Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

CELEBRATING THE
B.C. TREE FRUIT INDUSTRY

D. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I hope you had a nice weekend.

To staff and all my peers here in the Legislature, I hope you had a nice weekend.

[10:05 a.m.]

It gives me great pleasure today to stand up and talk about something that’s near to my heart — not only the Okanagan Valley, which is incredibly picturesque and has incredible vistas and landscapes, but from lakeside views to seemingly endless rolling hills and lush fields. It’s a place that I’ve been happy to call home for most of my life. Whether you choose to relax by the lake, go on a hike, bike along the trails, there’s always more to see and explore in the Okanagan.

For those who prefer to take in the scenery at a more leisurely pace, we have some of North America’s finest vineyards and orchards. Orchards and tree fruit, in particular, are of great significance to the local culture and employment and have a long history in the area that I have an incredible honour to represent. The fruits that they produce are not only contributing to the health and lifestyle of all the valley citizens and the visitors but are an integral part of our region’s economy. The revenue generated from the freshly grown produce ranks in the millions and helps support thousands of jobs in the area through local farms, distribution centres, groceries, farmers markets, plus many more interconnected enterprises.

Just a short drive out of Penticton, it houses one of B.C.’s biggest suppliers of the tree fruit industry, the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, who have been operating in the Okanagan Valley for over 100 years. The B.C. Fruit Growers Association helps promote B.C.’s apples, pears, cherries, apricots, peaches, prune plums and nectarines. I need to say that farming touches many of the lives of the citizens of the Okanagan Valley.

Looking at the history, with a special interest in our government’s past involvement in the tree fruit industry, members on this side of the House have recognized the work that agri-workers in organizations like the B.C. Fruit Growers Association have done. We do our best to ensure that the fruit industry and B.C. produce remain a priority and garner their proper support.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Over the years, we’ve laid out a plan to ensure that B.C. was actively promoting the growth and production of high-value, high-quality B.C. fruit and encouraging the development of a strong and sustainable tree fruit sector, all which would result in growers earning more dollars and providing families with a variety of healthy options. We didn’t just talk about how we were going to do it. We backed it up with this sentiment — $9.4 million for a replant program, a multi-million-dollar investment in helping packing houses modernize.

By creating the Buy Local program, this funding has been used to promote B.C. apples, cherries and berries and a whole other assortment of produce to local consumers. The Buy Local program has helped countless B.C. agrifood producers increase their exposure to market share in a way that would not have been possible without this support. We also have worked hard to ensure that B.C.’s tree fruits remain competitive on a global scale.

We prioritized creating trading partnerships across the Pacific with China in 2014, leading a delegation which included representatives from the cherry industry. The mission was an incredible success, increasing our export value of fresh cherries by 150 percent, going from $9.9 million to $24 million.

It’s just not about the dollars and the cents or revenue or job creation. It’s about providing families locally and abroad with healthy food options and ensuring that we have world-class tree fruit products that are available on a distribution worldwide. Lastly, it’s about supporting our agrifood producers here at home and ensuring that they have had, and continue to have, a steady stream of customers that appreciate all their hard work. As you can tell, tree fruits are a passion of mine and of many of the people that I have the honour to represent.

Historically, government has been a big supporter of the tree fruit industry, and for many years, the benefits that have come from government have been spread widely. I hope this work continues. In light of the wildfire season, which has had some negative effects — not only a wildfire in our area but also flooding — we just want to ensure that government takes heed of how important this industry is. There is a sizeable and growing demand for our fruit trees and many other B.C. agrifood products, and we should actively promote and press those advantages wherever possible.

M. Dean: Thank you so much to the member opposite. I really appreciate his acknowledgment of all the work that has been going on in the fruit industry and all the British Columbians who are affected.

[10:10 a.m.]

Our government is committed to supporting and strengthening our province’s fruit growing industry. We’re very fortunate here in B.C. to have a diverse and productive industry. In 2016, B.C. fruit growers produced more than 128,000 tonnes of apples, cherries, peaches, pears, plums, nectarines and apricots. The total represents close to one-third of total Canadian production.

B.C.’s tree fruit industry represents 800 growers operating orchards across B.C. that generate $130 million in wholesale revenue, contribute $900 million in economic activity and directly employ 1,500 in person-years at the grower, packer and processor level.

I do also recognize that many of B.C.’s fruit growers have been devastated by this summer’s wildfires. We are committed to helping the agriculture industry to recover. B.C. ranchers and farmers can now access the $20 million 2017 Canada–British Columbia wildfires recovery initiative to help rebuild their livelihoods. This funding is available through AgriRecovery, a federal-provincial-territorial disaster relief framework.

I’m going to talk about how our government is building even more opportunities for the province’s fruit sector with a three-pronged approach through Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C.

Buy B.C. will offer a recognizable brand on local products and help B.C. food and beverage businesses expand their sales in the province. The highlight of the campaign will be a month-long dining promotion in May 2018 offering consumers the experience to learn about and enjoy fresh dishes made with local ingredients.

The campaign will also feature the return of the Buy B.C. logo, making it easier for people to support B.C. farmers and food processors with an easy-to-identify brand on food products grown and made in B.C. We know that British Columbians are excited about the products that are being grown and produced in our province and are ready to celebrate the success of B.C.’s agriculture industry. It’s time to get the buy-B.C. conversation going.

Feed B.C. will help increase the use of B.C. foods in hospitals and other government facilities while creating opportunities to start or expand a farm or food business in communities throughout the province. The benefits are obvious. Not only will we be working to increase the sale of B.C. food products; we’re working to increase the processing of B.C. foods as well. Creating a market demand for year-round B.C. food products in government facilities and communities around the province brings stability to our domestic market and supports opportunities to start or expand a farm or food business in communities right across the province.

For example, in 100 Mile last year, at the height of the fruit season in the Okanagan, the 100 Mile Hospital was serving fruit cups imported from another country. Our own Minister of Agriculture reported that here to the House — during our own fruit season. She went and talked to some food processors and asked if they would expand their business to meet a B.C. market. They said: “Having a stable market to sell into is all we need. We just need the opportunity, and we would absolutely process B.C. product.”

Grow B.C. will centre on policies and programs that support farmers and help B.C. producers expand local food production as well as support young British Columbians who want to farm. It will include policies that support new entrants and young people getting into farming. British Columbians are so keen to grow local products, and we’ll create opportunities to help people do just that. We’ll support young people who are identifying farming as their chosen livelihood. We’ll encourage them, and we’ll support them.

This program is an important part of our commitment to create good jobs across the province. We know that for every dollar in farm receipts, $2 are spent in local municipalities. When our B.C. food producers succeed, we all succeed. A healthy and striving agriculture industry is critical in creating good jobs and, quite literally, growing our economy, especially in rural British Columbia.

D. Ashton: I would like to concur with what the member just said: when B.C. food growers thrive, B.C. thrives. I would like to speak in favour of sustaining and supporting the growth of our tree fruit industry. As spending trends and our global climate change, farmers need to be able to adapt to maintain their competitive edge. They also have to have peace of mind knowing that there will be significant demand for their products when harvesting begins.

[10:15 a.m.]

As I’ve mentioned previously, members on this side of the House introduced different venues and avenues to help farmers improve their position within the market. We also created initiatives that will help sustain their growth, like the replant program.

The replant program provides farmers with the resources to replant fruit trees with a new, high-value, high-quality fruit, such as Ambrosia, Honeycrisp and late-season cherries. I would be quite remiss in not mentioning our Aurora Golden Galas, which many have tasted in this building. I personally want to thank Richard and Denise MacDonald for supplying them. Hopefully, they will continue to supply them until my new trees bear this incredible apple.

The ultimate goal of that, as we’ve said, is to help the tree fruit producers increase their efficiency and productivity. In 2016, as we have heard, there was 128,000 tonnes of apples, cherries and peaches and prunes produced. This represents a substantial amount of money. In B.C.’s Interior, there are over 430 growers.

I myself am a grower. Last year I planted 350 Aurora Golden Gala trees, and this year I plan to do the same amount. I would be very diligent to say how we can put our good land to use and how we can make it more productive.

At this point in time, the benefits of supporting this industry don’t stop at the level of the farmers or the distributors. What we have to do is make sure that we produce in-demand fruits and that we increase our competitiveness and we get more healthy options for the people that want them. In turn, if we’re healthy and the people around the world are healthy and the people that we sell these products to are healthy, we’re all going to have fuller lives. We know what that can mean to governments like ourselves.

Madame Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity this morning. I would like to thank the member opposite for also standing up in support of the industry.

POVERTY REDUCTION

J. Brar: I rise in this House today to make a private member’s statement on poverty reduction.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the declaration of the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty by the United Nations. This was a call to action to fight to end poverty everywhere — a path towards peaceful and inclusive societies. Former U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt once said: “The test for our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have enough. It is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

It’s my respectful opinion that all members of this House wish to reduce poverty in our rich province, blessed with tremendous resources for all of us. But the reality is that we haven’t made any progress during the last 16 years.

