it would unfold and, indeed, what those specifics would look like in terms of licence criteria — were not specifically detailed in the joint action plan.

That being said, the most fundamental components of the licence…. The requirements of the licence on a go-forward basis, in our minds, is really to ensure rate compliance. As I read out a moment ago…. I’ll say it once again. One of the points of condition for holding a licence under the new TLS system, as we understand it — the feds have published this — is that TLS companies will have to sign a statutory declaration that their company has paid provincially regulated rates, and retroactively where required.

[1745]

Insofar as the joint action plan contained commitments that were negotiated in good faith related to trip rates and hourly rates and surcharges and so forth, yes. Those pieces will be captured by the licence criteria that the port and the federal government is working on, and we will make darn sure that that criteria remains in place when those licences are deemed to be provincial licences.

V. Huntington: Could I just confirm, then, that the criteria that the port is presently developing will bind…? The commissioner will be bound by those licence criteria?

Hon. T. Stone: The commissioner will not be bound by the licence criteria. That comes once the TLS reform is done. But it certainly is our intent that the criteria that’s established through the engagement process that the port and the federal government are undertaking at the present time — that licence criteria that ends up becoming the final criteria that is used to reissue new licences under the reformed TLS system — becomes the starting point for those licences once they are deemed to be provincial licences.

I would want to add, though, that we certainly are structuring this so that the commissioner will have the authority to amend or make changes to those licence requirements. He or she may determine that there are some additional requirements that should be a part of that package and perhaps some of the existing criteria may no longer be applicable for some reason.

That will be up to the commissioner at that point. But certainly, as a starting point, the criteria that comes with the TLS will be the criteria when that licence is deemed to be a provincial licence.

V. Huntington: And section 18 — am I right in reading that it has an assumption that the conditions of the licences might vary?

Hon. T. Stone: No, there will not be different conditions for different licensees. There will be one licence. The criteria for the provision of that licence will be the exact same criteria from one licence holder to the next.

V. Huntington: If I could just confirm that comment, 18(1) and (2) indicate that “the commissioner may impose a condition on a licence”. It doesn’t say on all licences. But this legislation, as I read it, assumes that a particular licence can have a condition attached to it that may not be attached to other licences. Am I reading that correctly or incorrectly?

[1750]

Hon. T. Stone: I appreciate the question. We’re confident that because in section 18(1) where it says: “In issuing a licence under section 16 (4) (a)….” That refer-
[ Page 5355 ]
ence back to 16(4)(a) provides a very specific definition with respect to the issuance of a licence to an applicant, the prescribed requirements and so forth. Because that is there in section 18(1), we are confident that taken as a total section — section 18 — there is one licence, one set of criteria for that licence, not different conditions or the possibility of different conditions for different licence holders.

V. Huntington: The minister just said, “We’re confident that there will be one licence and one set of criteria for that licence” but that all licences, basically, won’t differ. I’m just not quite following, because I don’t think that’s the language in this section. I think this section reads specifically to a licence.

Here the commissioner is bound not only by criteria; he’s bound by conditions that will be set according to 16(4). What does the commissioner do? I mean, anybody could just grant licences based on a regulation in that regard. Is there no ability for the commissioner to exercise judgment?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, we’re confident that with the reference back to section 16(4)(a) — where it very specifically refers to “prescribed requirements,” which are the licence requirements — that essentially provides the assurance that irrespective of who holds that licence, the license will carry the same licence requirements with it from one licence holder to the next.

I remind the member that the commissioner will have the authority to change those conditions. But if the conditions are changed, they’re changed for all licence holders, or licence applicants at that point, not just select licence holders.

V. Huntington: Just to confirm, all licences will be issued under the same criteria, the same conditions, the same terms of employment or retainers, and all would be amended if one condition is changed or the commissioner determines a new condition is advisable. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

V. Huntington: What I’m concerned about with 19 is that it is the licensee who can come to the commissioner to ask for an amendment to the licence. My concern is that there’s no opportunity for the employees to comment on that request for an amendment. I’m worried that this section somehow enables a bias to enter the administration or the amendment process to the licences, a bias in favour of the licensee rather than the employees. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

[1755]

Hon. T. Stone: The intent of this section is to provide the process through which an existing licence holder can seek an amendment to their licence, presumably to add more trucks to that licence. Based on that particular licence holder’s business, if they needed to, I suppose they could seek an amendment to reduce the number of trucks.