In 2011, Raise the Rates — a coalition concerned about poverty, inequality and the homeless in B.C. — invited me to spend a month living on welfare. After much consideration and support from my family, stakeholders and colleagues, I decided to accept the welfare challenge to experience firsthand what life is like for half a million B.C. families and individuals living in poverty.

As a father of two young children, it’s hard for me to imagine that in a province as wealthy as ours, we have 160,000 children living in poverty. It’s hard for me to imagine that 103,000 British Columbians used food banks in 2016. Almost one-third of those using food banks were children. It’s hard for me to believe that the gap between the rich and the rest of British Columbians has widened to the point that the top 10 percent of B.C. families now earn considerably more than the entire bottom half of families.

That’s why I chose to live on provincial income assistance for a month, beginning January 2012. Over the month, I met with people living in poverty and on welfare. I listened to their painful and heartbreaking stories. Each story has a message for all of us.

We cannot afford not to take actions to address the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and we must start taking action to address income inequality with a pragmatic approach and clear targets and timelines. We have a wealthy society, and we can do better. I’m sure the people of British Columbia want us to do better.

The reality is that our public services have been eroded over the past 16 years. We can clearly see the impact that this has had on our people and on our communities.

[10:20 a.m.]

There is a significant increase in the number of people who are homeless. There is a significant increase in the number of people who are the working poor. Housing in many B.C. communities is just not affordable. Child care cost impacts a person’s ability to join the workforce. We cannot continue down this road. We must change directions. We must make investments in people, community and a sustainable economy that works for everyone. We must make investments in our programs and services that make life better for the people of our province.

We are ready to start work on B.C.’s first poverty reduction strategy. We are going to speak with the people of British Columbia to get their ideas on how we can reduce poverty, support equality and provide opportunities. We will be asking people what we can do as a province, as communities and as citizens to reduce poverty and foster economic and social inclusion.

We will listen, engage and consult broadly with people who are working and still struggling to get ahead. We will talk with individuals and organizations that understand poverty in their communities so that the solutions are meaningful to those who are affected by poverty. We will develop a poverty reduction plan with clear targets and timelines, with solutions that make a difference in our communities.

The new government has moved quickly, taking steps that will start making life better for the people of British Columbia on income assistance. One of the first things we did when we formed government was to increase income assistance and disability assistance rates by $100 per month. Earning exemptions have also been increased by $200 per month to help people earn more, stay connected to the workforce and gain valuable work experience. We have built transportation support for people on disability assistance.

We are investing $291 million over two years to build 200 modular supportive housing units and provide immediate response to the growing issue of homelessness in our communities. Six hundred of those units are already underway in Vancouver. Work is underway across government to develop a homelessness action plan, $10-a-day child care, an affordable housing framework and to increase the minimum wage.

Working together, we can reduce poverty in this province, and that’s the part the people of British Columbia want us to pursue.

E. Ross: Thank you to the member for Surrey-Fleetwood for raising the topic of poverty reduction. Being a First Nations member and representing a riding with many small communities in the north, poverty is a topic that I am well acquainted with and experienced firsthand throughout my life.

I know the topic is whether or not there is a poverty reduction plan, but the fact that the LNG development in my riding coincided with the B.C. jobs plan proved that a job is the best solution to poverty reduction. It is one of the reasons why B.C. was the leading economy in the country. As for how to reduce poverty, I’ve said it before: from my experience, look no farther than the employment available to British Columbians in Kitimat during the mini-boom we experienced a few years ago.

That activity was only preparation for the bigger economy if a final investment decision were announced by either LNG company. On top of that, the modernization of the smelter in our community provided tremendous opportunities for people to get out of poverty. It proved what more and more bands across British Columbia and Canada are believing in — that independence through rewarding work is the best way out of poverty.

Being raised by stern parents — who went to residential school, by the way — who also believed in hard work with no excuses, I was like most breadwinners are: beyond sad when I had to utilize the welfare system. As a young man with a young family, I was stuck in a cycle of earn some decent money until the job ends, begin an anxious waiting period for employment insurance and, when employment insurance runs out, apply for welfare until another job comes around. That was a horrible situation to be in, and I don’t want any British Columbians to experience that, if I can help it, because they were not good times. I was extremely angry and borderline depressed at the same time.

[10:25 a.m.]

Many years ago, as a newly elected leader, I realized that many people are in the same boat across British Columbia and, just like I was, just as proud not to admit it.

Poverty is a simple word that doesn’t explain all the social problems that become a lifestyle and, in some cases, become a culture, passed on to the next generation. I’ve lived it and tried to eradicate it in my term on Haisla Nation Council. In fact, it’s why I advocate for responsible development in the first place. In my own experience as a leader, I was tremendously proud of the work our council did to engage with government and industry and also to see the results showing in our people.

I’ve heard average people, back then and now, talk about their shift work, their holidays or the new truck they just bought. Unfortunately, for the last few months, I’ve been hearing about how people in my riding have to leave to Manitoba, to the Yukon and other areas of Canada to sustain the lifestyle they just previously found.

I hope we can continue this progress for able-bodied people to get out and stay out of poverty. Poverty should be addressed for all walks of life — both the collective and the individual — especially here in Canada, a land of freedom. When you’re in poverty, you don’t have the freedom to choose a holiday, to purchase a car or buy a house — not while you’re in poverty.

I’m sure that the parents of the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale felt the same way when they chose to make Canada their new home and raise a family. The fact is, you just can’t legislate poverty. If it was simple as that, as simple as passing a law, any government would have done that a long time ago. The best way to reduce poverty is give somebody an opportunity, and for that, you have to support economic development — like Site C, like LNG and, yes, like fish farms.

So with that, I’d like to thank the member for Vancouver-Lonsdale for the topic of poverty reduction and hope that that this House can work to eliminate, not reduce, poverty here in British Columbia. Thank you.

J. Brar: Thanks to the member for his thoughtful response to my private member’s statement on poverty reduction. I am actually the member for Surrey-Fleetwood. Vancouver is very far out there, so I just want to correct that.

Clearly, the members on the other side — with due respect; this is democracy — of this House have different perspectives to reduce poverty. They believe that the path to reduce poverty is to give more money to the people who already have an abundance of wealth and then let them fix poverty.

I think the reality of what we have seen during the last 16 years is that that approach didn’t work when we talk about reducing poverty in the province of British Columbia. So we cannot continue down that road. We must change directions. Let me be very clear. The path to reduce poverty is only one, and that is fair distribution of resources. That is how we can make life better for many British Columbians who are living in poverty right now.

Poverty does not discriminate. It affects seniors, children, families, individuals, those who are unemployed and those who work full-time. Finding a solution to reduce poverty and homelessness for the people in our community is a collective responsibility.

I hope that everyone in this House will join me in encouraging people to participate in the consultation process. I hope you will talk to your friends, family, neighbours and colleagues about how we can reduce poverty in our province.

[10:30 a.m.]

We have before us an opportunity to reshape our province for the people who are most vulnerable in this province. If we are going to make a difference, we need to work together. I am confident that if we work together, we will move forward towards a better future where families thrive and opportunities are unlimited. In the end, government is about choices, and our government is going to make a choice to make life better for everyone in this province.

I would like to conclude by saying thank you to the member, and I would like to conclude with a quote from a famous leader: “Poverty in the world is a scandal. In a world where there is so much wealth, so many resources to feed everyone, it is incomprehensible that there are so many hungry children — that there are so many children without education, so many poor persons. Poverty today is a cry.” Pope Francis I.

SKYTRAIN TO THE NORTH SHORE

J. Thornthwaite: I’m rising today to speak to what is without a doubt the No. 1 issue affecting the North Shore: transportation, traffic congestion and the lack of effective public transit connecting Vancouver to the North Shore.

While achievements have been made to address traffic congestion — like the lower Lynn highway exchange at the north end of the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge that our previous government and former Transportation Minister initiated and brought to fruition — it is only a short-term solution to a much bigger problem.

Ask anyone who lives on the North Shore or commutes to and from the North Shore for work, and they’ll tell you the same thing. We have some of the most congested roads in the region, and extreme traffic gridlock is an undesirable fact of our everyday lives. With traffic routinely backed up over the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge and the Lions Gate Bridge, sometimes for hours at a time, commuters have little option when it comes to making the trip to and from the North Shore.

Even buses get caught up in traffic. On average, there are three to four collisions on the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge a week. Right now, all it takes is one fender-bender to paralyze the flow of traffic on the highway and clog the feeder routes on both sides of the bridge.

So bad is the problem that at last month’s UBCM conference, both mayors of North Vancouver publicly called for the province to change the Motor Vehicle Act so that minor fender-benders may be cleared away from highways, bridges and tunnels faster. Couple this existing congestion with the noticeable increase of traffic that has coincided with the removal of bridge tolls and the subsequent rerouting of commuter routes. It’s clear the situation has never been worse.

However, we can’t look at the issue of traffic congestion without connecting it to the issue of affordability and, more specifically, the housing affordability in the North Shore. The mayors of the city and the district of North Van have tried to alleviate some housing concerns with a focus on increased density. But understandably, they are not getting unified support from residents, as they equate the push for greater density to even greater traffic congestion.

It’s no surprise that with housing prices escalating exponentially across the Lower Mainland, many are finding it increasingly unaffordable to live on the North Shore. Case in point: take a look at the numbers when it comes to employee demographics at Lions Gate Hospital, one of the North Shore’s largest employers. According to a 2015 study, of the 1,800 active Vancouver Coastal Health employees working at Lions Gate, only 54 percent actually live on the North Shore. This means that approximately 46 percent live elsewhere and are commuting to and from the North Shore on a daily basis.

Over 51 percent drive alone, while only 10 percent choose to commute by existing public transit. Moreover, those that do choose to commute by bus or car pool are condemned to endure the same congestion issues that single-occupant-vehicle commuters face.

If people can’t afford to live on the North Shore and it’s their lack of collective agreement to have any housing density, then people need to be able to get back and forth to work in a reasonable, efficient and affordable manner. Otherwise, the North Shore risks becoming a ghost town, where neighbourhoods lack a sense of community, where neighbours don’t know each other and where small businesses struggle to survive. Currently, we are destined to have a community where only the rich can afford to live.

Across the North Shore, businesses big and small are already experiencing staffing shortages. In North Vancouver, the worker shortage has turned into a full-blown staffing crisis, as the high cost of living and lack of effective transit are forcing some businesses to close their doors early each night. It’s been well-reported that several new North Shore businesses have been forced to delay their openings by several months as they can’t find enough staff to hire.

The West Vancouver school district superintendent has told me that that 10 percent of his workforce resigned last year due to inadequate transit to get them back and forth to work. The mayor of the district of North Vancouver has stated that due to upcoming retirements, they are going to find it difficult to fill positions with people who live here on the North Shore.

[10:35 a.m.]

Remember last winter? Do we want we really want our snow-removal staff living in and commuting to the North Shore from the city of Chilliwack, say? How’s that going to work in the snow? If we’re going to be serious about addressing the issues of traffic congestion, then we need to start having earnest discussions about what we want the future of transit to be on the North Shore. To do this, we need a brave vision and a bold strategy.

At present, TransLink’s position is that we need to first worry about advancing and implementing the mayors’ existing ten-year regional transportation plan. Well, with transit improvements for the North Shore making up a very small component of the mayors’ plan and debates still ongoing regarding the feasibility of its implementation, I believe now is the time to start a conversation about connecting the North Shore to greater Vancouver’s existing network of SkyTrain rapid transit.

When one considers this government’s peculiar — dare I say, political — opposition to bridge building, in addition to the cost and seismic concerns that come with building underwater tunnels, all solutions appear to point towards rapid transit as a way to alleviating gridlock.

My preliminary idea is to extend our existing SkyTrain across the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge to Phibbs Exchange with rail extending eastward and westward across the North Shore from Cates Park to Dundarave. This would connect the current SkyTrain lines from Vancouver and Burnaby to the eastern end of the North Shore — an area woefully underserviced by transit.

Check out the sample map that I have on my Facebook. The big advantage to this plan is it would work to provide the opportunity to one day connect further the rail network of Vancouver cities along the Sea to Sky corridor, like Squamish and Whistler. If residents from Vancouver travel to the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal, Squamish, Whistler or even Pemberton, they must go through the North Shore.

We are a huge transportation corridor that millions of non–North Shore residents and visitors use, and the north end of the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge at the foot of the Cut has the worst congestion on the North Shore. But why is it that North Shore residents are being asked to densify when adequate transportation avenues on and off the North Shore are not available? How is it justified that we have, arguably, the highest property taxes, yet the least amount of public transit services?

I’d like to remind people that plans to build the Canada Line and the Evergreen Lines were approved before the push for increased density. The lines were built and the density followed. Now the Canada Line is bursting at the seams.

To realize this vision that I’ve set forth today, we need to begin initiating dialogue with the public, municipal leaders, North Shore stakeholders and all levels of government, including First Nations. Only if we choose to dream big and invest in our communities in a sustainable manner will we stand a chance to meaningfully improve our future quality of life and livability on the North Shore.

R. Singh: It’s so good to see that members from both sides of the House have a desire to improve our transit infrastructure. Thank you, Member, for bringing this up.

This government is committed to making transit accessible to people in Metro Vancouver. We have already taken a step towards that by making an annual bus pass available through the new disability assistance supplement. We are also committed to building transit hubs in both urban and suburban centres so people have an efficient and affordable mode of transportation.

Our government is also committed to funding 40 percent of the capital costs of the Mayors Council vision and working in full partnership with all levels of the government to have these projects underway as soon as possible. We also look forward to moving ahead with important transit projects within the Mayors’ Council vision that will improve the daily lives of people in Metro Vancouver.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers for her support for public transit.

We need to make transit a cheaper, more affordable, more efficient option. The majority of people don’t take transit to lessen their carbon footprint. They take it because it is more efficient and it makes their lives more affordable. We need to incentivize people to get out of their cars. I worry deeply about the sustainability of my community, and we need to start having conversations about the diversity of housing options within communities so that we can encourage our young people to be able to live here.

I want my children to be able to live close to where they grew up and our elderly neighbours to have options to downsize in their own neighbourhoods. But we can’t do that and expect the citizens to accept more density without the accompanying transit that I’m proposing right now.

I would like to use this as a starting point for discussion for our transit vision and, hopefully, get buy-in from the North Shore mayors, the councils and the Mayors’ Council.

[10:40 a.m.]

Our previous government had a strong track record of working with our North Vancouver mayors and our federal government counterparts. We continue to ensure that strong working relationships are in place moving forward. Certainly, if it weren’t for the strong relationships between the MLAs, the MPs and the district of North Vancouver, we never would have seen the lower Lynn highway interchange project break ground.

I’m looking forward to the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce forum on transportation next month, and I hope that the plan I’m putting forward will be looked at, along with the others already discussed.

My hope is that by sharing my ideas publicly with my constituents, our community leaders, the chambers, fellow elected officials and TransLink, the North Shore will finally be given the importance it deserves in the Mayors Council plan. And then, maybe then, North Shorites can finally look forward to an efficient, affordable, environmentally-efficient solution to our constant gridlock.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT

B. Ma: I applaud the member for North Vancouver–Seymouron her earlier statement. I cannot express how thrilled I am to know that we now have members across multiple parties across the entire North Shore who support public transit as the way forward. I think it is absolutely safe for me to say that my colleagues in North Vancouver–Seymour and West Vancouver–Capilano will definitely agree with me when I say that traffic and transportation are major issues for us on the North Shore.

Rising housing prices and the insufficient number of jobs that pay well enough for a person to both live and work on the North Shore have turned our beautiful segment of the Lower Mainland into both a commuter town and a town which workers commute to.

The traffic numbers certainly show it. The major growth in traffic over the Second Narrows Bridge over the last 12 years has been into the North Shore in the morning and out of the North Shore in the evening, demonstrating that much of our traffic woes are produced by those who work on the North Shore. Or rather, it’s produced because there are so many people who work on the North Shore but aren’t able to live in it. You see, traffic congestion and housing affordability are intricately connected issues.

So what can we do about it? I absolutely echo the member for North Vancouver–Seymour’s earlier statement. Public transportation is the key. And that’s why it was a central theme in my election campaign as well.

Urban planners and engineers around the globe have known it for years: you cannot build your way out of urban congestion with more roads and bridges for vehicles. We’ve seen it time and time again. The more lanes that exist for vehicles, the more vehicles we see on the roads. The solution for congestion-riddled areas — like the North Shore and many other areas of the Lower Mainland — is to invest in a diversity of transportation modes that include safe cycling infrastructure, pedestrian infrastructure and, particularly, public transit.

Reliable, accessible, financially economical and frequent public transit is our key to urban mobility and, yes, even housing affordability. After all, the fact that you work ten kilometres away from where you work matters a whole lot less if you can get there in 20 minutes or less for a very reasonable cost.

What’s particularly exciting about public transit is that it doesn’t even take a massive megaproject to have a substantially positive impact on the North Shore. The Second Narrows Bridge carries approximately 130,000 vehicle trips per day. According to vehicle traffic counts, the increase in the average daily number of vehicles between 2005, when traffic on the North Shore was a lot more reasonable, and 2015, when it wasn’t, is only about 3,000 vehicles a day.

So 3,000 vehicles — that’s all we have to clear from our highways to bring traffic levels back to the far more tolerable 2005 levels. After too many years of stalling on public transit investments, however, we have a lot of work to do to make it work for the North Shore. We have to fund the ten-year mayors vision and then look immediately to the development of next steps that take areas of Metro Vancouver, like the North Shore, into account and encourage the kind of smart growth required to bring bigger and better forms of rapid transit to the North Shore.

These conversations are happening, and they have been happening for a while. The conversation that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has added her voice to is so important. We, as a society, have grown so car-centric that we somehow have allowed ourselves to fall into the trap of believing that personal vehicles are the only way to get around in an urban setting and that failing to invest every transportation dollar into roadways is somehow a disservice to society.

[10:45 a.m.]

I absolutely insist it is not. We must recognize that when it comes to transportation planning, the goal is to move as many people and as much goods around as possible, as time-efficiently as possible, for as little money per trip as possible, expending as few GHGs as possible, while ensuring safety is a core consideration. Doing that means being more of what I might refer to as being mode-agnostic and mode-diverse. Cars, bikes, buses, trucks, trains, gondolas, ferries, SeaBuses and shoes — they are all valid ways to get around. It is not about cars; it is about people. And people can move around in a whole lot of different ways.

For the North Shore, our commitment to public transportation as a way forward is absolutely critical. You know what? Whether it’s more SeaBuses, more buses, new routes or aspirational concepts like underwater tunnels for transit, SkyTrain to the North Shore, or more, it’s time for us to shift the conversation from the question of how we move cars around to how we move more people around.

That’s why we must also commit to encouraging active transportation options as a way to allow people the choice of leaving their cars at home so that existing roadway capacity can be better utilized for goods movement and used by people who depend on their cars to get around. If done properly, biking infrastructure is an effective way of keeping cars off of our roads.

Let’s be absolutely clear, however. Being pro–public transit and pro–active transportation doesn’t mean that the family of six that depends on their car to shuttle their children to school and soccer games should be forced to leave their car at home. It means that the options to allow other people, like myself, to get off of the roadways and onto my bicycle or onto a bus is available so that that family of six can get around in their vehicle more quickly. It also means that the ability for their children to travel by bus on their own when they’re old enough and responsible enough exists so that their parents are not transporting them around until they have their own driver’s licence or their own vehicle. It is about choice. It is about health. It is about freedom. It’s about people.

Now is the time, with agreement from North Shore MLAs that represent both sides of the House, that we must invest in public transportation and move forward on it with urgency. We now have the conditions required to make up for lost time. Let’s get on it, and let’s get the North Shore moving again.

L. Larson: I’m pleased to respond to the statements this morning on public transit. We are all aware of the challenges facing the population of commuters on the Lower Mainland. The growing population and the increasing numbers of vehicles on the roads also create an issue with increasing pollution from those vehicles.

Governments will continue to wrestle with those issues until enough public transit is available that people will actually leave their vehicles at home. But I think some clarity might be in order about what public transit looks like to those living beyond Hope. Our world does not revolve around the transit on the Lower Mainland, except for the fact that our taxpayers are paying for it.

Transit, for us, is a bus with a dog pictured on the side — a greyhound, to be specific — and that transportation option is about to be cut off to a large number of small rural communities in British Columbia. Even the current Greyhound service is not always convenient for travellers. The current stops in Princeton are at 1 a.m. and 4 a.m., depending on whether you are travelling east or west — not exactly the best of times. But that will end soon anyway, as the stops are being removed. This is a service that for years has connected the people in our communities to health care and family, a service that has now become uncertain for the people who have come to rely on it.

All of the 17 communities in my riding will lose some or all of their service from this carrier — the only means of transportation between the small communities themselves or between the small community and the larger centre. Greyhound has served rural B.C. since 1929, but it has experienced a 25 percent drop in ridership in the last four years. Since 2004, it has applied for a reduction in service to rural B.C. six times, citing millions of dollars in losses. The rising costs of fuel and some competition from other carriers have contributed to Greyhound’s losses. But in my riding, there is no other carrier, no competitor and, with the removal of Greyhound, virtually no service.

There are some B.C. Transit services in the Okanagan Valley, a once-a-day or twice-a-day opportunity to go from Osoyoos to Penticton or Kelowna. For example, you can leave Osoyoos to travel to Penticton at 7 a.m. and return after one. It certainly will get you to an early appointment at the Penticton Regional Hospital, but then you will wait four hours for a ride back.

[10:50 a.m.]

There are other travel options available, on different days of the week, to get you further up the valley to Kelowna. It’s not every day, so appointments have to be made with transportation in mind. This particular B.C. Transit service is paid for through a partnership with the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen and local communities along the route and is heavily subsidized by the users and local taxpayers. In Grand Forks, there is a service once a week to Kelowna, to their closest regional hospital.

There are no internal means of public transportation in my 17 communities. You need to have a friend or your own vehicle or wait for the one local taxi to get to your call, in order to move around inside your community. The addition of the extra carbon tax to the fuel costs of everyone who has no other transit option but to use their own vehicle will not make their lives more affordable. So the question of what service can be retained for rural B.C. and who will pay for it remains.

The number of transit systems in the Lower Mainland has grown from 13 to 83 in the last 20 years, and ridership has doubled from 21 million to 51 million annually. Public and government support for public transit is at an all-time high. So perhaps it is time to modernize the rural B.C. Transit system, with appropriate subsidies and government support.

Our old system has not adapted to the modern world. Focus should not continue to be solely on the Lower Mainland. There is a great big province out there that could use some planning and consideration also.

B. Ma: The member opposite is absolutely right. Although my previous statement had been focused primarily on North Vancouver, the North Shore, because it is my local community, public transportation remains a critical piece of our transportation infrastructure beyond the North Shore as well, of course. It’s important to the Lower Mainland, and absolutely, it is important to rural areas as well.

It does my heart well to know that there is so much buy-in, I guess, now, for public transportation as a critical part of the way to move forward. Our car-centric ways are perhaps becoming more diversified, and I look forward to what that looks like.

I remember meeting a young woman in my riding of North Vancouver–Lonsdale who had come in from a rural area. She had a medical appointment at Lions Gate Hospital, and she told me that the trip into North Vancouver had taken her six hours and five hitchhiking rides. She was coming in to North Vancouver for a one-hour doctor’s appointment, and she was headed back. Hopefully, it wouldn’t take her five hitchhiking rides or six hours again.

I was extremely worried for her. It reminds us of what has happened too many times along the Highway of Tears without appropriate transportation options for those who are unable to operate vehicles on their own. I absolutely agree. Public transit in rural areas must also be prioritized.

Hon. M. Mungall: I now would like to call the House to go into private members’ motions and moving Motion 7 that’s standing on the orders of the day.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 7 without disturbing the priority of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 7 — RIDE-SHARING

S. Cadieux: It’s my privilege today to bring forward a motion that reads:

[Be it resolved that this House support the implementation of ride sharing in British Columbia in 2017.]

I believe this is a very timely topic for British Columbians. I’m certainly hearing from my constituents that they indeed believe it’s timely. With all three parties in this House supporting ride-sharing in British Columbia, at least in theory, I hope that the introduction of this practice will be imminent.

In fact, during the election, all three parties promised that ride-sharing would come to British Columbia by the end of this year, and I know a number of us in this House still maintain this intention. But unfortunately, it does appear that we’ve hit a bit of a roadblock.

Despite extensive consultations done by our former government and despite the NDP campaign promise, the new government has ordered yet another consultation period. The minister who ordered this consultation, without so much as reviewing the results of the previous one, now has no information available about the kinds of timelines that we can expect.

[10:55 a.m.]

That effectively puts us back in park, at least for now. And there are some obvious gaps to the government’s consultation as they are currently planned, which adds another troubling layer to the handling of this issue.

Now, while consultations typically involve all major stakeholders in an issue, in this one that the government has ordered, it makes no mention of consulting the actual ride-sharing companies, leaving us wondering whether or not the government is interested in introducing ride-sharing at all. Notably, the terms of reference for the consultation also exclude the general public, the very people who these services are intended to benefit most.

There’s no doubt that British Columbians want ride-sharing services. They’ve showed us that, in the last election. They’ve been writing to our constituency office. I had hundreds of emails prior to the election on the topic of ride-sharing, and I’ve had a pile just since last week from people who are concerned about the government’s delay.

I’ll read a couple of them into the record, as a part of this motion. Conrad writes: “Last weekend I took my wife downtown for a birthday weekend. I tried using the Yellow Cab app. It didn’t work. I called them, and there was no answer or a long wait. There are no cabs to be found anywhere, which is problematic.” He goes on to say: “We are the only major city in North America that does not have ride-sharing. How many studies do you need? Can’t you see it’s working everywhere else? Copy what they do — done.” This is from one constituent of mine who uses ride-share in other cities.

Another constituent, Scott: “I tried to get a taxi last Saturday night in South Surrey at 11 p.m. It took six unanswered phone calls and over 90 minutes to get one. I mean, when you see this and you see the reviews” — he means of taxi companies, as he goes on in his email — “please help.” In his email, he showed a screen shot of the on-line listings of taxi companies where users could vote, and not one had a rating of more than two out of five for their service.

Another writer, Hal, says: “I just spent two hours yesterday waiting for a taxi in Vancouver. Seriously? Yeah, apparently when it rains, they get swamped. Seriously? We do live on the wet coast.” Hal goes on to say: “Please, just get it done.”

In the last election, where no party returned to this House with a majority, they also showed us that they wanted more cooperation and collaboration from their elected officials. We have the opportunity to put that into practice right now. I know that my Green colleague across the way has put forward a private member’s bill on the same issue, and we look forward to reviewing this bill in good faith and ensuring that it adequately addresses public safety concerns, like licensing and insurance.

Despite the government’s rhetoric about a new era of collaborative government, they haven’t provided any assurances that this House will indeed get the chance to examine that legislation, despite the fact that the majority of the members of this House would like that opportunity. We expect more from a government that claims to be listening.

Indeed, there’s a demand for a whole spectrum of transportation options so that British Columbians have the flexibility between different services, depending on their needs. For example, the advance of ride-sharing in the province would provide the option to free up some of that taxi time — valuable taxi time when it comes to accessible cabs, for one, who often choose the easy fare instead of picking up the person with a disability, as I noted last Tuesday. When I called a half an hour ahead to book a wheelchair-accessible cab, they said no problem. At 6:40, I was still waiting, and I called back. We were waiting to hear that it became available.

The reality is that ride-sharing makes up a continuum, the public desire is there, and I hope that government will stop stalling and instead involve this House here, being paid to make decisions, to move forward on this issue.

Deputy Speaker: Maple Ridge–Mission.

Interjection.

B. D’Eith: Thanks to the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

Uber tried to come into the B.C. market in 2012 — that was five years ago — but was suspended following an order from the registrar of passenger transportation. The Liberals had five years to get this right and failed to do so.

[11:00 a.m.]

The previous government had consultations, which took a long time to come, resulting in a report, Ride Sourcing in B.C.: A Stakeholder Engagement Summary, that wasn’t released until September 2016. This report was used to guide the previous administration in developing the proposed economic regulatory framework for ride-sharing.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Following the consultations and taking the report into consideration, the previous government announced its plans for ride-sharing on March 7, 2017, just before the election, and committed to bring in the model by December 2017.

In response to this announcement, the Vancouver Taxi Association issued an open letter to the previous government, criticizing the plan by saying that the proposed insurance model was unfair and that not restricting the number of taxi licences would be a destructive competition to the taxi industry. Further in the letter, the Vancouver Taxi Association expressed a desire to work with the government to come up with a model that meets the interests of taxi users while protecting the existing industry.

The B.C. Liberals stormed ahead with the December 2017 launch plan, notwithstanding the serious misgivings from the taxi industry and other stakeholders.

Well, our government will bring in ride-sharing. We’re committed to that, but we will do it the right way. Unlike the B.C. Liberals who put together a hasty pre-election plan that had clear problems with taxi services and issues with insurance requirements, our government will look at this complex issue and develop a plan to bring ride-sharing to B.C. that balances the interests of all stakeholders, including the ride-sharing industry.

Our government has hired industry expert Dan Hara to engage with the taxi industry and other stakeholders to make recommendations that will create a fair and level approach to ride-sharing in British Columbia, an approach that reflects the significant investment that the taxi industry has made but doesn’t unfairly benefit or punish one group or the other. We’re creating a made-in-B.C. solution that ensures a level playing field for all service providers and safety for consumers. Even this fair-minded approach has members on the other side saying that we should have ride-sharing in by December 2017.

In response to this, I say….

Interjections.

B. D’Eith: No. You were promising it for December 2017, Members. I say it’s pretty hypocritical for the official opposition to be calling foul when their own throne speech in 2017 said that they recognized the errors of their ways. Let me quote from the clone speech.

“For British Columbians looking for other model options for getting from A to B, your government will deliver…its commitments to support car- and ride-sharing. While all parties in this Legislature publicly stated their support for ride-sharing in the recent election, your government has heard the message that legitimate implementation concerns remain. Any proposed legislation will be referred to an all-party committee for extensive consultation with the public and stakeholders and, in particular, in regards to boundaries and insurance.”

The Liberals were finally listening after 16 years of “my way or the highway” politics. Or should I say no highway? This flip-flopping goes on. MLAs….

Let’s talk about the referendum. How about the referendum, Members? Slowed us down for four years and didn’t support our mayors. That’s what the legacy of the previous government is.

This flip-flopping goes on. The MLA for Vancouver-Langara, who’s running for leadership of the B.C. Liberals, seemed to agree with the sentiments of the clone speech, stating that the B.C. Liberals moved too quickly to introduce ride-sharing. He even said that the NDP is trying to steal his position on ride-sharing. He tweeted: “NDP is trying to steal my position on this matter.”

Also, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, another B.C. Liberal leadership contender, back-pedalled on previous statements on RedFM, made earlier that week. “I want to make very, very clear to the listeners. There aren’t going to be any changes with respect to Uber overnight or next week or next month. At some point in the future, they will likely have their services here in British Columbia but not any time soon. Any changes will only come if we can ensure that there’s a level playing field for everyone.”

The only thing that is clear is that the B.C. Liberals are confused about their position on how ride-sharing should be brought in, in British Columbia.

[11:05 a.m.]

J. Sturdy: First of all, I think we should get the terminology correct here, that it’s not actually ride-share. That’s not correct.

Real-time ride-share, instant dynamic, ad hoc or on-demand ride-share is a service that arranges one-time rides on short notice, usually using a technology like GPS to determine the driver’s route and arrange a shared ride, smartphones to request a ride, and social networks to create trust and accountability between drivers and passengers. This is coordinated through a network service, which can handle driver payments and matches the riders using an optimization algorithm. Real-time ride-sharing fills empty seats in passenger cars.

It definitely has benefits around lowering fuel usage and transportation costs, providing service in areas not served by public transit and can act as a transit feeder. Ride-sharing is more like modern car-pooling than anything else. This is truly what people are talking about when they’re talking about the sharing economy.

Now, I know it sounds like the same thing and splitting hairs, but what we’re debating today is actually more appropriately and accurately termed ride-sourcing — not the same thing, not part of the sharing economy. It’s a technologically advanced way of making better use of our existing transportation fleet. It’s a way of reducing cost and getting better and more accountable service. It’s a way to request service via mobile app or website, to track the location of the driver and know when the car will arrive, and have the service monitored by a transportation network company, or a TNC.

Typically, the driver is subject to background checks, training, drug and alcohol policies and insurance coverage. It’s often a cheaper service than a cab, though not necessarily, and would typically provide a receipt by email. It can provide service in less populated areas, as well, not served by cabs.

Beyond the fact that British Columbians understand the opportunity and need to derive these benefits that they have clearly stated that they want, like most modern jurisdictions, to implement these technologies in their communities, British Columbians understand that government is delaying the implementation of ride-sourcing as a result of a political directive.

I should remind the House that this delay is not just in 2018. The government has said that at best — at best — they will consider legislation in the fall sitting next year. This is not implementation next year. This is a consideration of legislation at the end of this year. So if the government could see their way past their political obligations, we may see ride-sourcing at some point in 2019 or 2020 — or not.

While we often think of this as an urban issue — a fact that today’s list of speakers, I suspect, surely suggests is true — I would remind this House that urban B.C. does have transportation options. Complain all you want about the quality or the provision of a public transit service — how it doesn’t get you where you need to go, or it will take far too long, or you can’t take your dog with you, or a myriad of other complaints — in many parts of B.C., outside of urban centres, transit not only just doesn’t work for you but just isn’t there.

In many communities in B.C., your transportation options are your car or your thumb. For me, it’s just a car, because I ask you, if you saw me standing by the side of the road on a dark and stormy night, would you pick me up? I don’t think I’d pick me up. No, for me….

Interjections.

J. Sturdy: The member from Sunshine Coast will pick me up. I thank you for that. You’re a trusting fellow.

Ride-sourcing in rural B.C. is critical to provide safe alternatives to getting where you need to go, when you need to get there — be it home or work, soccer practice, grocery shopping or a doctor’s appointment. Ride-sourcing in rural B.C. isn’t a “nice to have.” It’s a must have.

Beyond urban parts of my riding, like West Van or Squamish or Whistler — but for Bowen Island, for Britannia Beach or Pemberton or Devine or D’Arcy or Nequatque — all ask governments to get on with it, to get on with ride-sourcing, to give people with few transportation options another option so that they can get home safely.

A. Kang: Over the weekend, I did some baking with my kids. I preheated the oven to 350 degrees and put the cookie dough in the oven.

[11:10 a.m.]

Just two minutes after, my kids asked me: “Mommy, can we take the cookies out? They smell so good.” I explained to my kids: “Well, as a responsible mother, I can’t give you half-baked cookies.”

It’s funny. We all think it’s funny here today. I’m standing here explaining to members opposite that as responsible legislators, we can’t hand British Columbians half-baked ride-share legislation. As a matter of fact, the previous government had five years to bake this ride-share legislation, but what we see today is that the previous government didn’t even turn the flour into dough. Now the members opposite want us to finish this in 2017. This is like asking us to take the half-baked cookies out of the oven and then serve them to kids or guests or families and friends. That’s not good public-policy-making, and that’s not responsible. That’s doing British Columbians a disservice.

Some members on the other side of the aisle can agree with me. The member for Vancouver-Langara also believes that the following concerns need to be addressed before launching ride-share programs in B.C.: maintain passenger safety, treat everyone fairly and create a level playing field for competition. The two members from the other side of the aisle should really talk it through and figure out what their party really wants them to do, especially when one of them wants to be the leader of the party.

While members opposite are still figuring out what they want, we know that people want more options for getting around quickly, safely and affordably. We’ve heard it loud and clear, which is why the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure has hired Dr. Dan Hara, an industry expert, to engage with the taxi industry and stakeholders. Through Dr. Dan Hara, we are inviting community members to bake this ride-share legislation with us. Together we will create a solution that is made in B.C. and a legislation that screams the local flavours of British Columbia — diligence and fairness.

We have to acknowledge the fact that we are living in a time when technology is constantly changing. The most important challenge for democratic representatives like us is not only to solve the problems of the present but also to solve the problems of the future.

One important question that we must ask ourselves when dealing with ride-share: how do we give people access and convenience while protecting their safety? We will bring ride-share to B.C., and we will do it the right way. As a diverse province that attracts talents from all over the world, we welcome new technologies that offer potential benefits with open arms. We also need to make sure that we protect the jobs that British Columbians currently depend on and help them make the transition into the new economy.

We are here to create a win-win-win situation for British Columbians. We are making sure that the new service providers win, that the existing service providers win and that all the customers win. We are here to create a level playing field so we don’t unfairly benefit or punish one group over the other.

There is much work to be done, but we are going to do it. We want to be certain that we’ve addressed everyone’s needs before launching ride-share in B.C. That’s the only way to guarantee success. Most importantly, we have a timeline. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure will be delivering a report by the spring of 2018, followed by legislative changes. In the meantime, I urge the members from the other side of the House to be patient. Licking cookie dough off a spatula may be delicious, but not everyone likes to eat half-baked cookies.

R. Sultan: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake is correct. We had five years on this side of the House to discuss and implement a form of ride-sharing, whether it’s Uber, Lyft or some other combination.

I think the reality is that this strong signal that the world is changing was certainly communicated to the existing operators in the taxi industry, and they have had five years to figure out how to compete with a ride-sharing model that is commonplace elsewhere in the world. We don’t need another consultant to come along and explain how ride-sharing might work. They just have to go to some other city — and there are dozens, if not hundreds of them — to see how it works. I’d be terribly astonished, at the end of the day, if we come up with anything that isn’t very similar to what those folks are doing. So what we have here now is….

[11:15 a.m.]

Understandable. My heart goes out to the people on the opposing side trying to wiggle off an election promise that now, my goodness, seems to have some political consequences in a very important part of Metro Vancouver. Heavens. Was this not foreseen before you fellas and ladies added another promise to that long list of promises that one by one you’re trying to wiggle off, disengage from, deny or send to a study?

I wish I was in the consulting business right now. These folks are generating more business than we would ever dream of. We should just do it, as the opposition, the opposing bench, said they would. Let’s just do it. I support the motion strongly. Let’s get over these broken promises.

I have here a thick wad of emails. I want to read the first two. This was not any choice; I just took the first two off the pile. From an anonymous constituent:

“I work in downtown Vancouver and regularly have an extremely difficult time to get a taxi. I work as a conference manager, and my delegates from out of town and abroad often complain and are shocked at the lack of taxi availability in the city.

“Living on the North Shore is also very tough, as the buses and SeaBus stop running fairly early evening. If myself or my young adult children are downtown, taxi drivers often say they don’t want to drive to North Vancouver because they likely won’t secure a fare to come back downtown. My kids have been refused taxi rides. Even though I believe this is not permitted, it happens. The SeaBus also starts running relatively late on Sunday mornings, which makes it difficult to get to the airport without paying a fortune for a taxi.

“We have recently downsized to one car in order to do our part to relieve congestion in Vancouver and the North Shore, but I’m finding the taxi and bus service expensive and inadequate. I have used Uber and similar ride-sharing services in other cities — Calgary, Portland, Lisbon, etc. — and had a fabulous experience. It was a nice way to meet locals and help our fellow citizens make some extra money, especially in an expensive city like Vancouver.

“Until our public transit becomes more accessible and affordable, I think we need more ride-sharing options. We can’t deny the changing landscape of this social world.”

That’s the very first email, just off the top of the pile.

The second email in the pile:

“Dear Mr.” — me.

“I’m not in the habit of writing letters to complain, but I’m writing this as I feel so strongly about the fact we need to make our current government” — that’s you folks — “aware we need ride sharing in B.C., especially in the Lower Mainland. My wife and I have travelled in many cities and used Uber with nothing but praise for the system. This is not something I can say about the current state of the taxi system here in Vancouver.

“We live in your riding on the North Shore, and a perfect case in point is trying to get a taxi from downtown to the North Shore late at night. I’m not sure if you have ever experienced this, but most times it’s almost impossible. The current taxi operators refuse to drive over the Lions Gate Bridge for only one reason, which must be purely financial, as it is only a one-way fare.

“Aside from that, taking taxis on the North Shore frequently, I am appalled at the quality not only of the vehicles that are being used but many of the operators as well. I feel a company like Uber raises the bar, and this can only improve the service levels for everyone.

“I thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you pass this message on to” the leader of the Green Party, “as I believe he is introducing a bill to push this issue forward this year, not in 2018, when the current government will have spent another sum of money with the same consultant that was previously used. My question is: to what end?”

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

[11:20 a.m.]

N. Simons: Because of my generosity, I thought I should just, perhaps, say, on behalf of the member, how he was likely going to conclude because he voted for the following statement: “For British Columbians looking for other modern options to get from A to B, your government will deliver on its commitment to support car and ride-sharing. While all parties in this Legislature publicly stated their support for ride-sharing in the recent election, your government has heard the message that legitimate implementation concerns remain.” That member voted in favour of this statement, which said that important implementation measures need to be concluded.

When we assumed government after the previous government clung on to power for two months, we discovered that there still needs to be considerable discussion before we decide to throw 10,000 taxi drivers and their families and their friends and their supporters and their relatives into the wind. I think that’s an example of good, solid thinking on the part of this government, as we are not planning to do that.

We are delaying for good reason. And I think that the members opposite would agree. When there are good reasons to delay legislation, we should think about that carefully. I would say that the hypocrisy is pretty obvious when members on the other side are suddenly interested in an issue that they were worried about before the election.

Yes, I understand. We all want ride-sharing in this province. Let’s all agree that, in fact, we would all be supporting this motion 100 percent if we just changed the 2017 to 2018. I’m sure that government, with 16 years in power, previously, has a little bit more patience now to wait one more — less than a year, I’m sure. They had two years, in fact, in order to…. They had since 2012. That’s five years. That’s five years, and they did nothing, except a fairly light review of how people would think about it.

Quite honestly, I think it’s quite interesting that all of a sudden they’re big fans — big fans. When they had the opportunity, they just passed the buck. Now they’ve passed the buck, and we’re realizing that we have to deal with this seriously. We have to take into consideration the legitimate concerns of people throughout this province, and we’re going to do exactly that. We’re going to consider those concerns, and we’re going to do what’s right for the people of this province without throwing people into the unemployment line, as this particular opposition wants us to do.

Now, obviously, there are studies that have been done on various aspects of ride-sharing. One thing that perhaps the leader of the Green Party needs to consider is that the most recent study from the University of California Davis, from the Institute of Transportation Studies, has found that ride-sharing does not take cars off the road. In fact, it probably adds to congestion. That was a study issued last week.

We know that the scenes are changing as we go forward, and we know that the circumstances in different cities are changing. We need to invest in public transportation. We need do what this government has decided to do already — make up for the shortfalls that that previous government has put into systemic problems for our province.

We need to address ride-sharing, yes. We’re going to do it next year — a study that will do an adequate review of the concerns of people who are affected directly. I think that’s the important thing to do. That’s the responsible government thing to do. That’s something that’s foreign to the opposition, but they have time to think about the fact that they waited so long. We’re going to get to it. We’re going to do it within a year. We promised that, and I’m glad that we’re moving ahead on this file with the proper due process.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity. It’s been a pleasure, and I hope that members from the other side are going to be able to figure out how they can put the square peg into the round hole.

M. Morris: I got a kick out of the metaphor that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake had with the cooking dough and the half-baked cookies and whatnot. I have to say that the previous government had been working on this for quite a while. The only reason it was half-baked was because that government turned the oven off.

Ride-sharing has been something that we’ve seen in an informal way throughout the province. Many of the small rural communities that I’ve lived in for years have been using ride-sharing for decades.

[11:25 a.m.]

An example. I was living in a remote community 20 years ago, and my wife and I were making a trip into the nearest community. That trip took anywhere from two to four hours, depending on road conditions.

A couple of women from the community asked if they could catch a ride with us. No problem. We had a large vehicle, and we could take them. As we got underway and were approaching the community that we were heading to, each of them pulled out a hundred dollars and said: “Oh, here’s the usual fee that we pay to take this trip into this community.”

Of course, we refused that, and we were quite amazed that they were paying money for this ride-share. We found out that it was a common practice in this community for folks to dish that kind of money out. We refused the money, and they bought us lunch instead, so it was a good exchange.

But I see it every day. I see it on Facebook in the communities within my riding. I’ll see somebody come on and say, “Is there somebody going to Prince George?” “Is there somebody going to Vancouver?” — if there’s anybody going in a particular direction. They’re asking for assistance either to transport them or a family member in that direction, or to haul something back to Mackenzie, in this particular case.

This has been an ongoing thing for decades that rural communities have embraced. It’s something that the communities in the urban centres have embraced around the world, except for here in British Columbia with Vancouver.

I’ve said this in the House before. I had an instructor — a very impactful instructor, actually, because I quote him quite a bit in some of the work that I do. He made a statement in one of the courses that I was taking that said that no organization has a right to exist.

I have to reflect…. My colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano was saying that this ride-sharing was brought to British Columbia about five years ago, and it should have been a heads-up to the taxi companies to adjust the kinds of services that they provide to the public so that they wouldn’t be in the position that they’re in today. This is a significant change that we’re having, and I say to the taxi companies that perhaps they’ve got to have a clear, close look at this in order to make the fundamental changes that they need.

So ride-sharing is coming to British Columbia in one fashion or another. I know the bureaucrats that we had within the ministry have been working diligently on this file for a long period of time. The metaphor that the member opposite was using…. The cookies were in the oven. The oven was on full. It was baking. Things were moving along in a good direction here. We had looked at the intricacies and the complexities associated with ride-sharing in British Columbia, and we felt that we had the necessary tools in place to move ahead with it, thus the legislation that we had introduced earlier when we were in government.

This government — the current government that we have — made the campaign promise that they would have it in by the end of 2017. They’ve turned the oven off, and everything died in the oven. So there was an opportunity for this government to work on the foundational work that we had already done prior to that. They could have carried on with that legislation.

I’m grateful to see what the Green Party’s legislation looks like as we put it through the debate process and the committee stage, but ride-sharing is something that has come to the world. It will come to British Columbia in one form or another.

I think the quicker that we embrace that, the quicker the general public will be able to get to North Vancouver in the middle of the night instead of having to wait for a taxicab. Or as my colleague said, oftentimes, those with mobility restrictions are delayed in getting the services that they need. So we’ll see this take place, whether that government wants it to happen or not.

D. Routley: I’m pleased to rise to speak to this motion. I think it’s important that we acknowledge what we’ve been hearing and what’s happened so far.

What we’ve been hearing here is a lot of criticism over the pace that this consideration is going to be taking. But what is important is that we are not captive to every change in our society. We are able to control and direct and shape the form of public policy that affects change in society. I think that’s our responsibility.

I think it’s our responsibility to come here and, when we make decisions, make them on a basis that’s beyond an informal car-sharing in a rural B.C. community, as the member for Prince George–Mackenzie indicated.

[11:30 a.m.]

We have a higher duty than that. We have to make sure that there is not the calamity or disaster of legions of underinsured drivers, undertrained drivers. We’ve heard the horror stories from around the world where this service has gone wrong. Yes, it offers great benefit, and I would like to have used it when I’ve been stuck without a cab in rush hour in Vancouver. I may do. But the fact is that we cannot rush willy-nilly into something, as responsible legislators, that could have direct and immediate harm on the citizens that we represent — not only those who are in the car and those who are driving the car but also those who are in the taxi industry.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie made the astonishing assertion that no organization has the right to exist. Now, let’s just think about that for a second: no organization has the right to exist. It’s such an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, but confrontational in the context because the organization he’s indirectly referring to is that of taxi drivers, the taxi drivers association. Indeed, they have a right to exist. Their families have a right to exist. Their jobs have a right to exist.

We have a duty to protect them. We have a duty to introduce something that will affect their lives in a way that will have the best possible impact. That’s our job.

I’ve heard the members over here simply say…. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano said: “Let’s just do it. I’ve seen it. I’ve used it. It’s great.” Yes, there are people who have used it, and yes, they’ve used it to great effect. But then there are people who have suffered extreme harm through this kind of service, poorly introduced and poorly planned. We shouldn’t forget that as legislators.

The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky gave us a fine definition and description of what the ride services do. But what he avoided talking about was our responsibility as legislators, our responsibility to act in the public interest.

The members opposite…. It’s quite entertaining for someone who has sat in this House now for 13 years, just about, to listen to a former government that broke massive promises completely. “We will not tear up contracts.” They tore up contracts. It cost the people of B.C. hundreds of millions of dollars, their broken promises. And now to have those members heckle back to us that delaying fulfilling a promise, so we don’t hurt those who we’ve promised to, somehow equates to the record that the former government had.

It’s quite astonishing. We’ve become used to a certain level of hypocrisy here, but this really does clear that bar considerably. And this is coming from members, of course, who, in the clone speech in July of this year, told British Columbians that “for British Columbians looking for other modern options to get from A to B, your government will deliver on its commitments to support car- and ride-sharing. While all parties in this Legislature publicly stated their support for ride-sharing in the recent election, your government has heard the message that legitimate implementation concerns remain.”

Exactly. Yes, we all did agree that ride-sharing is coming. Yes, we all did agree that we all welcome it. But we have not agreed that the hurdles have been cleared, the many hurdles that need to be cleared in order for us, as responsible legislators, to be able to stand up and vote for something with the confidence that it is safe, that it is in the best interests of the people we represent. I haven’t seen that yet.

We have to do that work. Unfortunately, this government, having taken five years to deal with the issue, did very little of that work.

Interjection.

D. Routley: The member asked if it’s okay to break a promise. No, it’s not. We will fulfil the promise, unlike the former government that has broken practically every promise it made in the ten years I’ve been here.

J. Isaacs: I rise today to speak on what has become a common theme of this NDP government: broken promises. This particular promise involves something all three parties had agreed on, or so it appeared. During the election, all three parties ran on a platform that included bringing ride-sharing to British Columbia by the end of 2017.

[11:35 a.m.]

In fact, the NDP promised to voters on May 4: “The B.C. NDP supports the passing of new rules to introduce ride-sharing to B.C. in 2017.” So you can see how my constituents and I would be right to assume that we would be able to use a ride-sharing app soon — hopefully, in time for the holiday season.

But then we heard a quote from the Minister of Transportation at last month’s UBCM conference, who stated: “The previous government wanted it by the end of the year. I don’t want to do that.” That’s disappointing. What’s more, it’s a complete contradiction of their campaign platform, another broken promise — a promise that was made to every one of my constituents, a promise made to the minister’s constituents and even the Premier’s constituents.

The minister can’t even provide a timeline for bringing in ride-sharing and, instead, is spending $165,000 on duplicating a study that the same expert has already performed for the city of Vancouver — an expert who, by the way, donated thousands of dollars to the NDP.

It’s embarrassing that Vancouver is now the largest city in North America without ride-sharing. Tourists from all around the world and business travellers who are here to advance business and sales are shocked when they arrive in Vancouver. If they want to explore the city or simply get to their sales meetings on time, the options available to do this reliably or affordably are not there because Vancouver has not modernized its transportation options to include ride-sharing when, clearly, this demand for this service obviously exists.

There are over 600 cities in 78 countries that already offer their citizens and taxpayers ride-sharing options that are reliable, convenient, trustworthy, safe and affordable. When I think about that, I’m really not sure what work needs to be done on this file when right here in Canada, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa have all had ride-sharing for years. They’ve certainly been able to figure it out.

Our government took extra time and studied the issue even longer than those jurisdictions, and we were ready to introduce ride-sharing by the end of 2017. But I think I know what the delay is here. I think it’s because the NDP didn’t have any intention of ever bringing in ride-sharing this year, much like they had no intention or any intention to replace the George Massey Tunnel.

We’re hearing a lot today from members on this topic, but I think it’s always important for us to listen to our constituents. I have received over 50 emails, as well as a number of phone calls, from my constituents, who are voicing their concerns at the lack of action of this government.

Here are the letters. One is from Raquel, and Raquel says: “Uber is great for the environment — less vehicles on the road; great for the economy — more jobs; and great for us in British Columbia — convenient and affordable transportation.”

Karen says: “This is one way to actually deter people from making a huge mistake and possibly hurting or even killing someone when they drink and drive.” And Sean says: “In addition to providing much-needed jobs, it will help fill some of the gaps in our public transportation system with a convenient, reasonable cost option.”

I receive letters from students who just want to get to class on time, seniors who want to get around town or have medical appointments, and many others who simply want to have a fun night downtown and cannot find a safe and reliable way home.

I can tell you that my constituents are very frustrated and disappointed with this government’s repeated broken promises. I hope that for the sake of all our constituents, this government can find a way to keep their promise and make ride-sharing a reality before the end of 2017.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the motion moved by the member for Surrey South on ride-sharing and pleased to speak on behalf of folks in Vancouver-Kensington on this issue.

[11:40 a.m.]

Certainly, our government is committed to bringing in ride-sharing. We’ve seen it being adopted across our country and around the world, with respect to this new technology, a new industry coming in to serve folks. We know that people want more options for getting around quickly, safely and affordably, but our government is committed to bringing in ride-sharing in B.C. doing it the right way.

I just heard remarks from the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. She’s getting some emails. Folks feel frustrated about the pace of bringing in ride-sharing. I think I would characterize the frustration of folks around British Columbia for the last 16 years as the record of the B.C. Liberal government and their inaction on a number of issues, including their opportunity, for five years, since 2012, to bring in ride-sharing.

Our government is looking to bring in…. It’s a complicated matter. We’ve heard some remarks from my friend from west Capilano to “just do it.” But we know the reality is that, certainly across Canada, there’s a difference in terms of the regulatory framework, regulations and restrictions, at the municipal and provincial levels. And we know from the experience in the United States, certainly at the state level, that having very different regulations from the national level, they’ve had to negotiate state by state as well.

It’s not a matter of let’s just do it. We have to be responsible. Certainly, it’s incumbent on us that we address concerns of everyone in the industry. We’ve heard about concerns from the taxi industry, as well as stakeholders, citizens who want to bring in and have the opportunity to improve our public transportation system.

From my perspective, I am particularly concerned about the safety aspects. This is a key concern that has been addressed in jurisdictions not only across Canada but in countries around the world. We don’t have the ability in British Columbia to address the insurance realities. That is a big concern. We know that the taxi industry is regulated at both the provincial and municipal levels through six statutes and provincially mandated through the Passenger Transportation Board. We have to get it right.

The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain referenced that we don’t need to have a provincewide study because there was a study done in Vancouver. I would like to inform the member that the study was done in Vancouver. Vancouver is one city across our great province. That was meant as an opportunity to address issues, and we did not have recommendations.

Certainly, there’s a need to have a clear, comprehensive study addressing these concerns, which I hold very seriously. We know the stories of inadequate insurance coverage, of people who are using these ride-sharing services falling between the cracks and not being covered in catastrophic accidents. This is a reality, and we have to treat that very seriously. Our government will do that. Passenger safety is key, and I think we have to get it right in British Columbia.

I want to just comment and really compare some of the frustration that we’ve heard from these members. They’ve had five years to bring in ride-share. They’ve had 16 years as a government. They made commitments, recognizing some of these shortcomings and the difficulties of bringing it in. They back-pedalled on their so-called commitment and agreed that additional research needed to be undertaken.

We know that in their post-election clone speech, which was adopted, they abandoned their own commitment to bring in ride-sharing by the end of 2017 and committed to put the issue to an all-party committee and extensive consultations. They recognized that proposed legislation would have to be referred to an all-party committee for extensive consultations with the public and stakeholders, particularly regarding boundaries and insurance. That was one of their commitments made in the clone speech.

As well, ride-hailing service was something that they had promised, but their throne speech promised to slow that down so that they could undertake extensive consultations to look at these issues. We know also that members from that side have stated that they are restricting ride-share.

There needs to be a study, and we need to be responsible to ensure that everyone is protected in British Columbia for ride-share coming in 2018.

[11:45 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: If you’ve been paying attention to question period over the last few weeks, you know that I have been quite vocal about the implementation of ride-sharing in B.C. During the spring election, the electorate got a clear message from all three parties that sit in this House that ride-sharing would be brought into British Columbia by the end of 2017.

Our party and caucus made a clear commitment to create a made-in-B.C. model that would give British Columbians more choice, more flexibility, ensure passenger safety was not compromised, and also ensure that current taxi operators would remain competitive in the industry.

When we were in government, we had extensive consultations with diverse stakeholders throughout the province, including the taxi and limousine industry, local governments, business associations, accessibility groups and ride-sharing companies already operating in other provinces throughout the country. We sought to develop a framework that placed high priority on passenger and driver safety while ensuring that ride-sharing operators offer passengers safe, well-maintained vehicles with qualified drivers.

Fast forward five months, however, and the public’s call for ride-sharing has become even more vocal. Vancouver is now the largest city in North America without ride-sharing. British Columbians have made it clear that they want more choice, more flexibility and more accessibility. They are fed up with this current NDP government’s growing list of broken promises, including ride-sharing.

In my opinion, nowhere is the need for ride-sharing more important than on the North Shore. You’ve already heard me rise today to draw attention to the lack of transportation and transit options that currently service the North Shore, with the last SeaBus to the North Shore ending at 1 a.m. and even earlier on weekends and holidays. North Shore residents that work or who are out for an evening downtown are severely limited in their options when it comes to getting home safely.

There are currently more than 4,000 people in my riding that have registered accounts with Uber, including me, so 4,000 of my constituents have accounts, all without a regulatory framework in place. Take, for example, Dillon, a small business owner from North Vancouver who employs three staff members, who writes: “In one of Canada’s largest and most expensive cities, we need to have affordable, safe and easily-accessible private transportation options. Please pass laws allowing Uber and other ride-sharing companies to operate in B.C. this year.”

Take Colleen, a 48-year-old mother from the North Shore, who writes:

“I simply cannot understand why any more money is being spent to study whether or not to bring ride-sharing to Vancouver and the Lower Mainland when it is so desperately needed. We live in a consumer-driven society, and the current lack of transportation options on the North Shore keeps more people at home than out enjoying more of the establishments and venues around the Lower Mainland.

“My husband and I would love to be out at restaurants, craft breweries, shows or even further-flung friends’ places where we can enjoy a couple of glasses of wine and know that we have options to get home safely. At 48, I have the means and interest to explore our city, but not until I know I won’t have a challenge getting home to my kids at a reasonable hour at the end of the night.”

Let’s listen to Mike, a tech CEO from North Vancouver, who writes: “I am a longtime resident of the district of North Vancouver, and I’m writing to express my support for a ride-sharing option in B.C. I have generally been happy with taxi service in Vancouver except during special events and holidays, when we are used to waiting literally hours to get a taxi. I’m asking you to please support ride-sharing programs, and let free enterprise operate on a level playing field. Let consumers decide what service they prefer, including your constituents. I want freedom of choice.”

How about me? I worry about my 20-something children, who want to get home on Friday or Saturday night when buses are unavailable, the SeaBus shuts down early and the cab they call refuses to take them to the North Shore. Why? Not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t get a fare back. In either case, people are stranded. That’s not just inconvenient; that’s unsafe.

During the election, all three of our parties made a commitment to bring ride-sharing to B.C. before the end of 2017. For the sake of Dillon, Colleen, Mike and every other British Columbian that is counting on ride-sharing to be implemented before the end of 2017, I hope this NDP government keeps its word and doesn’t add ride-sharing to its ever-growing list of broken promises.

[11:50 a.m.]

R. Leonard: I would seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: I’d like to take a moment to introduce, and ask you to welcome, some children — from age 5, in kindergarten, to grade 8 — from the Heartwood Learning Community, along with their teacher, Carly Boyle, visiting parents and other chaperones. They access the popular North Island Distance Education School that’s in my community, and they’re here today to learn about our parliamentary democracy. I’d like to ask the House to welcome them.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Debate Continued

M. Dean: I’m very proud to rise today to take part in this discussion about ride-sharing. We do know that people do want more options for getting around quickly. We understand how important it is that people are able to get around with efficiency, to be able to get to their family duties and events and support their families as well as take part in the economy, and that we need to be able to be moving goods and services around as well.

It’s really important that people cannot only get around quickly; they also need to get around safely. And it also needs to be affordable. Ride-sharing enters into that domain and offers some solutions for us to be able to enhance the lives of British Columbians and the economy of British Columbia by bringing ride-sharing to B.C.

The NDP government has said: “We will bring ride-sharing to B.C., and we will do it in the right way. We’re here for a win-win for British Columbians.” We’re going to create a made-in-B.C. solution. What’s critical to that is that it’s going to ensure a level playing field for all service providers and safety for customers. So our plan is not only going to protect jobs — jobs that currently exist in British Columbia, where families are relying on people being employed in that sector. We’re also going to make sure that British Columbians have access to modern ride-sharing services that they expect.

Dr. Dan Hara said it best. He said: “Whenever there’s a new technology that does offer potential benefits and net improvements, it’s always possible to allocate those benefits so that there’s a win-win-win.” That’s going to be our approach.

Our government is committed to bringing in a safe and fair and accessible made-in-B.C. solution for taxis and ride-sharing vehicles in B.C. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, particularly with the taxi industry. We will be certain that we’ve addressed their needs so they can compete on a level playing field when a ride-sharing system is introduced into B.C. We can’t forget that there are people’s livelihoods at stake here. Thousands of people and families rely on the taxi industry to put food on the table and create a better life for their families.

Our government is focused on shaping policy that creates opportunities for everyone. While this is going to be a long-term policy and a future-looking policy, we’re also committed to doing this as soon as possible. However, we do understand that in the clone speech, the members opposite agreed that this couldn’t be done by the end of this year.

Uber first approached the previous government in 2012. They had five years to address this matter, but the B.C. Liberals were more interested in putting out a press release before the election than in actually bringing a workable solution of ride-sharing to B.C. In their post-election clone speech, the B.C. Liberals abandoned their own commitment to bring in ride-sharing by the end of 2017, and they themselves committed to putting the issue to an all-party committee with extensive consultations.

So yes, your new government has hired the industry expert Dan Hara to engage with the taxi industry and stakeholders to make recommendations that will create a fair and level approach to ride-sharing in British Columbia — an approach that reflects the significant investment that the taxi industry has made and doesn’t unfairly benefit or punish one group over the other.

[11:55 a.m.]

Recommendations stemming from this consultation will inform the government on the potential direction needed in creating a made-in-B.C. solution for passenger-directed vehicles. What’s really important to us is to make sure that people can get around quickly, safely and affordably. As promised, we’ll be delivering a report by the spring of 2018 with legislative changes anticipated for the fall.

With that, I move the adjournment of the debate.

M. Dean moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.