I think the appropriate place for that responsibility, the discussion around how many trucks a particular licence holder requires, is very much a business decision. It’s a decision that should be made by the licence holder, which in this case is a company.

Now, if employees have concerns about any facet of their interaction with their employer, there are a number of avenues that the employee can follow. This is exactly why we have the whistle-blower mechanism, which will be further enhanced under the auspices of the independent provincial commissioner.

Certainly, the employee has employment standards and other avenues that can be pursued. But fundamentally, issues relating to the licence in and of itself — attached will be a significant fee and all kinds of other requirements that fundamentally cut back to business decisions that that company has to make which will be driven by the needs of their customers, presumably. Those decisions really should be made by the companies themselves.

V. Huntington: Well, I would agree with that comment. But perhaps the minister can see where I’m confused here with regard to his previous comments that all criteria, all conditions, will be the same for all licences. And yet here in section 19 it seems that we’re enabling a specific amendment to a specific licence and that the commissioner can even go so far as, in 19(2), to impose a specific payment of wait-time remuneration to a specific licence.

Where does the fact that…? The minister is saying in section 18 that all licences will be the same, that the criteria will be the same, that the conditions will be the same. If the commissioner changes the condition, then all licences will receive that new condition. Yet clearly, in section 19 that isn’t the case, unless once you’ve amended one licence at the request of a licensee, then the commissioner must have meant all the licences to be the same.

Hon. T. Stone: This provision, which provides for the amendment of the licence, is simply intended to provide a path for existing licence holders to add or reduce the number of trucks that are associated with that licence. In no way does this provide for any change to the criteria that are attached to the licence itself.

This is an existing licence holder that has already met all of the criteria associated with the licence. There’s one licence for the company. For whatever reasons, this com-
[ Page 5356 ]
pany has determined that they need more or fewer trucks attached to that licence. This section provides the path for adding or removing the number of trucks attached to the licence.

[1800]

V. Huntington: Can I just add one last comment? I certainly hope the minister is right and that his legislation is as tight as he thinks it is here.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to follow up on the member for Delta South’s comments here. The amendment of the licence is purely for addition or diminution of the number of trucks that can be put to any one licence. That is the only amendment that the minister can foresee that we would be amending in a licence. As the member previously said, we have just gone through 18, where you have specific conditions which apply to all of them. Here we’re saying individual amendments. Is it purely on the number of trucks that a company is running?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. This section is intended to solely provide a path for a licence holder to follow should the licence holder determine that they would like to add or remove the number of trucks that are associated with their licence.

H. Bains: To add on to this or follow from the previous questions, I understand what the minister has just stated — that it is only to deal with the number of trucks. But if that was the only way for the section to be read then…. It goes on to say: “Without limiting subsection (1), the commissioner may amend a licence to impose a condition respecting the payment of wait time remuneration by the licensee to truckers employed or retained by the licensee.”

That is one of the conditions that the minister mentioned under 18(1). There will be other conditions. But in this particular section, we are only mentioning one condition now. That’s where the confusion is.

If it was only to talk about the number of trucks and that’s the reason for amending that licence, then what was the purpose of mentioning one condition among many that the minister mentioned under 18? Can you clarify that confusion? Why is wait time, which is one of the conditions mentioned in 18, mentioned here as far as the amendment to the licence?

Hon. T. Stone: I’ll reiterate what I’ve said on this. The intention of this section is to enable an amendment of an existing licence should the licence holder want to add or remove trucks associated with that licence.

[1805]

Now, to the member’s specific question as to why only wait-time remuneration is noted here and none of the other criteria, again, that relates back to the jurisdictional issues that we talked about earlier. Wait times relate to port access, which is and will continue to be federal jurisdiction, even after all the dust is settled on this.

Legislative counsel felt that it was necessary to specifically mention in the act wait-time remuneration for those purposes, all the while knowing all of the other points of criteria associated with the licences.

Everything else that I read into the record earlier in this discussion — those will all be detailed and included in the regulation that will be forthcoming.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

C. Trevena: Section 20 is the one where…. In this section the commissioner, by order or by imposition of a condition under the previous sections may require “(a) a licensee or an applicant for a licence to provide security to the commissioner, in the amount the commissioner requires and in accordance with the regulations…and (b) a licensee to pay an annual fee, in the amount and at the time specified in the order.”

One assumes, obviously, that the commissioner has the ability to set these fees. I wonder if the minister could give any indication of the level of those fees and if he can clarify whether those fees will be imposed on the drivers themselves or on the licence holders.

Hon. T. Stone: Working backwards in terms of the member’s two questions, her second question was: will any of these fees be charged to employees or the drivers? The very simple answer is no. The fees will all be applicable to the licence holder — to the companies.

With respect to the member’s initial question as to what the level of those fees may look like, we don’t know at this point. Certainly, the port and the federal government have published what the annual licence fees will likely be as a starting point coming out of the TLS reform that they’re working on. They’ve got numbers out there in the magnitude of $2,250 per additional truck, with a licence fee of approximately $45,000 per licence.

[1810]

Remember that that cost includes all of the functions and responsibilities that the port will continue to have even after the responsibility for the licence piece is transferred to the province. I would anticipate the provincial fees would be less than the published annual fees that are out there right now through port of Metro Vancouver, but it’s too early to speculate as to exactly what those levels would be.

What I do know is we will certainly look at…. This cuts back to the discussion we had much earlier in this debate, or this discussion. This is all the more reason we want to keep the commissioner’s office as flat as we possibly can, keep those costs down. Keeping those costs down will have a direct correlation on our ability to keep the licence fees down as much as possible as well.
[ Page 5357 ]

C. Trevena: The minister says that they won’t be imposing any fees on the drivers. Is there any mechanism to ensure that there is no downloading onto the drivers — that the licensees, licence holders, will not in any way shift the cost onto the drivers?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, there is. It’s a very good question about whether or not there are any opportunities for companies to potentially download costs on their drivers. That is specifically prohibited in this act.

In fact, in section 24, where it deals with financial set-offs, commissions and deductions, it specifically says: “A licensee must not solicit or receive, directly or indirectly, a financial set-off, commission or rate deduction or rebate from a trucker.” Section 24, I think, deals with the member’s concern.

H. Bains: Just a question on 20(a): “a licensee or an applicant for a licence to provide security to the commissioner….” My question is: what’s the purpose of the security? And under what circumstances may the licensee forfeit their security or the commission may require the licensees to forfeit the security? What would be those conditions?

Hon. T. Stone: This particular section, section 20(a), that relates to security, is pretty fundamental to all of this working. As I mentioned previously in our discussion today, one of the licence conditions that we certainly expect will be forthcoming through the TLS reform that’s taking place will be security for a licence.

Again, in terms of what the port has published to this point, the numbers that they’ve put out there, it’s a security of $300,000 for the licence and $150,000 for each additional ten truck tags.

[1815]

The ability of a company to provide that level of security, that bond, again, will be characteristic, I think, of the types of companies that will be professionalized, well financed — the types of companies that will help all of us ensure that the port is stable and open for business long term.

It’s also there to ensure that, for whatever reason, if the commissioner determines that a company is underpaying their drivers, or not paying in some cases, there is a security here that the commissioner can make an order to tap into that security to ensure that a company gets back to a place of being whole with its drivers. I mean, that’s a very important piece of this. Again, it relates back to the licence criteria, the professionalization and the financial strength of the types of companies that will be serving the port. We think it’s a very important backstop to ensure that drivers get paid the compensation that they’ve rightfully earned.

H. Bains: I thank the minister for answering a question that I was going to ask. It is important, because we had some discussion earlier on about the commissioner’s ability to collect or to enforce its orders, whether through the courts or through whatever other means the commissioner may have available to them.

If I’m correct and the minister agrees, this is one of the avenues that the commissioner has at its disposal. If it finds that one of the companies is not in compliance as far as the payment of rates and wait times, the commissioner can actually dip into the security and pay the driver directly from that amount. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. The security will be in the name of the province, and the commissioner will be able to make an order to draw upon that security and to ensure that the funds are then paid to the drivers in question.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

C. Trevena: Section 21 gives the commissioner ability to cancel a licence if he’s “satisfied that the licensee is no longer carrying out container trucking services.” I’m wondering what other reasons there might be for cancellation of a licence.

Hon. T. Stone: At the end of the day, if the commissioner determines that the licence holder is in violation of any of the criteria that are attached with that licence — the payment of the provincially regulated rates or compliance with the national safety code, for example…. If any of these points of criteria are not in full compliance with that particular licence holder, then the commissioner can make a determination that the licence holder is not in compliance.

C. Trevena: I’m just intrigued about why that isn’t specified. I mean, again, there’s a sense that this bill has been put together in a need to get something through quickly. I’m just intrigued that it isn’t specified, and only the cancellation if they are no longer carrying out container trucking service is the section under “Cancellation of licence.”

[1820]

Hon. T. Stone: Part of the intent of this section, as well, is to ensure that if in the opinion of the commissioner a licensee is no longer meeting the conditions of a licence and for all intents and purposes is not utilizing that licence, this provides the required path for the commissioner to effectively cancel that licence. That licence then just goes away.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.
[ Page 5358 ]

C. Trevena: I’m very aware of the time as we’re launching into what might be the most…. I think this section might have some of the most questions — the issue of rates and fuel surcharges — but I will launch off on this. I mean, it’s clearly one of the issues that has been at the forefront for many, many years and led to why we’re here now, I’d say.

I will start off on it, and I hope that the minister can start providing responses on this. We’ve had the joint action plan with two trip rates. We’ve had the suggestion from Mr. Ready, which had some hybrid rates. So you’ve got the joint action plan with the trip rates for the owner-operators and an hourly rate, and you have a version of a rate that has come in, suggested by Mr. Ready, which did spark some concern at the ports, where there was some protest about it.

I’m wanting to know from the minister, on section (a) and section (b) where the minister…. I guess the question is pretty broad at the moment. As the minister responds, where is the minister going with this? Is he looking specifically at the joint action plan for guidance? Will that be the instruction to the commissioner when the commissioner is set up? It does say: “any other basis the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate.” So is that where the minister is going — the joint action plan? Or is the minister looking at the latest suggestion by Mr. Ready? Or is he looking at something completely different?

Hon. T. Stone: The member is right. This cuts right to the core of probably the most fundamental aspect of this legislation, and that is the rates and fuel surcharges and how this will all be managed.

As I have said a number of times this afternoon, and to this point, we intend on ensuring that as a starting point, the rates that were the subject of the joint action plan and that were negotiated in good faith be a starting point for this regulation.

Again, we’re setting up a new infrastructure here, a new office of the commissioner, so there will have to be a starting point. All that this section does here is facilitate through order-in-council the setting of those initial rates. Once that’s done, the commissioner will then have the authority to amend and otherwise change rates on a go-forward basis as he or she sees fit.

[1825]

C. Trevena: Noting the hour, this will be my last question on this section.

Just to pick up on that so we’re not losing our train tomorrow when we continue with this, the joint action plan is going to be the starting rate. That is the $25.13 and the $26.28 with benefits, etc., added — and overtime after eight hours at time and a half. The minister says that’s going to be the starting point for the commissioner. Does he have the ability to reduce that rate?

The Chair: As the minister consults with his staff, are there any further questions on section 22?

C. Trevena: There will be a number throughout the…. This is quite a lengthy section. So we’ll continue on section 22 when we resume.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, the rates that the member just mentioned will be the rates that will be provided for in the regulation. No, the regulation will not deal with overtime. That was not part of the joint action plan discussion. There’s a separate employment standards process for that.

I’d ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada