Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate in this chamber on second reading, Bill 25, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — COASTAL FERRY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

N. Simons: I’m happy to have this opportunity to speak in favour of Bill 25, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2019.

I’m very pleased that our government has made a very concerted effort to ensure that this important infrastructure of our province, which serves thousands of residents of island and coastal communities, is not only strong but has a strong foundation for going forward. It’s been a long time, I think, that I’ve spent in this House listening to questions about ferries from my colleagues, asking some of my own, and hearing, from government, answers that never satisfied me or residents of ferry-reliant communities.

I represent Powell River–Sunshine Coast. For those who don’t know, it’s the only constituency in the province that’s entirely only accessible by boat or by plane. Or if you’re a good swimmer or if you happen to hike the very long trails up and around Howe Sound, up and around Jervis Inlet or Bute Inlet…. That was tried once, to no happy conclusion.

This is, in fact, a piece of legislation that strives to ensure that the public interest is a central part of the act, the legislation, that governs how our ferries operate in this province. Now, back in 2003 or ’04, I believe it was, the previous government made a decision to take the authority of running the ferries from the government. They decided to divest it to a private company.

They gave that company its operating orders, and those orders were in the form of the Coastal Ferry Act. At the time, Judith Reid, the Minister of Transportation, said that the new act would increase the number of jobs, promote stable fares and…. There was another thing that I don’t quite…. Oh, ensure our level of service was maintained.

Now, since then, of course, we saw that fares increased, in some cases, up to 105 percent — on the Texada Island ferry. Services were cut. The number of about 2,700 sailings per year were cut. We saw the elimination of the discount that was provided to seniors to travel on certain days of the week. We saw communities that were, in effect, left completely out of the discussion around how their infrastructure was going to serve them.

Studies were done by independent examiners to see what the impact of the B.C. Liberals’ plan for B.C. Ferries was, and it was that our communities suffered economically, socially. And unfortunately, it resulted in a lot of people having to struggle more in order to make ends meet. This is simply because they lived in communities that were served by ferries and relied on ferries.

I call our communities ferry-reliant. We’re not dependent; we’re reliant. Our businesses use the ferries on a daily basis to bring goods to market or from the market. Family members go and visit friends or family across the Salish Sea or across Jervis Inlet or from Horseshoe Bay over to Langdale.

[1:40 p.m.]

These are ferries that connect people, that connect communities, that connect businesses. They ensure that young people can participate in sports activities that might not be present in the community they live in. We had kids participating in orchestras who had to travel on the ferries.

When the government made decisions about ferries, they did so with very little input from the public, not because the public wasn’t interested. The public was specifically kept out of the decision-making process — specifically and intentionally kept out.

We went from a system that the previous government felt was problematic…. They decided to off-load the responsibility for ferries onto a company. So when people had complaints, they would phone me, and I’d say, “You have to phone the Ferry Commissioner,” and the Ferry Commissioner would say, “You have to phone B.C. Ferries,” and B.C. Ferries would say: “This is not our problem. Talk to the minister.”

We talked to the minister. The minister from the previous Liberal government was known to say things like “boo hoo.” It wasn’t his concern. He wrote a piece of legislation that cut the public out of the decision-making process, and his response to our concerns, when we raised them appropriately in this House, was boo hoo. In other words: “You’re on your own. We wrote the legislation. Forget about it. We’re done. This is the way it’s going to happen.”

We saw fares increased. We saw services reduced. We saw communities suffering economically. We saw people having more difficulty accessing health care, entertainment, employ­ment. People take the ferry every single day between West Vancouver and the Sunshine Coast for work. People take the ferry every day from Texada Island to Powell River to work.

These are nurses. These are people who teach in our school system. In fact, on Texada Island, when the government allowed services to be cut so much, kids could no longer attend school. People moved off the islands in order to be able to do the most basic community activities, such as going to school or keeping a job.

Now, I think the concerns that this is somehow going to make government specifically in charge of every decision that B.C. Ferries makes is just wrong. I don’t think that the opposition should be so scared. I don’t think they should be so concerned that, in fact, when we talk about public interest and we enshrine it back into the legislation, that’s something to worry about. It’s not.

We’re here to serve the people of the province. When you hear the opposition say, “We don’t like that you put public interest back into the mandate of the authority,” I really question who the opposition is supporting. I’ve asked that question many times on many different pieces of legislation. Who are they standing up for here? It doesn’t seem to be the people of the province.

I’m more than happy that the Minister of Transportation has worked hard, with the support of her caucus and her colleagues in cabinet and the Premier, to say public interest is important. On a service — on ships that ply our waters, that serve our communities, that make sure our communities are strong — there should be public input into how those programs are offered.

I really question the idea that just because it’s our government restoring public interest into the act…. It doesn’t mean that there’s a secret plot to take over the running of the ferries again. Yes, there are many people in our communities who would like government to bring back ferries under the direct authority of government. There are many people with many cogent arguments to say that’s a good idea. Our government has made the decision, based on some financial considerations, that that wouldn’t be a good idea.

But we’re making efforts to overcome the barriers that that creates by saying, “Okay, the legislation governs ferries. It’s still a separate company. The single shareholder is British Columbia people.” We should have a system that says: “Consider the interest of the public.” Now, the interest of the public isn’t simply to ensure that we have reliable service back and forth but that we have a service that reflects the concerns and values of British Columbians.

Our concerns and our values include ensuring that we have a clean environment. Yes, we are making good, strong efforts towards addressing our climate change goals. I think the CleanBC is a singularly important part of that process.

Individuals and companies in our communities have their own responsibilities as well. We’re not telling B.C. Ferries they have to reduce their carbon emissions, but we’re saying that the oversight of B.C. Ferries has to include the consideration of their impact on the environment.

[1:45 p.m.]

Now, a member from the opposition, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to SkyWest, spoke earlier, and he made some good points. Well, he made one good point that the public interest was…. No, I can’t really think if he made a good point. Anyway, he raised concerns that, in fact, the government was taking everything over, that we were going to be micromanaging B.C. Ferries. That is singularly not the intention.

We are ensuring that the board, the authority, represents the public. The government appointments are still a minority on that board. It is not going to be able to control the day. The input of people that the government thinks will reflect the interests of the public…. They’ll be the ones chosen for the board, and I’m, quite frankly, very pleased about that.

I think that coastal mayors and councillors and district directors are all saying that we finally have a government that recognizes that ferries are not just like a funucational adventure, as the one previous minister used to call them. We don’t go on the ferries for fun and education. Sometimes we get fun, and it’s educational. We see whales. We see the beautiful coastline. We enjoy the ferry rides often. Unfortunately, they did cancel the shrimp salad sandwich, and the government’s not going to say you have to restore that sandwich. Everything that the ferries does is up to them, but they operate within the legislation that we’ve written. We’re amending that legislation, as is the responsibility of government. The responsibility of government is to ensure that the public interest is embedded in the legislation that we pass here.

Unfortunately, in 2004, I believe it was, the public interest was actually excluded from that legislation. We’re correcting a wrong. We’re fixing a problem. We’re actually overcoming what I think might have been an ideological bias. Our perspective from this side of the House is to ensure that the legislation we pass here is a reflection of the interests of the public, the people of British Columbia.

People who don’t even live in ferry-reliant communities benefit from an affordable service that serves the coastline — goods and services from the Sunshine Coast, people from the Sunshine Coast. We welcome so many visitors to our beautiful area, and they come over on the ferry. When ferry services prevent them from travelling, even with a little bit of inconvenience, that’s usually surmountable. When the inconvenience means you have an eight-hour wait at a ferry because they’ve decided to cut the midday sailing, that is a serious problem. I understand, because I used to not live in a ferry-reliant community. I understand that it’s hard to conceive of what it is like. But when you count on your highway being closed for two hours and then open and then closed for two hours….

Every single time you travel anywhere, you need to take a ferry. My riding — you need to take a ferry from West Vancouver. You get to Gibsons. Everybody wants to go to the Sunshine Coast. It’s beautiful. If you want to continue up the Sunshine Coast, you have to take another ferry. That ferry goes to the Powell River region. If you want to go to Texada Island, you’ll take another ferry over there. These are communities that need to have their concerns reflected in legislation.

When the government allowed B.C. Ferries to consider cancelling the first sailing on a Sunday morning, it suddenly meant that if you were travelling and you needed to go to the Vancouver airport in order to catch your flight, you’d have to go the night before. You’d have to buy an expensive night in a hotel. That’s the kind of thing that I think a well-considered system would take into account before a decision is made on that kind of thing.

Kids wouldn’t be able to go up to Whistler, in the member from Sea to Sky’s own constituency. They wouldn’t be able to go first thing in the morning, like kids and skiers and outdoor enthusiasts like to do. They’d have to wait. And the inconvenience is more than an inconvenience. It impacts a lifestyle. It impacts the quality of life.

Restoring public interest, I think, is the most fundamentally important part of our responsibility in this House. For that reason, I’m strongly supportive. I encourage those who may not understand the complexity of our coastline or the difficulty in transportation along our coastline to recognize that in ferry-reliant communities, we have a perspective that might be slightly different. Just as I might not completely understand all the issues in Peace River or I might not understand all the concerns about the Kootenays. But I rely on my colleagues in this chamber to inform me of the concerns of their constituents.

[1:50 p.m.]

Even as a member of the government caucus, I welcome any insight that could add to my understanding of the diverse geography and demography of our communities. I’m pleased to offer my encouragement to members in the opposition. I understand the way our system works. We don’t require their support, but it would certainly be a nice indication for residents of the coast to see that the opposition understands that when we took out the public interest from the management of our ferry system, we did a disservice to British Columbians, including my constituents.

I hope that after careful consideration, and perhaps proposed amendments, the opposition will support this important piece of legislation. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity.

T. Shypitka: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two very, very, very important people in my life that are here in the gallery today, the first one being my son, Adam Shypitka. He just turned 11 yesterday. They just made the big trek from the Kootenays down here. We’re going to watch the Vancouver Giants sweep the Victoria Royals tonight. The second one — my wife, Carrie. She’s the rock. She’s the love of my life. I really appreciate them coming down here. I hope the House will join me in welcoming them here.

Debate Continued

B. Stewart: It gives me pleasure to rise on a very important topic for British Columbians. As many of the previous speakers have noted, this is an integral part of the history of British Columbia and the development of Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands and all the coastal communities up and down the coast. This is very important and, of course, one of the things that would be considered to be particularly topical, especially when you adjust service and what it is.

I want to talk a little bit about the history and kind of how we’ve got to the B.C. ferries corporation today. We’re talking about amending the way that the appointments are made and why the B.C. ferries corporation was set up as an independent Crown corporation. This was a privately run enterprise in the early ’60s. Of course, the government of the day decided that that wasn’t servicing the needs of the communities.

I can remember travelling from Vancouver to Victoria on one of the old CP ferries, which doesn’t look anything…. It was more like a cruise ship. You loaded in through the side, but it was one of the early kinds of ships.

Another famous trip that we took back in the mid-’60s was a trip…. We flew out of the Kelowna Airport — in those days, there weren’t many flights — probably on a DC-3 to Vancouver. We loaded up into a wagon and went across to Saltspring, where we spent an absolutely unbelievable…. Probably one of those best memories in our lifetimes as a family — getting to the Gulf Islands. Coming from the Okanagan, it seemed idyllic, walking along the beaches and all the changing tides — things that we didn’t have on Lake Okanagan, where we spent our time and grew up.

The Okanagan is not that much different. Even today, Kootenay Lake still has automobile ferries. Lake Okanagan was not that much different in the sense that we had a ferry there until 1958 when the bridge opened up.

Interjection.

B. Stewart: It wasn’t a free ferry, as the member is suggesting about the Kootenay Bay ferry. That’s a decision that’s….

As far as what we’re talking about, the fact is that a toll bridge was built across Lake Okanagan. It was a toll bridge, meaning that the residents or the people that used the system had to pay. So it wasn’t free.

The reality is that the ferry service that we have today is not free. I think the member admits that. There is a cost to it. We need to manage that, and that’s what B.C. Ferries…. I think that one of the things that is really important is that we talk a little bit about…

Interjection.

[1:55 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member.

B. Stewart: …what the changes are.

I’m sure that the member is quite passionate, being that he’s from Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I know that it’s a ferry-dependent community. I do want to speak to some of his comments that he made. I’m sure that he’ll give me that opportunity to speak directly to some of his suggestions — that it would be great if we could come together on this. I would like nothing better than that, Member, in the sense that I think that if we could arrive at the same principled kind of approach on this, I would be happy to support Bill 25. However, there are some dangers being proposed in Bill 25 that I think need to be raised.

I know that the minister is listening intently in the sense that…. I mean, she’s also from coastal-dependent communities. It is important that we have this dialogue. But I want to just go back in time a little bit. I want to talk about the B.C. Ferry Authority and what the changes were that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast references.

One of the things that we have to look back on is: what led to the creation of an independent Crown corporation? Part of that was not…. If the service was in good financial stead, I doubt very much that the government, back in 2001, would have had to look at what was happening.

Maybe I should just take you down memory lane and summarize a little bit about what happened the last time that your government was running ferries for ten years in the province. You had several terms to be able to make the changes and adjustments. And no doubt, the service has improved. It was very much, I’d say, focused in on the communities, etc., but there are some concerns that I do want to raise.

Just so you know that you can talk about ferry fares, between 1991 and 1999, the ferry fares in British Columbia increased 72 percent, which, I mean…. Okay, 72 percent is almost doubling in less than ten years. So you have to think about what that meant.

Despite the 70 percent fare hikes, B.C. Ferries’ debt increased 1,800 percent. So what did we get for the 1,800 percent in increased debt? From $60 million in 1991, when they took over from the former government, to $1.1 billion in 2000. That’s a staggering increase, and what do we have to show for it? Do we have a fleet of new ferries? Did we get improvements in terminals?

Where did it all go? No new terminals. The ferries that were built, which I’ll come to in a second, were sold off because they didn’t work. The bottom line is that we were left with a system that not only had increased the debt, but it was dragging down the province’s credit rating because of this debt.

One of the reasons that Crown corporations are set up off-books and set up with an independent board of directors is to ensure that, essentially, when looking at the province’s overall debt load as the Minister of Finance, you would look at how much debt and what we can afford to do with it.

B.C. Hydro. It’s expected that B.C. Hydro will take care and service its own debt. B.C. Ferries — it’s the same thing. It’s set up as an entity to make certain that they can afford to make certain the repayments.

I have to say that, you know, on top of the fact that there were losses in the ’90s…. One of the worst years ever posted was in 1996-97, when they had a total loss of $77 million. All right. So even last year, if I’m not mistaken, the province of British Columbia not only covered almost a quarter of a billion dollars of subsidy that went into B.C. Ferries….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: Well, it goes into B.C. Ferries to help prop them up. This is part of our….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: Okay. It’s part of the expectation that we will make certain that there is adequate service to those communities. So a quarter-billion dollars is coming out of all the other taxpayers in the province.

I see the member wants to…. He must have other things to go to, but I do want to address one of his comments that he made.

[2:00 p.m.]

I think the fact is that we don’t see that there’s a secret plot. What we do see is that if we end up getting to a situation where the highways are considered to be an equivalency, like a two-hour wait for a ferry…. Well, I know the member for Kootenay East was travelling to Kelowna recently to get to some meetings that he was attending there, and there was a truck that was in one of the creeks. What ended up happening is that Highway 3 was closed for more than a day. Of course, it was a tragic accident. But this is a reality we face in the interior of British Columbia. Snow, avalanches and all the other things that can delay transportation.

Many of us…. I know that I travelled with…. Five of us, my colleagues, were unable to get here for the throne speech because of the fact that the flights in and out of Victoria were cancelled on February 11 and then the morning of the 12th. So we drove. Of course, it was a horrific day of driving — vehicles on Highway 1 through Vancouver. But we did eventually get here, albeit late. But it was an exciting and bonding experience, I have to say.

The point about it is that I think that many of the members that don’t have ferries in their communities appreciate the fact that we have DriveBC, and we rely on the fact that the skilled and top-flight government workers and bureaucrats, etc., try their best.

I’ve heard all sorts of complaints, as a former chair of the regional transportation advisory committee. Lots of Interior people felt that we should have no avalanche closures on the Coquihalla. Well, when you look at it, and you actually start to understand how snow is controlled in those corridors, it is impossible to guarantee that. It doesn’t matter….

I think that really, one of the things that we have to appreciate is that there are disruptions. In ferries, it’s wind and other matters — mechanical breakdowns and things like that.

I want to go back to, you know, this idea and notion that we’re taking B.C. Ferries and we want to turn this from maybe a Crown corporation that has oversight from an authority that gives direction. And typically, the management are charged with the responsibility of doing the strategic planning, making the decisions, making the recommendations to the authority and making certain that the mandate is achieved as to what the commissioner and the authority give direction on.

In this particular bill, one of the things that we’re talking about is that we are changing the makeup of that board. We’re actually taking the number of OIC board appointments to the B.C. Ferry Authority from two to four candidates. This is going to eliminate two community at large candidates. I’m not quite certain that’s making certain, as it says here…. We want a service model that puts people first. We’re taking community at large candidates that are no longer going to be there and sitting on the B.C. Ferry Authority.

That is part of what I don’t understand — why the government feels that it needs to have its own appointments or what the agenda is. Because besides the four representatives on a nine-member board, there is also a representative from the workers, which in this particular case, would be the union members that are part of the B.C. Ferries staff.

So between them and government, what if they decide: “Well, you know, we don’t really like the business model that the other four business-minded or whoever is sitting on the B.C. Ferry Authority, and we want to make changes”? As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said: “We want the shrimp sandwich back.” Or we don’t think that having, you know…. I’d say utilization on some of the ferry routes running at less than 20 percent, which sometimes happens. I’ve seen the statistics.

Certainly, the bigger routes — Tsawwassen, Swartz Bay, Nanaimo, Horseshoe Bay…. Those ones have high utilization, and I think, for the most part, we don’t have complaints. It is the communities that are more difficult to get to that do struggle with the service that they have come to expect or believe that they should have.

Yet I go back to that trip in the mid-1960s, and we all loved the idea of: wouldn’t it be nice to be on island time, where we didn’t have to worry about the fact that…. Things happen, right? You don’t get the ferry. I have cousins that spent their entire lives growing up in Ucluelet. They used to take the ferry over. It was quite a journey in the early ’60s travelling from Ucluelet — the Pacific Rim National Park didn’t even exist — and making their way across to Port Alberni, down to Nanaimo and over to Vancouver.

[2:05 p.m.]

I think that their idea of coming was that they came as close as they could, but the reality is that things happen when you’re taking those long journeys.

I think that one of the concerns about having the B.C. Ferry Authority under too much government control is: does it pass the smell test from the people that look at our credit ratings? And will that mean that we may end up having to take the B.C. Ferries debt back into government because we want to have this control? We want to make certain we’re making decisions based on the priority of, as the minister said, putting people first.

I want to talk a little bit about our record in terms of what actually happened after this fiasco with building ferries on our own, when it was government directly awarding contracts to, maybe, their friends and families or whoever you want to call it. The reality is that we built three ferries in the 1990s here that cost British Columbia taxpayers $462 million to build.

Those ferries — I remember seeing them plying the waters, going back to Nanaimo. They looked very…. Fast cats, I think, is the brand that they were sold under. But the reality is that they were not really designed for the waters here. The wake, etc., swamped the boats and ruined docks, etc., and they had to be taken out of service. It was a case where there wasn’t enough due diligence done.

It’s a case where people that are not in the business of running an enterprise like B.C. Ferries are making decisions based on something that sounds good. It’s going to create jobs, and we’re going to put all these workers to work on these ferries. We had those ferries in operation for a very short time, and we’ll talk about the outcome of that.

I want to just flip the page ahead, to back when the federal shipbuilding procurement was taking place, back seven or eight years ago, here in Canada. Of course, the federal government put the procurement out across Canada. It was a highly competitive bidding process, and of course, British Columbia wanted its fair share.

The reality is that we worked with the shipbuilding yards both in Esquimalt…. As the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin said earlier: “Why don’t we build ferries here?” or “Why don’t we do that?” We do want to do it. We do retrofits right in her riding. She has one of the biggest dry docks on the west coast of North America, and we do want to take advantage of that. But we needed to have the skilled workers. We didn’t have them at the time. We didn’t have the people that understood how to do that.

Here on Vancouver Island, at Camosun College, we put in programs around shipbuilding — the wiring, the painting and the engineering of these things — to help build the capacity that we needed to have to make certain that we could undertake shipbuilding in a constructive manner.

Those people that have been trained through that program have been out working with Seaspan, out of North Vancouver, which is where the contract, eventually, for some of the ships in Canada…. Not the largest one, but it was a start, and it helped get our foot in the door. It helped build the capacity so that British Columbians, with a coastal province, have every right to be able to make certain they have the ability to participate in a competitive bidding process.

Now, we know that there’s lots of competition, and we’ve got lots of challenges in British Columbia, as we’ve seen with the recent LNG plants. Bringing steel in from offshore or from other countries — there’s a tariff on it. So we have that disadvantage. We have an incentive to using Canadian-produced steel — not that it’s from the west. But the reality is that we incentivize the idea that we’re going to create employment opportunities here in Canada for Canadians.

Not all of that makes sense, so some of those LNG facilities are being built offshore, in modules. Some are coming from Korea. I imagine parts are coming from China. The reality is that we want to do that, but we have to have the capacity to be able do that.

I’m going to go back to the fact that we were successful in the government procurement bid, working with Seaspan to make certain that they had the tradespeople. We had the education system to backstop them, and we were prepared to help them get to capacity so that we could build those supply ships here in Esquimalt, as well as in North Vancouver.

In the 1990s, that fast ferry project, the $462 million debacle…. I mean, it was something that I’m sure Glen Clark, or I should say the former Premier….

[2:10 p.m.]

I apologize. I retract that, Madam Speaker.

I’m sure that the Premier probably would have liked to have seen a better outcome. I’m sure we all would have, as taxpayers.

At the end of the day, those two ferries were sold off. They went to…. I think it was Abu Dhabi. But anyways, they’ve been recently spotted in Egypt.

Anyways, the situation is that those ferries sold for $19.4 million, and they cost $462 million to build. That’s $6½ million….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: Hey, listen. They’re your ferries. It’s your legacy. If you wanted to buy it for $6½ million, you could easily have…. I’ll bet you the scrap metal would have been well worth the investment. But you know, that’s not my business expertise.

I do know one thing: the business expertise that is needed to make certain that we don’t get B.C. Ferries back to where we were, where government was running B.C. Ferries and making all the decisions…. It’s not a place we want to go. Bill 25 is taking us back to a place where, both from a credit-rating point of view and a danger point of view….

We do want to make certain that we consult with the public. We want to make certain that we take their input, which we did in 2013 and 2014 before we looked at the utilization, the subsidy that was going into B.C. Ferries and what the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia are willing to fund on an annual basis to have the services that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast mentioned.

You know, people on Texada Island, he says, can’t get to school. I’ve got people in my riding, kids, who travel two hours, one way, in a bus, along British Columbia’s worst….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members. We’ll come to order.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please come to order.

B. Stewart: Well, Member, I…. Okay, so….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, come to order.

B. Stewart: Well, you’re the one that suggested that they couldn’t necessarily get to school. My point is, I’ve been on Texada Island. I know that one of the members earlier, from Esquimalt-Metchosin, talked about sailing around. That’s idyllic. That’s the island way of life.

I think that when you make a decision…. When you go to islands, etc., I think that there is a responsibility that you take on to make certain that there are adequate resources. Some of the communities…. I know many of the members from rural British Columbia have small communities that have small schoolhouses that are closing or being threatened to be closed because of the fact that there’s a lack of students in those ones. So it is not a perfect solution.

Anyways, I know the member has vast experience in making business decisions, but these numbers speak for themselves. So $1.1 billion in debt.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I think that one of the things that we…. In the recent consultations, when we were in government, we knew that there was going to be hardship in those communities — ferry-dependent communities up and down the coast. We never took anything lightly, but we made certain that the Ferry Commissioner, who I think did an exceptional job to make certain that the authority was alive to the fact that they had to make certain that they did consultation….

What were they going to do for communities that were affected, as the member suggests, that the ferry was shut down? The ferries, at certain times of day, were shut down, but not all of the ferry service was shut down, as far as I know, to any one of the communities that were ferry-dependent.

I worry, also, about the long-term strategy. B.C. Ferry Authority is about the strategy, the fact that…. I’m sure that anybody who’s in this House who has travelled on B.C. Ferries in the last decade has to say that there’s an improvement not only in the services but the fact that the food services have been…. You know, they’re dynamic. They’re diverse. They meet the requirements. The Internet. The comfort. The fact that they have an exceptional on-time service record. The fact is that…. You know what? I think that for most people….

[2:15 p.m.]

I realize it’s an inconvenience. But you know, when I go to fly here in Victoria, I have to plan to be at the airport an hour ahead. I have to leave my house 30 minutes or 45 minutes, depending on the time of day. It’s part of planning. It’s part of life. It’s not…. The ferry service has an on-time record.

The fact is that what we want is certainty, to make certain we can do that. If we start fiddling around with that — because we think, “Oh, it’d be nice to have an extra sailing here, there and everywhere else” — that’s how the clock keeps running up and we keep spending more money. You don’t have to take my word for it, okay?

Interjection.

B. Stewart: Well, back when your government was last running the ferries, Member, I can tell you that there was a review of what had happened, okay? So let’s not just look at the fact that it was a bad deal, and how it all happened.

The independent Wright report, 2001 — and the Auditor General, in ’99, report on the structure of B.C. Ferries — found that political interference was rampant across B.C. Ferries operations, not just in the fast ferries. Wright said in 2001 that B.C. Ferry Corp. would be unable to meet its financial goal of solvency due to the governance structure. That’s the whole reason that we’re here. This is about the reality that governance matters. That’s why we’re all here. If you can’t learn from past lessons, Member, you haven’t really learned anything. What you need to do is to understand.

Re-read the Wright report; re-read the Auditor General’s report. Both of those reports we acted on when we became government. The 1999 Auditor General report and the 2001 Wright report recommended that control of B.C. Ferries be placed in a truly independent board. We tried to make certain that we did exactly that. We tried to make certain that we didn’t interfere.

We increased the subsidy when we realized that there were challenges. We made certain that B.C. Ferries, through the representation, did community consultation. Nobody likes to have a reduction in services or increased costs. I think that as far as some of the things that I know we were doing recently with LNG, we were very much focused in on putting LNG, clean ferries, into service. That’s a new opportunity in British Columbia because of the large supply of natural gas here in the province and having facilities that can supply B.C. Ferries right here with cleaner-burning natural gas, LNG, versus bunker fuel, would be a benefit.

I like the idea of the e-drives — I do know that there’s a company that I visited in Vancouver that’s a world-leading manufacturer of batteries — that actually convert to battery power when vessels are entering ports. Some of the best ports around the world are demanding and expecting that ships coming into port use this type of alternative energy, rather than being dependent on bunker fuel in areas where it’s spewing out CO₂ and whatever other emissions that are in the air.

I think the reality is that we don’t have to look very far. British Columbia has been leading in that already. The company is selling their product to fleets of ferries all over Scandinavia and in Europe, and B.C. Ferries should be embracing that type of technology to make certain that we’re using homegrown clean technology to make the ferry fleet better.

In closing, I just want to make certain that I’ve answered some of the questions, some of the concerns I’ve heard from the members opposite. They talk about that this is really about serving the public interest, and I get that. I think that that’s always what we’re here to do: to make certain that we’re serving in the public interest. These B.C. Ferries are like a marine highway, and highways, as I mentioned, are subject to closures.

Recently, and the member for Penticton…. There was a landslide, and the highway between Penticton and Kelowna was closed for weeks because of the fact that the slide was unpredicted, a geological event. There was a fix that they put in on highways. The staff there, as always, put in temporary measures, but sometimes they’re not very popular: a three-, four- or five-hour trip for some of the people that were in my riding. They were commuting back and forth to work. It happens. The fact is that you have to work around that and try and find friends or other people, maybe, to stay with while you’re in the situation where the highway is closed.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’m looking forward to further debate on this. I know that some of my colleagues that had to take over this fiasco back in 2001 — of having too much government interference in the B.C. ferry system — will, I’m sure, have a word or two or want to say the real facts about what it was like and how difficult it was to get back to a balanced budget that this government, I know, is talking about, with all of the tax increases that they’ve brought in.

Well, the fact that increased taxes…. It seems like a small amount, but $6 billion in carbon tax, an increase in provincial spending over the next three years, will bring it up 25 percent. That’s not a small amount of tax increases.

I think the reality is that it’s all hinging on the status quo, the economy growing as the best in Canada. The reality is that history has shown, as we know from the ’90s, that the economies do ebb and flow and they change. I hope that they’ll give further consideration to some of the comments that I’ve made today.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I see a number of students there. I don’t know what school they’re from, but they’re there to witness the debate in this House and also to learn about this institution.

It’s Ladysmith Intermediate School. They’re here to learn about this democratic institution and watch the debate. I will ask the members to make them please feel welcome.

Debate Continued

S. Malcolmson: Ladysmith is close to home and another ferry-dependent community, so I’m glad that the students are here to listen. I hope they don’t take too much to heart the comments from the Liberal member opposite, knowing full well that the NDP has only increased taxes on the wealthiest and most-connected Liberal friends that were looked after for so long, when they did not look after regular people, including ferry users.

The history of B.C. Ferries over the last 15 years has been a terrible one for our community. As someone who lives on an island serviced by a ferry, I have been deeply embroiled in the debates and the community concern and comments about how best to manage ferries.

So this really is a good day. We are standing together as New Democrats with our Minister of Transportation, who herself lives on a Gulf Island — Quadra Island. This is one of the ferries that goes back and forth. It’s a real commuter ferry. For people that live on Quadra Island — the same as where I live, living on Gabriola Island — the ferry is absolutely a lifeline. For any members or anybody watching who doesn’t have that experience and know how deeply intertwined the ferries are with B.C.’s community, with our economy and with our settlement pattern….

In fact, when B.C. Ferries was created in the early ’60s, it was taken on not by a New Democrat government but by an arguably more right-wing government. It said this is in the public interest — to make this part of the province’s infrastructure. Indeed, settlement patterns were laid down on that basis — on commitments that the ferry service would be provided by the province and that the fares would be affordable.

We do pay, unlike the Interior ferries — they were the focus of most of the previous speaker’s debate — where they don’t pay anything for their ferries. On the coast, we do, and it matters. It has impact.

Then because of the push in development that happened because of the ferries, Islands Trust was created in 1974 by the NDP government. But it was a recommendation of all parties, recognizing that the development pressures on the southern Gulf Islands were intense. Partly, that was because of the access now from the public ferry system. So those two institutions have grown up very much together.

[2:25 p.m.]

As I was elected as a trustee in 2002 until 2014 and, for six of those years, was chair of Islands Trust Council, a lot of my advocacy and what I’ve learned about ferries came directly from ferry users and from islanders.

Let me also just give a picture of how a ferry changes a community. When the ferry is not running, we truly are inter-reliant and interdependent as a community. It creates very tight communities.

Also, the conversations that happen in the ferry lineup or on the ferry itself knit communities together in a way that they wouldn’t in any other way. It’s not the same as being stuck in a traffic jam together. It’s not the same as being in the waiting room at an airport. We get to talk with people in our community that we would never know otherwise.

Very often we unload on the ferry. After a 20-minute conversation, I feel, as an elected official, like I’ve just had my second mini–town hall of the day. But people always say that that’s a conversation we would not have had if we had a bridge or any other way to get to the community. So I’m grateful for that. They are community builders.

This is why this legislation that we are bringing in today is so important, to bring and affirm public interest back into the centre of the Coastal Ferry Act. Again, the previous speaker talked a lot about inland ferries, but they’re not governed by this legislation.

The previous government made reckless cuts to service on our routes and reckless, ideologically motivated fare increases. They drove fares up repeatedly, putting islanders at a disadvantage that was costly and unfair. Some of the results of that are still felt today.

Fares doubled under the B.C. Liberals, during the time they were in power. This led to a big decline in ridership, and it caused billions in lost economic activity.

I’m very grateful for the work of local governments in this regard. That includes the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which put a major effort into trying to get the government to see the damage that it was doing and to hire the consultants to do the business modelling to prove that the link between the user-pay philosophy of ferry fares…. It’s a philosophy that is applied to no other government service. Roads are not user-pay. Hospitals are not user-pay. Schools are not user-pay. But under this government, ferries became user-pay, and that was wrong.

Ferry fares doubled. A family of four on a round trip between Vancouver and Victoria now pays $216. That’s $96 or 80 percent more than they paid in 2001. And ferry fares rose at a rate of four times the rate of inflation between 2001 and 2015. Then making it even worse, in 2014, the Liberals pressed ahead with $19 million in service cuts, cutting sailings on 13 routes, without consulting communities or doing any socioeconomic impact on what that would cost.

Now, the Liberals on the other side will say: “We did consult.” Let me tell you, I was there, and this was the form that the consultation took: “We are cutting half a million dollars out of operating costs, out of your ferry. Which runs and which B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers staff do you want to sacrifice?” It was an impossible situation.

We ended up having people saying: “If you cut that early morning sailing, I will lose my job at the hospital. I will not be able to get to my shift in time.” And the hospitals have got 1,000 people there. They are not fiddling with each person’s salary to accommodate those who happen to live on an island just 20 minutes away.

These were life-changing decisions for families. We lost, on Gabriola, a lot of our young working families. With the demographic on the coast, we could not afford to lose them. They were heartrending conversations. That was no consultation, and the government did not show up.

At that time, it was the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who still sits in this House. It was his cut. It was his process. He would not show his face to any of those communities and say to them directly: “I am going to force you to either lose your community, your friends, your whole kids’ network and teachers you’ve come to know or lose your job.” It was mean-spirited, and it was wrong.

They also eliminated the Monday-to-Thursday 100 percent discount for seniors. Who messes with seniors? The Canadian Association of Retired Persons were protesting on the front lawn of the Legislature. Have they ever had to do that before? For what savings? This was the midweek sailings only that they got a 100 percent discount, if they were there as a passenger. It saved not a lot of money, but it sure riled up a lot of very activist seniors. It was ridiculous.

[2:30 p.m.]

These cuts hurt communities. They hurt the economies. Tens of thousands of people put their names on signatures to this Legislature demanding a fare freeze and rolling back the fares on B.C. Ferries, ferry cuts. They asked for a full resumption of service.

These are all things that this government has done in the first year and a half in power. We have restored the seniors discount. We have frozen fares on the major routes. We have rolled back fares 15 percent on the minor routes. It is having an immediate impact, both on ridership and on people’s pockets, and it’s the right thing to do for a government that is oriented for the people and that runs B.C. Ferries as an organization, as a corporation, for the people.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Still more B.C. Liberals that still sit in this House…. We met with the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky repeatedly. As chair of the Islands Trust Council, I was part of a group of regional district chairs from the entire coastline, from the CRD here right up to Reg Moody, who is the Bella Bella regional district chair. All walks of life — Mount Waddington, Alberni-Clayoquot. We all were there.

Joe Stanhope, from the regional district of Nanaimo — I didn’t think we had the same ideological inclination, me and Joe Stanhope. But we became firm friends, and we united so strongly. It was his old party who did this, and he was spitting mad at them.

Blair Lekstrom was a transport minister who heard us and said: “You’re right. We’re doing damage.” He did nothing to repair it, although he was the most sympathetic one.

The member for Langley, who still sits in this House — she refused to hear what coastal communities wanted. We met with the Premier, Christy Clark. She beamed at us and told us our analysis was brilliant — again, did nothing. So, yeah, they are still here, still doing damage.

Now, even worse, then they brought in their own Coastal Ferry Act, and this is what they said it was going to do. People that represent the coast, listen carefully to some of this language. See if any of this worked out. They said that “the primary intent of this bill is to ensure that our coastal ferry service can flourish and support our economy.” This was in 2003 that this was brought in.

“We all want the service to succeed; we all need it. It is fundamental to local economies, and it is one of the most prominent symbols of our lifestyle here on the west coast…. Most of all, B.C. wants B.C. Ferries to meet its potential, to sail on time, to have clean facilities, a good selection of food choices and friendly services and, of course, to remain affordable.

“This piece of legislation…give assurances to people as we move forward that their ferry service will be there for them. They will know what rates they’re going to pay for it, so they can make their plans. The industries that use the ferries will be better served.”

Finally:

“I believe this will lead us into a time where we can look forward to more people travelling on the ferries instead of feeling like the ferries were a bottleneck to our economic growth and prosperity.”

That’s what the Minister of Transportation, Judith Reid, said was going to be the outcome of their Coastal Ferry Act. Instead, high fares eroded B.C. Ferries’ customer base and high fares affected business viability in ferry-dependent communities like the Gulf Islands.

When I was representing Islands Trust Council, we wrote this letter to Blair Lekstrom in 2011: “Trust Council wants economic and social considerations taken into account when establishing fares and service levels for routes serving rural coastal communities. Small business is struggling under the weight of the cumulative effect of excessive fare increases. Tourist traffic is down, adding stress to communities counting on tourism to ease the transition from reliance on traditional resource extraction.” It doesn’t sound like that 2003 promise was kept.

From Bowen Island, here are some specific impacts, then, of the service cuts. They said: “Morning cuts have resulted in social impacts that include children no longer participating in off-island activities…and shift workers now needing to spend that night off-island. It has also resulted in inconvenience for people who want reasonable travel connections to the airport or to weekend morning events such as church service.”

Denman Island and Hornby Island, which were very hard hit, then were forced to take a gap in service in the middle of the day. They say missing a mid-day ferry now means a significant cost. Delivery businesses can no longer make two deliveries in a day. Denman Island elementary schools had to stop competing in interschool sports, and Vancouver Island schools have to wait in the lineup for hours and hours. So it affected that fabric of the community also.

[2:35 p.m.]

We ended up with a conclusion of “failure to deliver” for the Coastal Ferry Act. We wrote again — this is now 2011 — from me, Islands Trusts Council, to the Ferry Commissioner. Since 2013, with funding frozen to the ferry service and increasingly referred to as a subsidy — implying it’s not a legitimate government contribution to provincial infrastructure — we illustrated precipitous increases in ferry fares, an average of 60 percent at that time and as much as 125 percent fare increases on some routes.

We identified the corresponding drops in ridership levels that were having grave impacts on island communities. We said that this is setting up a negative cycle of impacts. As fares increase, ridership drops. Then businesses close, and families leave, threatening the social and economic stability of island communities. When ridership levels drop once again, B.C. Ferries’ only option is to further increase fares, continuing the downward cycle. Instead of the promised improvement, we’ve seen skyrocketing fares, seriously slumping ridership and a ferry service that doesn’t appear to sustain itself.

The costs of goods and services on the island have gone up substantially, as well as the cost of essential trips to see doctors, dentists, family and friends. Contrary to some suggestions, our communities are not wealthy, with average family income below or close to B.C. average levels.

So here we are today — total failure and economic failure, as well as a failure to honour the public good. We are instead introducing…. Well, actually, even before this bill, we already had a lot of good news for ferries. The legislative amendments here on the Coastal Ferry Act will ensure that the model is putting the needs of people in B.C. at the heart of the decision-making. They’ll also enshrine the view that B.C. ferries are an integral part of B.C.’s transportation network.

Having, with this legislation, community interest at the forefront of decision-making, there are a few ways that this is being done. The viability of the corporation, of course, is still considered, but cost and service to communities is paramount, as it should be as a Crown corporation.

Second, the public interest group participation in ferries is now facilitated and funded, which I think is great. We’ve had a huge amount of expertise — retired economists and modellers and number crunchers that have been doing the yeoman’s work for 15 years. The ferry advisory committees do this work. The FAC, ferry advisory chair’s committee, have been doing this work. My friend Brian Hollingshead, on Saturna Island, just made it his entire retirement project to crunch the numbers to forecast on what the impacts would be on people of increased ferry fares.

I’m just so glad that, as in other legislation…. Ontario used to have this, the Intervenor Funding Project Act. If you are truly in the public interest and you need an analyst or a lawyer to help represent you in a public interest regulatory hearing, you should have that. That will increase and level the playing field so that public interest is represented. And then more representatives on the B.C. Ferries board only makes all the sense in the world.

I appreciate other small pieces too. In a previous amendment to the Coastal Ferry Act, the requirement that there be no cross-subsidization between routes was removed. That was deeply damaging to us. That’s already gone. In this bill, though, is gone the requirement or the invitation to contract out routes or to say that you could meet your obligation to get people from A to B by building a bridge or by privatizing the route. That was never taken up on. I’m very glad that the Transportation Minister has taken it out. This is public infrastructure and so should remain.

More good news, just to end, in our community. We are restoring the service cuts that were removed under the previous government. I represent three routes: Nanaimo–Horseshoe Bay, Nanaimo–Duke Point–Tsawwassen and also Nanaimo-Gabriola. Gabriola is going to have service — that’s route 19 — restored, I believe, starting on April 27.

[2:40 p.m.]

The Ferry Corp., with help from the Ministry of Transportation, said to the ferry advisory committee: “You decide. You talk with your community about which of the sailings you want to restore and how that’s going to work.” They were able…. Just yesterday they announced that they’ve recommended that it be the early morning sailing. They’ve also done some tweaks to assure that people can connect to the first ferry departing Nanaimo for Horseshoe Bay. Again, the connectivity piece that’s extremely important.

Then last year we provided support to freeze fares on the major routes, roll back fares 15 percent on the minor routes and restore seniors’ travel midweek — all very humane, sensible, good-for-the-economy, good-for-affordability investments. I’m really proud of the Transport Minister for taking those on.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I’ll finish by talking not about a B.C. Ferries project but a really important ferry project in my own community. For years we’ve talked about a private harbour-to-harbour foot passenger ferry between Nanaimo and Vancouver. It would boost affordability in the region. It would really boost the local economy. The tech sector especially says that this would be great for jobs for us, that they can attract more people, more talent.

We’ve been helping it move forward. I have, as a Member of Parliament and as a local government rep before then. I have been fighting myself, personally, for five years for this project, along with Mayor Krog and many other community members.

In December, the Transport Minister agreed that the infrastructure money allocated for passenger ferries and federal infrastructure money would be prioritized by the B.C. government. That’s something that the B.C. Liberals refused to do. So that’s a major leap forward for this project and a really good news piece for Nanaimo, which has been arguing this for so long.

We’ve also — this is the minister — lifted the non-compete clause with B.C. Ferries and removed one more barrier to this private foot passenger ferry going ahead; also accelerated the federal funding process, gaining six months at least; and then also working with TransLink to gain approval for the passenger ferry to land on the Vancouver side. So four big ways that we have helped to remove barriers to this project. We were very helpful — that that work has been successful.

I’m really proud that, in addition to this work on the coastal ferry system, the minister and her staff have been able to help Nanaimo with this smaller private project. We need ferries. We are reliant on ocean travel. It’s good for the community and the economy. I’m very proud to support Bill 25.

J. Rice: I’m really excited today to stand up and talk to Bill 25, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2019. Thank you to the member opposite who has made space for me today to talk at this timeline.

The legislation we’re discussing today will strengthen the Coastal Ferry Act to better serve the needs of people in coastal communities. I found it really interesting to hear from the previous member opposite, from Kelowna, talk about the hardships faced by Kelowna residents with the occasional road closure and comparing that to the impacts that have been felt by coastal communities. That was quite intriguing.

I also note that the ferries that are in his area, in the interior of the province, are 100 percent free, unlike the ferries that service coastal British Columbia and island communities.

British Columbians deserve a ferry service model that puts people first. People living in coastal communities depend on this vital service provided by B.C. Ferries. But for many years they experienced service cuts and skyrocketing rates. These amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act will put people at the heart of decision-making. These are the Minister of Transportation’s words. I agree 100 percent. I have to say that I’m so pleased she’s here today, because I am so honoured to be speaking to her bill today.

[2:45 p.m.]

It is going to dramatically transform the lives of my constituents on the north coast and Haida Gwaii and in the Central Coast — for many rural and remote communities, most of which are Indigenous, most of which don’t enjoy the wealth from the interior of the province like the member from Kelowna was speaking about.

This is transformational, not just for economics. It improves health. It improves mental health and wellness. And it improves the social ties that people are privileged to have in other parts of the province and that have been cut off by decisions made by the previous government in years past.

The legislation captures several amendments that will signal an emphasis on public interest — the key words here being “public interest” within the Coastal Ferry Act — but it’s also intended to capture the government’s broader goals, which are about people.

The amendments are based on the recommendations in Blair Redlin’s coastal ferry review. I want my constituents at home, who haven’t had a chance to read through the thick report, to know that some of the highlights of these amendments include requiring the B.C. ferries commissioner to prioritize the public interest when regulating ferry services, including the consideration of the province’s greenhouse gas emission targets. It’s pretty progressive.

Other highlights include facilitating the participation of consumer advocates in the B.C. ferries commissioner’s regulatory processes to consider the needs of people in the review of ferry services. Simply put, that allows public participation, which many people were unable to do before because they simply couldn’t afford to gather up their resources and make a submission. Now we’re going to actually make resources available so that the public can participate and guide the services that they rely on.

The amendments to this act increase the number of B.C. Ferry Authority directors appointed by government, from two to four, to bring a greater public interest perspective in the role of B.C. Ferries shareholders. It ensures that the B.C. Ferry Authority oversees the strategic direction of B.C. Ferries in support of the public interest, including safe, reliable and affordable coastal ferry service in British Columbia, and it requires the B.C. Ferry Authority to set term limits when appointing directors to the B.C. Ferry Services board to improve the oversight of B.C. Ferries.

Now, it’s no secret that having boards change over, having a diverse perspective put on boards and having fresh new eyes every few years make for a healthy and robust board. In this case, we’ve had board members that have been installed by the previous government and that have served for a very, very long time. So this is about refreshing the perspective of board members.

Interestingly enough — and I think a lot of my constituents would be excited about this — over the years, talking a lot about the concerns that fares were skyrocketing and so were the salaries of the top brass at B.C. Ferries…. Now, I’m not here to criticize them at all. They are deserving of a wage, a salary, a good salary, and they have a big responsibility guiding the institution of B.C. Ferries.

However, anyone that knows B.C. Ferries like us here in the coastal communities will know that there are VPs of pretty much everything. Yet these executive roles — we are not privy to what kind of salary or compensation they are receiving. I think that by having a true sense of what the executive is being compensated for at B.C. Ferries allows for better transparency and accountability.

Once enforced, these amendments are intended to reframe the model to better reflect the public interest. I keep saying that, but that’s exactly what this is about. And the view that ferry services are an integral part of the transportation network…. They are part of our marine highway — no bones about it. I can’t believe we’ve actually even had that debate in the past.

However, we should talk about some of our recent successes, which, again, I profusely and profoundly thank the Minister of Transportation for. I speak on behalf of my constituents. The most amount of mail I’ve ever received in six years as an MLA had to do with how the service cuts and skyrocketing fares have impacted my constituents.

[2:50 p.m.]

And the most amount of positive emails I’ve ever received in my six years as MLA were letters of thanks and congratulations and dramatic appreciation for what our government has done to improve the lives of coastal communities.

We’re restoring the sailings on the majority of ferry routes that were cut in 2014. That will see over 2,700 additional round trips added to schedules on ten minor and northern routes. We’re providing funding to B.C. Ferries to reduce fares on the smaller and northern routes — we have already done that — by 15 percent and freezing the fares on the major routes. Fares will continue to be frozen this year.

Like I said, I have received so many positive emails, and I would love to share just one here today, from a constituent. I have to say that Joni Fraser has been a tireless, tireless advocate for improving the Coastal Ferry Act and improving the services. I’ll read you two of hers. One was:

“I am so thrilled with the B.C. NDP’s decision. I was actually thinking I would have to move. I thought about going by medevac in the Coast Guard boat at night, in winter, in a southeast storm, and I was so horrified by the idea that I thought about either moving away or signing a waiver that there is no way I would ever allow myself to go across water in a small boat, strapped to a spine board. Anything goes wrong, and you are helplessly going to the bottom with the spine board.”

This is a reality that was faced by my constituents on Haida Gwaii when the B.C. Liberals cut the two eight-hour shifts between Sandspit and Skidegate and installed one 12-hour shift, essentially cutting off services at 6 p.m.

Whereas patients who had to be transferred or medevacked had been put in an ambulance and taken over to the Queen Charlotte hospital by ferry, they were now going by Coast Guard boat, which is essentially a Zodiac — an inflatable vessel in a community that experiences up to 24-foot tides, wheeling patients up steep gangways to shore, essentially — with logging injuries, with broken bones — bumping along in the massive waves in a totally inappropriate vessel so that they could get medical care. That is what the previous government’s impacts were to my constituents. It impacted their health to the point where a resident of Sandspit wanted to sign a waiver that she wouldn’t even go on a spine board, and risk her health.

I was interested in listening to the previous member talk about our previous record in the 1990s, when I was a teenager, around B.C. Ferries. I couldn’t help it. It triggered a memory of mine where the Queen of Chilliwack in 2014 was taken out of service right after $15 million in retrofits and then sold, ironically, to someone who used to work for B.C. Ferries — who knew better, who knew this was a steal — for $1.8 million. So $15 million of taxpayers’ dollars to fix this ship up, and it sold for less than $2 million. It is now sailing happily in Fiji today.

I wanted to talk about where we’ve come from and where we’re going. The cuts that we’re talking about, which were such a dramatic blow to my constituents in 2014, were all in the name of seeking efficiencies. It was $19 million worth of seeking efficiencies. The previous government made reckless service cuts and hiked our fares for years. For example, in 2003, it was $223 to go from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert in a car. By 2016, that more than doubled to $469.

We’re looking at ferry increases of over 100 percent, just in the short four years that the B.C. Liberals had and were governing in my last term as MLA. They drove up the fares repeatedly. They were going up so much that I couldn’t keep track of them and putting coastal communities at a disadvantage. It was costly, and it was unfair. Fares doubled. It led to a huge decline in ridership, and it cost billions of dollars in economic activity.

[2:55 p.m.]

In 2014, they pressed ahead with this $19 million in service reductions, cutting sailings on 13 routes, including all four that service my communities in the north coast, without even consulting with them. They essentially came and said, “We’re doing a consultation in your communities,” but all the decisions had been made. They just said: “How do you want to make it different? Here’s the decision, but here we are consulting. Check off a box.”

It was hugely insulting. People were crying. It was so painful to attend these meetings. And they did this without a socioeconomic impact analysis. It took UBCM to do their own socioeconomic impact analysis, and they demonstrated that these cuts were costing the British Columbia economy billions of dollars — not an “m,” a “b.”

They did no analysis to look at how these impacts to coastal communities were actually impacting the Interior, where people take circle routes — for example, from Port Hardy to Bella Coola and Bella Bella. They do a circle through the Interior, up Highway 20, through Williams Lake and back down. They do the same thing through Prince Rupert, across over to Prince George and back down. They did no economic impact analysis of what the Interior communities were experiencing.

They didn’t look at the impacts to health. I had physicians phoning me in Prince Rupert, saying: “Jennifer, you have constituents and I have patients in Haida Gwaii who are neglecting their health. They are not coming to see me in Prince Rupert — and they desperately need to see me — because they can’t afford to stay in a hotel for four days in Prince Rupert, or they’re fearful of the cuts or that they won’t be able to get back home.” They desperately needed medical care, and they were neglecting it.

They didn’t look at the tourism sector as a whole. They didn’t look at it, definitely, for coastal communities. Tens of thousands of people signed petitions demanding a freeze and a rollback of fares. They wanted their services reinstated, the service levels put back to what they were.

I definitely remember that my colleague here from Nanaimo, who spoke about the rallies on the Legislature lawn…. I clearly remember those moments. People carpooled and rented buses to come here and let us know, as legislators, that these cuts were wrong. Yet they still went ahead with them.

It was a trying time for my constituents in Bella Coola — taking a 125-car ferry, selling it for nothing and installing the oldest ferry in the B.C. Ferries fleet, the Nimpkish, which can take a maximum of 16 cars, not including people travelling with their RVs, etc. They were told that was fine and that it was all in the name of efficiencies.

The Bella Coola Valley has communities that were heavily reliant on the forestry sector. Then, when we brought in the Great Bear Rainforest agreement and adopted ecosystem-based management, these communities were told: “Logging like you have known it is done, and you need to reinvent yourself.” For two years, a bit of money was given from the Ministry of Tourism. They said: “Here. Go and reinvent yourself in the ecotourism sector in the Bella Coola Valley. You’ve got lots of bears; market your bears.”

So here these people invested in lodges, rafting companies, tour guides and hiking companies, spending their own money, taking a risk and starting businesses. Then two years later, the only way in, for them to actually have tourism, was cut off — all in the name of so-called efficiencies. These people have suffered. Businesses have shut down. People have gone bankrupt in the valley. These cuts were heartless.

Now, let’s not forget that Christy Clark did promise them a new ferry just before the election. She promised it would be in operation by summer of 2018. It never happened because B.C. Ferries was put under the gun to get a ferry servicing them, to fulfil this whimsical election promise, on a tight timeline that was essentially impossible. They had no choice but to buy a secondhand vessel overseas and get it retrofitted to meet that timeline.

[3:00 p.m.]

Well, it turns out that because they were so rushed, they bought a lemon, and now the cost of refitting that vessel has gone from $53 million to $64 million. It didn’t meet the timeline, and it’s further delayed. Hopefully, and thankfully, we’ll see that vessel in service this summer. But again, that was about poor decision-making. B.C. Ferries would have liked to build a new vessel that met the needs of the community on the Central Coast, a vessel that made sense. Instead, they were forced to take whatever they could find, and in no time, it actually will be proven that it’ll be oversubscribed and we’ll need a bigger vessel. Not good use of money. Not good policy-making.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a second.

Members, could you please lower your voices while the member for North Coast has the floor. Thank you.

Please continue.

J. Rice: I’m almost finished, hon. Speaker.

I just wanted to go back and talk about how this all happened, where the government wanted to make these cuts and these fare increases all in the name of seeking efficiencies.

I remember a constituent from the Central Coast, who was an advocate, phoned me up one day and said: “You know, I want you to hear what a cabinet minister said to me.” This was a cabinet minister from the opposition currently, now. They said: “If you guys don’t want to see ferry cuts in coastal British Columbia, you guys have to stop voting NDP.”

That was such a heartless thing to say. It may be true. I mean, it demonstrates the ideology on the other side of the House. But what a horrific thing to say to someone who is in not a ferry-reliant but actually a ferry-dependent community, like my constituents. We’re here to legislate and serve people. We’re not here for our own self-interest.

Government efficiencies were sought by the previous government by tearing up care workers’ contracts, which led to a decade of neglect for seniors in care, and seeking efficiencies in classrooms by tearing up teachers’ contracts. The human cost was a decade of overworked and overloaded teachers and a generation of students in overcrowded classrooms.

By putting public interest at the forefront of the services B.C. Ferries provides, we’re putting the human cost in a benefit above everything else, and that is why I am so proud to stand here and support Bill 25.

R. Sultan: During those absolutely dreadful 16 years which transfixed our political opponents, providing a handy excuse whenever their inevitable foul-ups come along, B.C. Ferries actually became a model admired around the world. Equipment was modern. Safety was enhanced. The ferries mostly ran on time, through some of the stormiest seas separating two large urban areas. B.C. Ferries was well managed and efficient.

Of course, it came at a price. Fares continued to rise, which was a hardship on some. But B.C. Ferries was not free to charge whatever they wanted; there was a price-cap system. B.C. Ferries was treated like a regulated utility, operating with monopoly powers, which indeed it virtually does.

Under the existing price-cap model, fares have risen in line with increases in operating costs and capital expenditures and according to a regulated rate of return on equity. Fares on the minor routes have risen faster than on the major routes as a result of a prohibition of cross-subsidization between route groups, whereby costs have been spread across lower volumes of traffic compared to the major routes. Some think that’s very unfair. But I haven’t heard people on the major routes saying they’d like to pay more so that people on the lesser routes could pay less.

[3:05 p.m.]

In January 2012, Gordon Macatee, commissioner, and Sheldon Stoilen, deputy commissioner, issued a report including recommendations for changes to the act which would “better enable the commissioner to balance the interests of ferry users with the financial sustainability of ferry operators.” That’s a very key phrase.

Macatee also, by the way, said a new market for B.C.’s depressed natural gas industry, in those days, could open up. He recommended, among other things, that the semi-independent organization, which was it was, start using LNG to fuel its vessels. But that’s an aside.

Now, when it comes to ferries, it’s not hard for an economist to predict the views of people who live on islands or even people who live up on peninsulas. More-often sailings are better than less often, and less expensive is better than more expensive. It’s really pretty simple. But perhaps things are now going to get a bit more complicated.

I would observe that the NDP, with Bill 25, may be releasing the trailer of a movie whose basic plot line we observed before. “NDP Gets Into the Ferry Business: The Sequel.” Wait for it. The original movie was gripping drama. The well-intentioned party, long on social sensitivity, rather short on commercial memory, stumbled into their original movie plot by — get this — skirting B.C. Ferries governance. They stumbled into their movie plot by skirting B.C. Ferries governance.

Here’s a brief movie synopsis. The early 1990s were a depressing time for shipbuilding on the coast. Socreds were lobbied by union leaders, who saw west coast yards frozen out of the east coast shipbuilding contracts. By the time the New Democrats took power in late 1991, union members’ bitterness about job loss — and it was very severe, particularly on the North Shore — turned into militancy.

A new Finance Minister delivered good news: a super ferry for B.C. would be designed — several, in fact. They’d be contracted locally. It would inject millions into the provincial economy, creating 700 person-years of employment and benefiting 260 businesses. The PacifiCat program had been launched. The vision was bold: 250-vehicle, 1,000-passenger catamarans capable of speeds of up to 37 knots between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo.

Now here comes the important part. Through a series of jaw-dropping breaches of what would today be considered good governance, the Premier forced his plans onto the Crown corporation responsible for ferries. Directors were pressured to rush things through. “An awkward situation,” my old friend George Morfitt, the provincial Auditor General of the day, described it.

The Premier attended a ferry corporation board meeting, presumably to better instruct directors on their duties and responsibilities. The Premier instructed the Crown corporations secretariat to take charge, resulting in a project proposal substantially different from what B.C. Ferries’ own staff had come up with. The rest is history. In the 2001 election, my first, only Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan survived. The PacifiCat aluminum hulls are today somewhere, I believe, in the Arabian Gulf.

Now, given that lurid history, which we all know, one would think, when it comes to ferries, NDP stalwarts would be very wary and cautious and move very slowly. But no. I would say the next movie might be subtitled “Fatal Attraction: Cannot Resist the Temptation.” History notwithstanding, governance lessons from the past long forgotten — and it wasn’t so long ago — the existing governance structure of B.C. Ferries is, I believe, once more going to be turned topsy-turvy.

[3:10 p.m.]

What is B.C. Ferries’ current governance and regulatory structure? Well, it has three components. Just to review, the British Columbia Ferry Authority is a non-share capital corporation whose purpose is merely to hold and administer a voting share in B.C. Ferries but also elect the directors to the board and approve the compensation arrangements for the directors and executive of B.C. Ferries.

Two, the B.C. Ferry Services Inc. This is the operator. It’s the operating subsidiary of the authority providing coastal service, with 35 vessels travelling between 47 terminals on 25 routes. B.C. Ferries, as has already been mentioned in this debate, is one of the largest ferry operators in the world, both in terms of fleet size and also in terms of passengers carried.

The third leg of the stool: the British Columbia Ferry Commission, the provincial regulatory body, with statutory responsibilities under the act for making regulatory decisions affecting the ferry operators. The commissioner’s role includes regulating core ferry services that are defined in a coastal ferry services contract between the ferry operator and the province, establishing price caps for each performance term and monitoring compliance with the price caps.

Now, I predict that all of this governance structure will soon come tumbling down or be rendered meaningless through judicious staffing replacements, board appointments, etc. Ultimately, I think it’s inevitable that the cabinet will be in charge, not the marine professionals and certainly not those annoying bean-counters or persons with treasonous thoughts about the marketplace. Heaven forbid.

Key features of the new law, Bill 25, are: redefining the objectives of the corporation. Tossed aside will be the January 2012 Macatee commissioner report that included recommendations for changes to the act which, I repeat, “will better enable the commissioner to balance the interests of ferry users with the financial sustainability of ferry operators.” The perpetual trade-off — one trades off against the other, back and forth.

Under Bill 25, the new world, section 21.01 of the act will be revised, stating that now decisions will be made “in the public interest.” Well, who can argue with that? In other words, forget about balancing the interests of ferry users with the financial sustainability of ferry operators. The public interest will prevail. What does that mean? Well, de facto, I believe that it will be the interests of the ferry users. Period. As I said before, they’re easy to predict — more-often sailings, lower prices. Simple as that.

The second innovation of Bill 25 is a redefined section 45.1, which will require ferry prices — the key phrase — to be based on “recovering direct costs.” My underlined portion: some portion of “indirect costs.” To repeat myself: some portion, underlined, of “indirect costs.” Since they are not defined in the act, let me guess at the meaning which will be attributed to direct costs. Fuel. I don’t think we can argue that if you leave the ferry tied up at dock, it’s not burning any fuel. Well, there are no direct costs, that’s for sure. It’s just sitting there.

But how about wages? Well, maybe, but if labour is more or less a fixed cost, and under contracts it frequently is — laying people off just because it’s stormy out there; I don’t think they operate that way — then they could easily be categorized as an indirect cost.

[3:15 p.m.]

Fixed and variable — it’s an old debate among MBA students and ferry governors. The tendency will be to load up the indirect costs with everything you can imagine, because the pricing only has an obligation, under the law, to recover a portion of indirect costs, not all of the indirect costs.

Well, carrying the analysis a bit further, how about the servicing of capital interest expense and so on? I don’t think many people would argue with the proposition that those are clearly indirect costs. So forget about recovering all of them. I say you’ll be lucky if prices end up covering, let’s say, a third of them, but I guess it’s anybody’s guess. It’s discretionary; it’s certainly not specified in the law.

The parent company would have to pay for the other two-thirds, in my hypothetical example. Let’s say it comes out of carbon taxes or, maybe, real estate taxes on those overpriced West Vancouver homes owned by those old people who won’t move out. That would be fair. So welcome to the new world of ferry prices under the NDP, at least as I foresee it.

Possibly disturbing this new picture, however, is that pesky Auditor General again, always lurking around with clearly inconvenient ideas from time to time, in this case about the twin labels of taxpayer-supported debt versus self-supported debt. Where have we heard those phrases before? In this new world, I believe the AG, the Auditor General, would find it hard to categorize B.C. Ferries’ financial obligations, longer-term debt, as self-supporting. They will have to be subsidized.

Well, it’s almost literally in the law, Bill 25. About $1.3 billion of B.C. Ferries debt will probably show up on the provincial balance sheet. Oh well, it’ll find good company there. There’s already $44 billion of taxpayer-supported debt and $20 billion of self-supporting debt sitting there. We hope the rating agencies don’t notice an extra $1.3 billion of new provincial debt layered on top of what is already sitting there — or perhaps they will. Uh-oh.

To conclude, I believe that Bill 25 may signal a turning point, a shift away from running B.C. Ferries as an efficient, modern enterprise paying its own way towards a less modern, politically dominated organization where union interests, island interests, up-the-coast interests and NDP interests generally will prevail, cross-subsidized by taxpayers elsewhere in British Columbia. More money spent on ferries, less spent on hospitals. That’s the unfortunate iron law of government finance. Bon voyage, Bill 25.

S. Gibson: I want to thank the hon. member for West Vancouver–Capilano for his insightful ruminations. I do appreciate them. I know they will contribute to the discourse here today.

When you look at this, Bill 25 looks kind of innocuous — just a few pages. You could almost miss the agenda that is lurking in there. But I’m nervous about this government’s aspiration for B.C. Ferries. I’m anxious; I’m apprehensive. I say this as a former employee of B.C. Ferries, one of the best summer jobs I ever had. I was living in Victoria at the time. I was working on B.C. Ferries as a student at UVic.

[3:20 p.m.]

What a privilege it was to work for four summers for B.C. Ferries, including up the coast on the Queen of Prince Rupert ferry. I learned a lot about the ferries and social skills, and all the things that a young man needs to learn as he enters into his career life. I also might add that I worked in Duncan and lived in Sidney. I used to take that little ferry, the Brentwood ferry, across regularly, and I got to know the captain on there, who invited me up to the bridge and showed me around.

I have a high regard for B.C. Ferries. And when I hear even rumblings of the kind of tampering that has been alluded to by my colleagues and, specifically and more recently, right now by the hon. member for West Vancouver–Capilano, I too am expressing some considerable reservations about the direction this government is taking.

B.C. Ferries. If it was just small, maybe two or three ferries, I think we probably wouldn’t even notice. But this is a big deal. B.C. Ferries is one of the largest ferry systems in world, and I am very proud of it. Tonight many of us are catching the ferry and getting home to our constituencies, our families. Every time I travel on B.C. Ferries, I have that sense of pride. Twenty-five routes, 47 terminals and 36 vessels.

The B.C. Coastal Ferry Amendment Act seems to be typical of the NDP’s agenda. Once they get in control, they grab onto government…. They wait, and then suddenly they get into government, and they can hardly wait to interfere with successful organizations. It’s almost predictable that they would do this.

Perhaps it’s nostalgia, going back to the warm and fuzzy days of the 1990s and the NDP governments of the day. Now, I call those days disturbing, frankly. I know many British Columbians would. We’ve heard a lot about the fast ferries. I think if we had a vote here right now on whether the government would like me to talk about the fast ferries, they’d probably vote against it, which leads me to believe it’s probably a good thing to talk about.

Remember the fast ferries? They were very fast, all right. They were fast money-losers. They were fast into the repair shop. Remember they had some maintenance problems? And they were fast in squandering taxpayers’ money. They were fast, all right — $450 million to build, and they were sold to a company in the United Arab Emirates for how much?

Interjections.

S. Gibson: It was $19 million? I would not hire any of these folks to be my financial planners, based on that model. What a testament to the financial incompetence of the government of the day.

I think even newer members here in the House probably lament that and wish that was something, perhaps, that opposition members wouldn’t mention. I understand that; I’m not surprised. This is not something that I am surprised about. This act wants to roll back to those days, when the government, cabinet, appointed the members of this majority — and you’ll notice that — on this authority. The control is going to government.

Now, I would think most British Columbians would want the ferry fleet to operate in a businesslike manner. I’m sure that if you surveyed the public and said, “Would you like it to be run by government, directly through cabinet, or would you like it to be run in a businesslike manner?” I suspect most people would go for the latter, right? Probably, I think, that would be the case. This government, however, is delusional. They think: “Well, no, let’s get involved in everything. B.C. Ferries — we’re going to get involved.”

That’s not this government. What kinds of powers will be exercised? We’re not sure. It’s a kind of social activism at the taxpayers’ expense. Will the Ferry Commissioner still be encouraging a commercial approach to ferry service delivery? Will he be encouraging commercial? Apparently not.

I remember the member for North Coast. She had some good remarks a moment ago — from her perspective, at least. She recommended, in a previous session of this House, that the ferry system basically be considered just an extension of the highways. Remember that? That would be incredibly expensive, if that were adopted by this government. However, perhaps she did get through to some members of this government.

[3:25 p.m.]

Maybe that’s the long-term plan — that the ferries will simply become an extension of the highways, whatever the cost. So if you want to move to a tiny little island, immediately when you get there, you demand top-notch, hourly ferry service, because: “I’m here. It’s my right.” Not a good plan for the interest….

Interjections.

S. Gibson: I’m getting some good support from the other side. Thank you.

I’m genuinely upset, very upset, that B.C. Ferries is being politicized at the whim of an activist government. What about the issue of debt? Now, if the paradigm changes, there’s $1 billion plus that could show up on government’s books. What will the rating agencies say about that? We haven’t heard about that. The rating agencies may look at those ratios, which are very important to them. We already have a significant debt. Adding that on could have a dramatic impact on our debt. I’m just pointing that out.

Now, I mentioned the fast ferries….

Interjection.

S. Gibson: Thank you for the response on that; I appreciate it.

With a decade of NDP government, B.C. Ferries had debt problems. It’s all recorded; have a look. Morale was struggling. When morale is struggling, the whole system is struggling. There was no real vision for B.C. Ferries, just kind of, “Keep her going” — no vision, no plan.

Our side of the House, as government, had a real vision working with the management and the board of B.C. Ferries. There was a clear vision, and the people were drawn to that. B.C. Ferries had a vision, and people liked that. There’s a verse that says: “Without a vision, the people perish.” It’s a Bible verse; I like it. Without a vision for B.C. Ferries, B.C. Ferries is going to struggle. Is it going to be set at the cabinet table? That worries me.

I know that the B.C. Liberal governments of the day took pride in the fleet. I came here in 2013, but for many years, our side of the House, as government, took a real pride in the fleet. There was a real sense of: “This is our system. We’re proud of it.” It was well governed. It was a good business model, the structure to keep politicians out of the decision-making.

How many of you have ever heard this term “micromanagement”? Have any of you experienced that? Any of you been micromanaged? It’s not a good thing. I had the privilege of teaching human resources at a university level. One of the first things I would ask my students was: “How many of you have worked for a micromanager?” Just about all my students put their hands up.

Thank you. The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan put up his hand. He’ll probably share those experiences with the House.

Interjection.

S. Gibson: He’s lamenting that, but he looks like he’s overcome that. I appreciate that. Maybe he was the micromanager.

In any event, I asked my students, “Who of you have been micromanaged,” and most of them put their hands up. I said: “How was that experience?” You know what? They don’t like it. It’s not good management.

B.C. Ferries needs to have good levels of autonomy — to be accountable to government, yes, to the taxpayers, but to be allowed to do its thing with expertise. Once you tamper with that and get government involved, it squanders that, and there’s immediately a high level of micromanagement.

Now, the NDP government, according to what I’m reading, is anxious to run B.C. Ferries. You’ll hear that from most of the speakers on this side. You’ll notice the continuing message: “We want to continue to be involved. We want to get involved in B.C. Ferries.” That’s something to be troubled by.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

It eliminates the percentage of appointments. It goes from two to four. The government is taking over the proportion on the authority. Why does this government want to tamper with a working model? I think part of it is the desire to micromanage.

You know, B.C. Ferries did a lot of good planning in the past. Rate classes were understandable. Low-emission vehicles are underway. Organizational efficiencies — we’ve heard about that in the reports. Improvement at the Langdale terminal — we know about that.

[3:30 p.m.]

A developed capital plan, good labour relations — that’s important. B.C. Ferries has a large number of hard-working employees. A 2.3 percent cap on fares right through to 2024 — that’s manageable.

I’m troubled that this government wants to politicize the administration of B.C. Ferries. This is not caring for the taxpayers. It’s activism that is truly troubling. It could be a disaster in the making.

Now, I understand the NDP still wants to have ferries built here in B.C. Is that right? Is that correct? At any cost?

Interjection.

S. Gibson: Okay, now my understanding is…. I don’t know. Are we looking to go for airplanes to be built here? Is that right? Is that one of the next ones we’re looking at? What about cars? Is that one we’re looking for too? I just thought it would be useful to do a checklist, because we’ve got ferries. Cars? Buses? Motorcycles? Bicycles? Skateboards? Roller-skates?

The point I’m making is the taxpayer must be respected. Don’t do things out of social activism. Yes, we want our ferries built here but not at any cost. I think government’s involvement could destroy this fleet as we know it. I was saddened to hear some of the remarks by colleagues across the floor. How passionately they want to manipulate B.C. Ferries. You’ll notice their comments. They want to get involved. They want to be activists.

We need to have a plan that not only serves passengers, yes, but the entire province — all taxpayers, whether they live in Prince Rupert or Duncan or Abbotsford, where I come from, or Dawson Creek or wherever. Every taxpayer in this province must be respected, not just the folks that travel on B.C. Ferries.

B.C. Ferries is something to be proud of. But I worry that with this act, B.C. Ferries’ financial security is threatened. This kind of government activism could potentially destroy the fleet.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. C. Trevena: It is with great interest I’ve sat through the debate of Bill 25 and listened to the comments of members from all sides. I’m fascinated to see a sudden passion about ferries from the opposition. When they were government for 16 years, they ignored the system and exploited the system and exploited those communities that relied upon the system.

We’ve had some very eloquent comments from my colleagues who represent coastal communities about the importance of putting public interest into the heart of B.C. Ferries, both in the oversight from the authority board and in the strength and role of the commissioner. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano gave this outline of the three-legged stool of B.C. Ferries governance. He might be pleased to know, if he actually read the bill, that that is still very strongly there. In fact, we are strengthening the role of the commissioner, and we are changing the makeup of the authority.

As I say, the fact of the need of the public interest, putting people at the heart of the ferry system, was clearly reflected in the comments, the stories that my colleagues from coastal communities gave about their constituents who are affected and their constituents who fought long and hard over 16 years of the cuts to the system, the increase in fares and the devastation that they saw — 16 years of simply bad governance.

[3:35 p.m.]

The opposition may try to go back to times when some members on this side of the House were teenagers or even younger on government benches and try to say that that is the reason why we have to have the status quo. I would argue against that. That was many years ago. We all know that there have been advances in very many different fields, and we need to be embracing that.

We need to be embracing ways of looking at things, whether it’s when we’re visioning on B.C. Ferries, that good strong vision, or when we are discussing what the public interest is. Their history lesson does not justify the devastation they wrought on our ferry system.

A couple of very quick points. I wanted to clarify the Liberal math. They are very concerned about the fact that we are putting two extra people, who will be appointed by government, on the B.C. Ferry Authority board to replace those who are self-appointed — the members-at-large. There will still be four people who are representative of communities, of regions, and there will be one person who represents labour, who is not an active labour member at the time. I believe she’s retired at the moment. But to clarify Liberal math, that’s still nine members of an authority board. Four does not become a majority. Four is not the majority out of nine, just to help the opposition understand that.

Also, there is the terrible fear about what the Auditor General may or may not say. The government is not taking direct control of B.C. Ferries. B.C. Ferries is operating, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, as a quango. It still operates there as a company, making money and making sure that people can travel where they need to go.

What we, as a government, are doing…. While we strengthen the commissioner’s role, we are ensuring that when the authority and the commissioner are making their decisions to allow for a financially healthy and fiscally responsible ferry system, they put people at the heart of it, communities at the heart of it — the people who have been neglected for so long.

One final note. I notice there was a lot of passion about the discussion of shipbuilding and the shipbuilding industry. The member from West Kelowna was particularly concerned and particularly vociferous about this, but other members have talked about it. I would just like to note that shipbuilding isn’t any part of Bill 25. Whether or not this side of the House…. This side of the House, perhaps, would like to see a vibrant shipbuilding industry with B.C. ferries being built here. That isn’t part of Bill 25.

I look forward, with great interest and great anticipation, to the inevitable discussions we’ll have at committee stage and for the questions at committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 25.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Trevena: I call second reading of Bill 19.

BILL 19 — ENERGY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that Bill 19 be read a second time now.

I’m pleased to present the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019. I’m very proud of this bill. This bill comes as a result of our review of B.C. Hydro, which, of course, I’ve called, in this House before, British Columbians’ crown jewel. It’s our public utility. It’s what turns all of the lights on in this place and most parts of the province.

The dams in my area, which are responsible for powering up 50 percent of British Columbia — many of them are B.C. Hydro dams. B.C. Hydro provides electricity to four million customers with reliable power, serving 95 percent of the province’s population, and 98 percent of that power that we generate with B.C. Hydro is clean electricity. It’s renewable power.

[3:40 p.m.]

When we decided, as a government, to review B.C. Hydro, it was because we have such a value for this crown jewel, for this public utility. We want to make sure that the electricity it produces and transmits to people’s homes is affordable. That was the driving factor behind our comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro.

The legislation that I’m presenting today is essentially part of the culmination of the first phase of our review. We are also going to have a second phase of the review that we’re going to be moving into. The second phase will look at transitioning B.C. Hydro into the 21st century, into the future.

There are a lot of changes happening right now. We know that we’re going to see a stronger tech industry in B.C. that’s very dependent on electricity. I just presented the first introduction of legislation for a zero-emission vehicle mandate. British Columbians are adopting zero-emission vehicles at a faster rate than other jurisdictions in Canada. So we know that that’s going to put demand on B.C. Hydro as well.

I could go on with that list, but the point of mentioning that is because we are looking to do that second phase of the B.C. Hydro review to transition it into the 21st century to meet those demands that we anticipate are going to be coming. In fact, we know they are going to be coming.

The legislation we have here is in response to our first phase of our B.C. Hydro review. It was a structural review, looking at how we can make sure that rates are affordable, because the costs at B.C. Hydro directly impact the rates that people have to pay, those bills that they get every month, every couple of months. We want to make sure that our utility is running as efficiently as possible so that we are not overcharging our customer base, those four million British Columbians.

We want to make sure that our public utility is operating at prime efficiency. Our review resulted in an ability to reduce the projected rate increase by the previous government, the B.C. Liberal government. It reduced their projected increase by 40 percent. That’s very good news for British Columbians.

This year, for example, the increase that B.C. Hydro is going to be applying is already applied to the B.C. Utilities Commission. The increase that they put forward is actually less than consumer price index. We’re finding ways that we can save people money. Like I said, we found a 40 percent rate increase reduction from the previous government’s plan.

But we need to ensure that going forward, B.C. Hydro and the British Columbia Utilities Commission have the tools they need to ensure that when they are doing their work, B.C. Hydro, in terms of making its plans, and the B.C. Utilities Commission, in terms of reviewing those plans, have the ability to ensure that rates remain affordable, that they have the tools in their toolboxes to make that analysis.

One of the things that we’re doing with this legislation is re-empowering the BCUC to do the job that it’s supposed to. That is to work in the public interest in terms of reviewing, analyzing and regulating B.C. Hydro. For example….

Actually, before I get there, I want to just take a moment to acknowledge…. I’ve talked about making life more affordable. Why is it important that we keep rates affordable? It might go without saying, but let’s put it on the record.

When we have higher rates and we don’t pay attention to making sure that we have them at an affordable level, and we let them increase — for example, 70 percent over the course of the previous government’s term — we are making life harder for British Columbians.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’ve talked to many people, low-income single moms…. When they get that hydro bill, they have to make the choice between paying the electric bill or snacks for their children for that week or that month, depending on what they can afford. That should never be a choice for somebody.

While we are lucky in British Columbia to have some of the lowest electricity rates in the world, that doesn’t mean that it’s still not difficult for British Columbians when rates go up. We have to be mindful of things that will impact rates, and we have to be mindful of how they’re regulated. That’s why this is important.

We need to ensure that B.C. Hydro is working for British Columbians. We need to ensure that, and this type of legislation does that.

I’ve mentioned that the previous government let rates increase by 70 percent over their watch, hon. Speaker. Well, one of the things that allowed that to happen was by hand-tying the B.C. Utilities Commission from doing the exact job that it’s supposed to be doing. The previous government sidelined the BCUC and made decisions forcing B.C. Hydro to advance that government’s own political agenda at the expense of ratepayers right across the province. Rates for residential customers can now skyrocket under things like rate rebalancing and also cost millions for surplus energy purchased from independent power producers, and that was passed on to ratepayers.

We did a study. A gentleman named Ken Davidson took a look at how the previous government’s IPP scheme impacted British Columbian ratepayers: $16.2 million in excess costs that are now borne on the back of British Columbians —$200 a year for the average British Columbian household that has B.C. Hydro as its electric source.

That just wasn’t right. That was not okay. We have to look at the mechanisms by which that happened, and we have to correct that. That’s why empowering the B.C. Utilities Commission to do its job as the province’s energy regulator and restore independent oversight of B.C. Hydro is essential, and we’re doing that with this bill.

It will ensure that electricity rates are kept affordable for British Columbians and also protect taxpayers from millions in costs. We are implementing key recommendations made from that first phase with this bill.

I already talked about how we had the first phase of our review, and we are going to be moving into the second phase. Part of the first phase of our review, though, is…. I’ve mentioned the BCUC. Also, we needed to talk to the BCUC, and we did just that. We worked with them in identifying ways to make sure that they are able to be the strong regulator that British Columbians need them to be and that they have the tools in their toolbox, as I mentioned, to put analysis to B.C. Hydro’s integrated resource planning. For people at home who might not understand what that technical term means, you can liken it to B.C. Hydro’s business plan for a period of time, where they identify what the demand would be for future electrical demand and how they would meet that demand.

Going back to the BCUC. We talked to them in terms of…. They had the tools in their toolbox and provided analysis to the integrated resource plan, to the rates applications that they put forward, and how they could ensure that they were also providing analysis in terms of affordability for British Columbians. Not just that they were making sure that B.C. Hydro was meeting its costs through its charges to ratepayers, whether those ratepayers be families, households, residential households, commercial or industrial ratepayers.

BCUC has been a part of this process, and I greatly appreciate them doing so, because of course, they ultimately provide that independent, non-political oversight working in the best interests of British Columbians, rather than the political whims of the day, which they change depending on where members sit in this House. But they provide that consistent, independent oversight over B.C. Hydro working in the best interests of British Columbians.

[3:50 p.m.]

I know that other members want to speak to this bill. I will not be an official designated speaker and speaking two hours, as interesting as I know the full and in-depth explanation of things like feed-in tariffs and expenditures for export may be. But I will go over some of those points just so that people who are watching have a good understanding of what this bill is about, as well as other members of the House.

The integrated resource plan. I’ve already mentioned that the B.C. Utilities Commission will be reviewing that now. That’s what this bill specifically allows. The previous government required B.C. Hydro to submit its integrated resource plan to government for review and approval, therefore bypassing the BCUC altogether.

What this meant was that there was no independent oversight over that forecasting for demand and forecasting for how to meet that demand. There was no independent oversight over that. Rather, it was a political oversight. Politicians being politicians and going by what might be popular, what lobbyists might be saying to them, was not in the best interests of British Columbians by any stretch, right? Perhaps it’s part of the reason why we saw the IPP scheme — why we saw that — and why those types of things would have been better off being reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Now the B.C. Utilities Commission is going to be reviewing B.C. Hydro’s integrated resource plan. That’s not something weird or out of the ordinary or unusual. In fact, this is the general practice amongst other jurisdictions as well — that their regulator reviews the overall resource planning that their utilities do. This is the right direction to head towards. It’s the direction that we used to have in British Columbia, and we need to get back to that.

I’ll also talk about the feed-in tariff that this bill addresses. It actually removes the government’s power to order B.C. Hydro to establish what’s called a feed-in tariff. This is a program through which B.C. Hydro could enter into new purchase agreements with independent power producers without the approval of BCUC. That’s essentially what that mechanism does. We want to remove that mechanism because, as I said earlier, BCUC is the appropriate regulatory body to be reviewing these types of power acquisitions. BCUC needs to be looking at that.

B.C. Hydro, of course, is forecast to be in surplus for the future and does not need to be purchasing new electricity generation, so it is not required to have a feed-in tariff at all. In fact, this concept of a feed-in tariff has been quite problematic in other jurisdictions such as Ontario. Learning from those experiences, we will be removing that here in British Columbia to make sure that this is not a detriment to ratepayers.

Rate rebalancing is a point that I briefly alluded to, so let me speak to it here for just a moment. Rate rebalancing is the process by which…. The bill will be prohibiting the BCUC from doing rate rebalancing. This was something that the previous government allowed for. What it means is that…. Of course, utility can still apply for rate rebalancing, but it cannot be directed by the BCUC anymore, the reason being that rate rebalancing can happen between different classes of ratepayers.

I’ve already mentioned that in British Columbia, we have residential class, we have commercial class and we have industrial class. Sometimes, in looking at how we pay for the overall costs of energy generation, you find different mechanisms to create balance between the different classes. Rather than just doing the straightforward approach of…. All residential users — their payment equals their cost 100 percent, right? That is not the case right now.

[3:55 p.m.]

Right now, to keep rates more affordable for residential customers, there’s a little more on industrial and commercial. They’re paying a little bit more than exactly what their costs are. But this government, through policy, has removed the PST off of their electricity — therefore, making it affordable for them as well and attracting investment.

We want to make sure that if a rate rebalancing does need to occur, that analysis is done within the utility itself and then they apply to BCUC for that, rather than putting BCUC into the position of having to make rates unaffordable for any one of those other classes without being able to consider a government policy that’s happening elsewhere.

I know that sounds very convoluted, but the point is that at the end of the day, we’ve consulted with the BCUC on this. This is now a tool in their toolbox that will ensure that rates are more affordable for British Columbians.

Another concept that this bill addresses is called expenditures for export. We will be removing the concept of expenditures for export from the Clean Energy Act. Expenditures for export are expenditures on infrastructure and energy for producing surplus power for sale to export markets. For example, one could argue that the IPP’s scheme was not going to ultimately be for domestic use because we have a surplus of power, but that B.C. Hydro would have to enter into these agreements to purchase IPP private power and then turn around and sell it through its subsidiary, Powerex, and sell it on the private market.

That might sound really good, and it would be really good if the case was that energy prices always stayed high and you could buy low, sell high. That would be great for ratepayers. Unfortunately, what’s happening right now, as we learned from Ken Davidson’s report, is that we’ve been buying high and selling very low. We’ve been buying at around 100 megawatts per hour and selling at around $25 to $35 per megawatt hour. That’s a major loss. And that’s where he identified the $16.2 million…. Sorry, I believe I misspoke on that one.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mungall: I know the member over there is expressing what must be jealousy of a woman being able to nurse a child all night long, still come to work every day, introduce bills and speak to the bill. Maybe I don’t have the right number for him, but I know he could not do what I’m doing.

Back to the issue at hand, though. The point is that we are going to be removing the concept of expenditures for export from the Clean Energy Act because they have just not worked in favour of British Columbians. It’s that simple.

Finally, the bill addresses that Powerex will continue to be solely regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It’s important that it remain regulated by this particular body because this body is used to the type of market activities that require a very quick response. So it’s in a better position to regulate Powerex. It’s in the best position to regulate Powerex. So we will be putting that from a regulatory perspective into a legislative perspective to make sure that that is enshrined in law — who will be regulating Powerex.

Those are my comments on this bill. I’m very proud of the work that my ministry has been doing on this and that other ministries, as well, have been putting into our analysis and our review of B.C. Hydro. This is a very, very important piece of work in terms of moving B.C. Hydro forward as a Crown corporation for British Columbians, to benefit British Columbians, to make sure that rates are affordable and to make sure that we have a B.C. Hydro that is working for British Columbians every single day.

G. Kyllo: I’m always proud to rise in this House. I’ll be providing remarks in response to Bill 19, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’m pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 19. I want to take just a few minutes, though, to take us back in time to a mostly sunny, balmy day in 2013 — July 17, to be exact. Many of us here were actually in this very House on that day. And as always, we had the chance to witness some of our colleagues share their thoughts, to ask questions and to raise concerns.

On that day, there was one member, in particular, who filled the air with many words that rang out in this chamber, and the House heard: “When Hydro is not required to attend the Utilities Commission, as laid out in the Clean Energy Act, for a host of capital projects, it doesn’t provide the public with the opportunity to get a clear understanding of what the consequences are of various policy initiatives.”

The same speaker had a few more words, though, and is one who never seems to be at a loss for words — a shortage of facts, hypocritical positions oftentimes but, as I stated, seldom at a loss for words. This is what he had to say, with a bit of a rhetorical flourish: “I wonder if the minister could tell me what expertise currently resides in the cabinet that is superior to the expertise at the B.C. Utilities Commission in terms of assessing the plan put forward by B.C. Hydro to meet our long-term needs.”

The speaker went on to praise the benefits of using what he called “a fully capable and statutory body called the B.C. Utilities Commission, which has experts, which has an opportunity for open hearings, which has an opportunity for a transparent discussion about our energy needs.” That, the speaker argued, was the reason to have all manner of government and B.C. Hydro decisions come under BCUC.

Who shared these words on that sunny Wednesday afternoon in Victoria not so long ago? Well, it was the then Opposition House Leader and now Premier, the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca. He spoke with such passion that day. Okay, let’s be honest. He speaks with a lot of passion. But just over a month ago, we saw that same flame of passion about BCUC oversight starting to wink out.

The BCUC was looking into the regulation of electric-vehicle-charging services. It’s a pretty smart thing to examine. After all, the number of electric cars is projected to grow, and the government is stepping on the gas, so to speak, to drive people out of gas-powered vehicles and into electric-powered ones. So the BCUC was planning to look at the role public utilities like B.C. Hydro or Fortis would play in delivering charging services to all of those electric vehicles. That impassioned speaker quickly moved his foot from the gas pedal to the brakes. The BCUC was shut down with a simple message: the province had already decided how all this work was to be done, thank you very much.

It is the NDP’s approach that government knows best. We’ve seen that same top-down, Victoria-centric approach with caribou recovery plans being delivered without local consultation. We’re seeing it with ALR changes that are denying living, breathing farmers from being persons and stripping their ability to have a say on their own land, ignoring recommendations by their own handpicked panel on the MSP, as well as recommendations coming forward from the committee set forward to report out on ride-hailing services in our province.

Now we’re seeing it with this legislation and with this government’s dodging of its former passion for BCUC oversight of B.C. Hydro. All that passion the Premier expressed on that warm summer day has vaporized. There are numerous parts of the legislation before this House today that dodge and duck the long-promised oversight. The NDP were pedal to the metal on BCUC independence, and that’s now not going to come for at least two years into the future — February 28 of 2021.

What this adds up to is BCUC independence arriving just a few months before the next scheduled election. One can only imagine what the Premier, the minister and all of the NDP government members are cooking up over the next two years. Let’s just say the recipe book hasn’t delivered much to be confident in.

We have speculation taxes that fail to target speculators. We have agricultural legislation that declares that human beings who own and operate farms are not persons in the eyes of the law. We have school taxes that do not go to education. Taxpayers would be wise not to hold their breath for the government to rekindle their passion for BCUC oversight.

[4:05 p.m.]

So much is missing from this legislation that deserves to be the subject of scrutiny. There’s no plan on how B.C. Hydro will fulfil the missing 25 percent of the CleanBC plan. The government is waiting until just days before the next election to allow the BCUC to set B.C. Hydro’s net income, and that’s being left to government.

Powerex is exempted from BCUC review, and the next B.C. Hydro IRP, its long-term resource plan, is on hold, under this legislation, until just months before the next scheduled election.

BCUC is barred from rate rebalancing. As the minister indicated….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, could we quiet down the conversation on the side, please?

Please proceed.

G. Kyllo: As shared by the minister just previously, BCUC is actually barred from rate rebalancing. What was identified is that industrial customers are paying up to 114 percent over the actual rate of the cost of service delivery to that rate of customers. What we have seen is that to undertake a rate rebalancing would result in a 2.2 percent increase in each of the next three years, for a total of another 6.6 percent increase on residential customers.

Again, it is this government’s policy to actually intervene and see that our industrial and commercial customers are paying significantly more than the actual rate to provide electricity to that rate classification.

So we look forward to exploring the government’s plan for top-down control of B.C. Hydro in committee stage. It’s clear that the passion for change is gone from the other side of the House. It’s being replaced by passion for cabinet command and cabinet control.

There was a failed attempt to try and smear IPP producers for political gain through a report that has now been thoroughly debunked. The report that was commissioned by the government did not go through a fair and open and transparent bidding process.

There was a former staff employee of the previous NDP government that was actually hand-delivered this contract to undertake the IPP review. He has absolutely zero credibility or past experience, when it comes to dealing with hydro rates or utility rates in the province.

It’s interesting that a lot of the information put forward in that report has been fully debunked by the Clean Energy Association of B.C. I certainly won’t challenge this House with all of the many failings and faults of the report that the minister is so happy to speak about here today.

After all of those impassioned words by the now Premier in July of 2013, this bill is truly a disappointment. It’s clear this bill is simply intended to give the appearance of change while bending the BCUC to serve the NDP’s political goals. That’s sad for electricity customers in B.C., it’s sad for taxpayers, and it’s sad for our future.

T. Shypitka: I’m proud to stand up here today to speak to Bill 19, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

I’d like to take a little bit of time right now just to thank my constituency office back in Cranbrook: my CA there, Heather Smith; and my assistant, Christy Wheeldon. They do an incredibly great job down there. We’ve got a lot of files on the go. They’re working their butts off day in and day out, and I just wanted to give them a shout-out and thank them for that.

I also wanted to give a little shout-out to my son and wife, who are in the precinct here today. They’re enjoying the great Victoria weather. Can I say that? I don’t know. Is it raining? I’d like to welcome them to Victoria as well.

Interjection.

[4:10 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Nothing like Cranbrook. Cranbrook is, actually, a very great place. It’s the sunniest — most sunshine hours — in the whole province. So we’re happy with that one.

Bill 19. I hear some talk from the other side about putting all the decision-making into the hands of the BCUC. I think we can agree that that’s not a bad idea, but I hear some of the hypocrisy that comes from the other side. It wasn’t too long ago that we were hearing the other side saying that we shouldn’t influence, that there should be no unnecessary influence on the BCUC on any policies that we do. Yet it wasn’t too long ago that we heard of a freeze on hydro rates, before anything was ever announced from the BCUC.

That was kind of astonishing: no direction from the BCUC on that, although it was one of the minister’s mandates that put a freeze on hydro rates. That was kind of unbelievable, actually, with no direction at all from the BCUC. I would dare to question the minister on some of the stuff she said about us being influential on the BCUC.

We heard some comments here from my colleague on some quotes. I’ll just reiterate those quotes. I think we know who it was that came up with these quotes. It wasn’t too long ago. It was about seven years ago, or 2013, I believe — whatever that is, six years ago now. The quote was: “When Hydro is not required to attend the Utilities Commission, as laid out in the Clean Energy Act, for a host of capital projects, it doesn’t provide the public with the opportunity to get a clear understanding of what the consequences are of various policy initiatives.”

The now Premier, a member from Victoria, had this to say a little bit later: “I wonder if the minister could tell me what expertise currently resides in the cabinet that is superior to the expertise at the B.C. Utilities Commission in terms of assessing the plan put forward by B.C. Hydro to meet our long-term needs.”

The member for Juan de Fuca, as I guess it would have been at the time, went on to say: “…a fully capable and statutory body called the B.C. Utilities Commission, which has experts, which has an opportunity for open hearings, which has an opportunity for a transparent discussion about our energy needs.” That, the speaker argued, was the reason to have all manner of government and B.C. Hydro decisions come under the BCUC.

Who shared these words? We know it was the now Premier. Let’s be honest. He speaks with a lot of passion on these things, but it’s kind of contradictory to what we’re hearing now. Just over a month ago we saw the flame of passion about the BCUC oversight starting to wink out. The BCUC was looking into the regulation of electric-vehicle-charging services. It’s a pretty smart thing to examine. There’s going to be a lot of demand here going on in the near future.

The government has set some very aggressive goals to have 100 percent electric vehicles, zero-emission vehicles, by 2040, I believe. That’s a very aggressive goal. To examine electric-vehicle-charging stations is a smart thing to do, and the government is stepping on the gas, so to speak, to drive people out of gas-powered vehicles. We’ll be speaking to that a little bit later as well.

The BCUC was planning to look at the role public utilities like B.C. Hydro or Fortis would play in delivering charging services for all those electric vehicles. That impassioned speaker quickly moved his foot from the gas pedal to the brakes. The BCUC was shut down, with a simple message: “The province has already decided on how all this works. Thank you very much.” When it seems to work for them, it’s all fine and dandy, but if the BCUC doesn’t work for them: “Well, we’ve got some other messages we want to send.” It’s that same approach that we’ve seen, time and time again, that the NDP knows best. We’ve seen this type of top-down approach….

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: We’re hearing some agreement from the other side. I commend them for those sentiments.

We’ve seen that same top-down approach in a lot of the consultation we’ve seen across the province. The caribou recovery plan, I believe, is one of those things we’re seeing right now — absolutely zero consultation from across the province.

[4:15 p.m.]

We see it, time and time again, with the ALR changes that are going on right now, denying people…. Farmers that work the land are not being able to actually make applications to the ALC to expropriate some of the land from the ALR. Those privileges, those rights, have been taken away.

All that passion the Premier expressed on that warm sunny day back in 2013 has all but dried up. There are numerous parts of this legislation before the House today that dodge and duck the long-promised oversight. The NDP were pedal to the metal on BCUC independence. That’s now coming two years in the future, February 28, 2021.

There are numerous things on this bill that we’re extremely disappointed about. I know my colleague from Kelowna West wants to get up and say some stuff here. I’m just going through some of the highlights. I won’t get into this Powerex stuff.

I guess all I’m really trying to say is that we’ve got to move forward with consulting with BCUC. There’s no doubt about it — absolutely, first and foremost. But let’s not play the game that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. That’s a hypocrisy we’ve seen so far with this government.

With that, I’m opposed to the bill. I’m not sure if my friend wants to speak to it, or somebody from the other side. I see a lot of comments on the other side over there, so maybe they want to take a jab at it. But with that, I do not support the bill.

B. Stewart: I’m glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 19. I think about some of the earlier comments made about these amendments to the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, which I think…. You know, it’s always important to keep in perspective. We’ve got a regulator, the BCUC, which is there to protect individuals from surges in power demand, as we’ve seen.

I mean, take an example of where this government was selling power for the opportunity of selling it at a premium into California when rates went sky-high. Now, they didn’t actually collect the money back. They sold it off. Essentially, California reneged on paying on parts of it.

Anyway, Powerex is very much in the business of selling surplus power, and power demand goes up and down. I think that our concern with the changes and amendments here is the independence of what it is that the BCUC is supposed to do. In a perfect world, government, in my opinion, wouldn’t be interfering in terms of a Crown corporation like B.C. Hydro where the corporation itself has the maintenance required that it needs to invest in its utilities. However, we have the shareholder, which I know sometimes interferes in the process. And the BCUC is in-between that.

So the point that I really think that we, in a perfect world….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: Well, we have ten years in the 1990s, Member, that….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: No, but you didn’t reinvest anything in repairs and maintenance. That’s why the infrastructure….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: No. That’s why the infrastructure for B.C. Hydro had to be reinvested. That’s why we’re facing increased rates. It’s to recover that in higher dollars, rather than investing almost 30 years ago, in terms of taking an approach where a certain amount of every bill goes back in.

The fact is that…. You know, it’s interesting that we’re talking about the clean energy plan. The Minister of Environment…. The Minister of Energy and Mines was in the news last night. It was a great shot about electric vehicles and the bill that she brought in that’s going to put us on track to 100 percent clean vehicles for light-duty vehicles, I believe she said, by 2030. That is an ambitious goal, and it’s going to take a lot of infrastructure to meet that demand.

Not just the car dealers. Where is the electricity going to come from? Where are the power stations? As the minister mentioned, she was supportive of the fact that new developments were taking it on themselves to put in the electric power charging stations that were going to be required without having to mandate it.

[4:20 p.m.]

It takes a lot of planning to make this all get executed. The fact is that when this government was first elected, they committed that they were going to put Site C to the B.C. Utilities Commission to give them a quick turnaround and review as to whether they could or should go ahead with it.

When you look at the demand load requirements, etc., which B.C. Hydro has been working on, they’ve been excluding electric vehicles. They’re not sitting down and saying that Site C is being built for that.

Now, in the time that I was involved in government, we embraced the idea of empowering communities. Take Dease Lake, for instance, or Atlin — IPP projects that were in their own communities, that they owned and operated to take them off fossil fuels, to make certain that they were cleaner-burning. You can’t argue with the fact that we empowered communities, basically, to do that. Of course, I know that there’s a lot of clean energy that British Columbia is purchasing. What we fail to forget is that the heritage assets, which….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: It’s easy to have the member for Cowichan Valley sit here and beak off about the fact that power is cheap. We can make it for $35 or $40 a megawatt, but the reality is that the new power is more like $75. The reality is that IPPs are somewhere in the span. Depending on when they went ahead and the financial viability, the capital required and stuff like that, the reality is that it does take capital to invest. B.C. Hydro is a public utility, which the B.C. Utilities Commission oversees for the ratepayers to make certain that they take out the highs and lows, so that that’s what they can come to expect.

Having government interference…. We just finished talking about Bill 25. We’ve got the Ferry Commission that we’re talking about and the fact that we’re trying to exert a certain span of control over independent Crown corporations and boards by the replacement of independent people. Here we have an independent commission. I know, being in government, we haven’t always liked the outcomes of what the BCUC has had to say, but its independence was set up to protect individual ratepayers.

I think that with items like taking out of their direct purview, etc., the idea was that they were there to make certain that they protected ratepayers and that, in the government’s or B.C. Hydro’s plan, they needed to make investments. BCUC was not necessarily prepared to take on the responsibility of repairing Mica or Revelstoke dam or, here on the Island, the dams that are very old power-generating assets, etc.

We need to make certain that we have this dynamic of a healthy corporation that is able to reinvest in itself. We need to make certain that we also protect the ratepayers and that we don’t have this kind of hidden agenda that says: “Oh, we’re going to make certain that your power stays cheap.” We had that same scenario with kids’ tuition, going to universities. We froze the tuition, and what happened? We basically stuffed more kids into the classroom. They didn’t get the quality because of the number of students that were actually in the classroom.

We have hydro that, if we do the same thing, there is going to be an outcome to this false non-market economy that is being played around with here. Without the idea of forward-looking at the rate or power demands, there’s going to be significant pain. All we’re really doing by bringing in these types of deferrals and changes is kicking the problems down the road and saying: “Well, we’ll deal with it, you know — that we’ve kept your power rates at a particular level.”

I think that’s one of the things that we want to avoid. I would encourage the minister and the Minister of Environment, because I do believe their CleanBC plan is going to take significant effort and resources between Hydro, the government and BCUC, and it is going to have to be paid by somebody. What are we doing? We just made a deal on LNG to give special power rates to LNG Canada. We already have a commercial rate for industrial users in the province. The bottom line, the situation, is that somebody, at the end of the day, has to pay for the electricity.

[4:25 p.m.]

I know that we mothballed the Burrard Thermal plant, which is driven by natural gas, because of the fact that it had contributed so much to CO₂ emissions. It’s there in an emergency. It runs, and it’s supposed to be maintained. But are we going to slip back and start doing things just to keep power cheap, so that our voters are going to be saying: “Oh yeah, they kept the hydro rates at this level”? Hydro is not a free thing to pay for or generate.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think that one of the things that we’re also facing here is that there’s no question that the independence of the review that was done…. As was pointed out by the member for Shuswap, it was directly awarded to a member that had served on Treasury Board, as the minister mentioned.

The reality was that not all of the areas of power generation in this province were dealt with in terms of the consultation, the review. As a matter of fact, some of the clean energy independent power producers even came up and said: “I don’t get paid those rates that are being suggested in the House by the government.” I mean, our rate on our independent power project is well below the $90 mark. I’m happy to share that information, but I’m sure the minister knows as well.

Just in terms of my remarks on Bill 19, I want to provide a word of caution, to both the minister and the government, that making amendments when you think you can tinker with and control all of these factors, etc., often leads to where we have subsequent problems, by delaying what are the right decisions. That is a tough decision for government: to have to raise power rates as much as B.C. Hydro has had to in the last few years. That’s mostly because of the fact that we needed to reinvest significant resources in our repairs and maintenance on our dams and equipment.

That means nothing about the power grid. Maybe the expert from Cowichan Valley would like to tell us how we’re going to pay for the upgrades in the infrastructure, the power grid, in terms of the bigger capacity? Just because we’ve got transmission lines doesn’t mean that they have the capacity to send all the power from the Peace River down to Vancouver. It requires long-term investment. We’ve seen all sorts of places where transmission lines need to be. Investments need to be provided to put bigger cables in to be able to carry higher capacity — or completely rebuilt. Anyways…

Interjection.

B. Stewart: …Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the member coming up with his plan for the Minister of Energy and Mines in terms of how we’re going to do this on the back of, you know, a napkin.

I look forward to the committee stage on Bill 19.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s a pleasure to listen to some of the comments coming from the opposition on this bill. I would like to just respond to some of their comments. It’s hard to know where to start. They’re kind of all over the place.

Maybe first I’ll start with…. What I felt like I was hearing was a new-found love for the B.C. Utilities Commission, coming from B.C. Liberal members. Year after year we saw the B.C. Liberals override the B.C. Utilities Commission — in fact, make legislation and make regulation to prevent the B.C. Utilities Commission from doing the exact job it was supposed to do, which was to work on behalf of British Columbians to review B.C. Hydro.

The very items that the previous member was talking about…. He was saying we have to make sure that we know who’s going to be paying for, and how they’re going to be paying for, increased infrastructure that B.C. Hydro is going to have to roll out, increased generation capacity that B.C. Hydro is going to have to start to implement.

Well, the B.C. Utilities Commission is the body that’s going to be overseeing all that with the integrated resource plan that I spoke of. That’s exactly what they’re supposed to do. Now, maybe he doesn’t understand that that’s their job because when he was in government, that government chose to make sure that it wasn’t their job. But it should be their job, and it’s going to be their job again as a result of this bill.

[4:30 p.m.]

So nobody believes that they’re actually lovers of the B.C. Utilities Commission now, because they did such a job at trying to reduce its authority while they were in government.

Now, the members mentioned that our zero-emission vehicle mandate would be 100 percent sales of light-duty vehicles by 2030. It’s actually 2040. I’ll forgive him for not knowing that number.

But he did wonder…. I wanted to correct myself when I said $16.2 million was the overall cost that Ken Davidson found that the IPP scheme was going to cost ratepayers. I went to go correct myself. I didn’t get the chance to do that, so let me do that now. I’m pretty sure the member is going to wish I hadn’t, because it isn’t $16.2 million. It’s $16.2 billion, with a “b,” over 20 years. That’s the cost borne by ratepayers of their scheme, because they wouldn’t let BCUC do its job. BCUC is going to be able to do its job now so that things like that will not happen to British Columbians again. That’s the value of this bill.

Another member talked about Ken Davidson, who found that number, who found that $16.2 billion, who did the research. I want to correct it for the record, because that member said some remarks as though he wasn’t qualified, as though somehow he was not the right person to be doing the job.

I’m going to read into the record a little bit about Ken Davidson, because I want to correct the record. I want to make sure members of this House know exactly how qualified that person was to do the job that he did. “Ken Davidson holds a bachelor of science in pure mathematics and is qualified as a professional accountant. He is a commercial banker by trade, specializing in restructuring and asset realization transactions.” I go on: “Mr. Davidson worked as director in provincial treasury and Treasury Board staff from 1989 to 1997.” He oversaw a lot to do with public utilities during that time, no doubt.

“He created the program evaluation function in Treasury Board and managed that function for four years. In this role, Mr. Davidson reported directly to the deputy and the minister and was charged with investigating and bringing to resolution issues and concerns raised by cabinet.” The guy knows how to do some digging on issues, and that’s exactly why he was the right person to do this job.

“He has been a consultant in private practice since 1997 and has been recognized on master standing offers maintained by numerous provincial ministries as a qualified consultant in areas including procurement and contracting, advisory services, strategic planning, program evaluation, business process improvement and negotiations and evaluation.” He’s been working for government, no matter which political stripe is in the government benches, for many, many years. He’s been trusted by those governments to do the important digging to make sure that we have the information we need about programs to move forward and to work in the best interests of British Columbians. So Ken Davidson was absolutely the right person.

He found that $16.2 billion was going to be put on the backs of ratepayers for many reasons. But what it boils down to is that B.C. Utilities Commission was barred from doing its job. We are now restoring that authority and that regulatory position to B.C. Utilities Commission to oversee B.C. Hydro, to answer the very questions that the member opposite was bringing up: who’s going to make sure that the costs of B.C. Hydro are met and that they are met in a fair and an affordable way? Well, BCUC is. I’m very proud that this bill is doing that.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 19.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 27, intituled the Ticket Sales Act.

[4:35 p.m.]

BILL 27 — TICKET SALES ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 27, the Ticket Sales Act. This bill is intended to protect consumers who purchase tickets to live recreational, sporting and cultural events in British Columbia. This piece of legislation has been quite some time in development, and I want to thank one of my colleagues, the member for Vancouver–West End, for the incredible work that he did when in opposition, in terms of putting forward a private member’s bill, and in advancing this particular issue since we formed government to make it a priority. That’s one of the reasons why I’m really pleased to be here dealing with this particular piece of legislation today.

Many of us remember a time when we would line up at the box office, sometimes for hours, hoping to get tickets to see our favourite band perform or take in a game. I can recall one concert in particular: U2, Joshua Tree, 1987. I went to Lougheed Mall, and I stood in line. I got there bright and early when it opened up. You went in, you got a wristband, and then you had to wait in line until they opened up. It was four tickets per wristband. But what they didn’t tell you — the best part of it — was you could go back. So you got your four tickets…. I got my four tickets, because I was there bright and early. Then I go: “But I’ve got a bunch of friends, so maybe I’ll see if I can get another.”

Anyway, I went and waited in line, and the line was pretty quick. I got another four tickets. I ended up getting 12 tickets, eight of them on the floor. But it was two hours of waiting in line. It was two hours where I knew I had a chance to get a ticket, which is quite different from things today. Actually….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Did I scalp them? The funny thing was…. I did go: “You know what?” My brother said to me: “You could make a lot of money.” I said: “I know, but I know you want to go, and I’ve got friends who want to go, and you’ve got friends who want to go.” So I didn’t scalp them.

Let’s put it this way. I still think that if I were to look at the concerts I went to, that has got to be at the top of the list. Anyway, I digress.

As with so many things, the world has changed since 1987. The Internet has changed the live event ticket marketplace. Today tickets are usually bought on line, and it’s rare, if not impossible, to see box office lineups. The online environment, particularly in the ticket resale market, brings with it a risk of unfair and misleading business practices. An unregulated resale market harms consumers, and it’s also bad for artists, venues, promoters and sports organizations that work hard to organize live events for fans.

In a survey last year, we learned that British Columbians are frustrated with their ticket purchasing experiences. They are troubled by the lack of transparency in the ticket industry and about tickets selling out too quickly because of bot technology. British Columbians are also concerned about high resale prices and ticket seller misrepresentation and fraud. The regulatory framework established in this bill will create a safer, more transparent and more equitable ticket market.

Under the legislation, ticket sellers will have to be clear and accountable in their dealings with ticket buyers. They will have to provide detailed information about ticket prices so that consumers can make informed decisions about what they are buying. That means disclosing not just the total price of a ticket but also its face value, all service charges and fees and the currency being used for the transaction. It also means being clear about the seat location and any terms and conditions on the ticket, such as restrictions on transferring the ticket to another person.

The live event ticket industry is complex. Tickets are sold by event organizers, promoters and venues and by a multitude of ticket resale businesses and on-line platforms. Consumers have a right to know who they are buying tickets from, especially since the price of resale tickets can be much higher than the face value of tickets sold by event organizers or venues. That is why this legislation will require ticket resale businesses to clearly identify themselves as such.

[4:40 p.m.]

The proposed legislation will ban speculative tickets — the sale of tickets that sellers do not have in their possession or control. Speculative tickets cause confusion for the ticket-buying public, who wonders how resellers can have access to tickets before they are actually for sale. The prohibition will also address ticket fraud and ensure consumers are getting the tickets they pay for. The bill also ensures that people buying tickets from resale businesses or platforms are guaranteed refunds if, for example, tickets turn out to be counterfeit or misrepresent seat location.

Most of us are familiar with bots, especially if we are on Twitter. Bot technology is used to jump the line and buy up large volumes of tickets to resell for profit before consumers who want to see their favourite artist or sports team can buy them. This unfair practice will be banned under this legislation. Tickets purchased using bots will have to be cancelled so that they can be reissued and sold to fans through a more transparent and fair process.

We know that it is not always possible for legislation to keep up with rapid technological advances. That is why this bill is technology-neutral, so that the ban on bots applies no matter how the technology evolves. I know, in discussions with ticket sellers and primary sellers, that they themselves are involved in the development of technology that makes it easier to keep up with bots in terms of detecting them, for example. This is a rapidly evolving area. It is something that we were acutely aware of when we were dealing with this legislation.

In keeping with other consumer protection laws in British Columbia, this legislation will allow for inspections and penalties for those who do not follow the law. Consumer Protection B.C., which has a strong track record of protecting consumers in this province, will enforce the law. This bill also provides a right of civil action for ticket consumers and businesses who suffer losses due to illegal ticketing activities.

In developing this legislation, not only did we engage with the public, we also met with a range of artist representatives, professional sports organizations, ticket sale and resale companies and event venues. This bill reflects a balanced approach that takes the interests of consumers and the live and ticketing industry into account.

In summary, the goal of this legislation is to establish new rules that level the playing field for people purchasing tickets to live events in British Columbia. I look forward to the comments of members, and I hope that this House supports this bill.

M. Morris: I came from kind of a different background. I have never stood in line for a ticket in my life, and I never will.

One of the great things….You know, I could never understand…. I’ve seen these tickets go for some significant prices, and then they’re scalped at greatly inflated prices — pay $1,000 or $2,000 plus for a ticket to see some show.

My indulgence is to…. I saw a great show. It was the Eagles’ farewell tour. I plugged it into my CD player, and I poured myself a glass of wine. There were no lineups and there was nobody around, and I really enjoyed that. It was just a few hours of fabulous music. I was right up close and personal on my 60-inch screen, and it was a great experience.

I can’t understand the faction that pays the kind of money to see these tickets, but I guess that I wouldn’t have been able to see that one on my CD player unless a bunch of people had paid big money to go and see them in the first place, so I got a benefit of that.

I applaud the government. I know that the outcome of this is something that they hope will reduce a lot of the scalping and the secondary ticket sales and the exorbitant prices that a lot of people will pay to go and see some of these different shows. I hope that’s the outcome.

My concern is more along the technology side. Again, I know there are people that are far smarter than I am when it comes to computers and technology and bots and all of these kinds of things, but when we just look at the environment that we have here today….

[4:45 p.m.]

I did a little bit of searching using technology in my office here.

Interjection.

M. Morris: Pardon me? Well, not quite. It was a website, and it took it took me to various documents here in Canada. I was looking at Ticketmaster, one of the major ticket sellers, retailers in Canada here.

I had to go through quite a bit of stuff to find what Ticketmaster was all about. There’s a company that’s incorporated under the laws of Delaware, down in the States, called Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. They have their headquarters in Beverly Hills, California. They operate a subsidiary company called Live Nation Worldwide that controls the domain name of ticketmaster.ca and associated websites.

Then there’s another subsidiary called Ticketmaster Canada Holdings that is a subsidiary of Live Nation, which is incorporated under Nova Scotian laws. It was a successor to Ticketmaster Canada Limited. They control some various websites as well. Ticketmaster Canada Holding headquarters is Rogers Centre, the stadium in Toronto. Since 2009, Ticketmaster Canada controls and continues to control the domain name ticketweb.ca and associated websites and has handled all the consumer transactions in collecting payments for events in Canada with respect to ticketmaster.ca and ticketweb.ca and whatnot.

Then there’s another subsidiary of Live Nation called VIP Nation and another one called TNOW Entertainment Group, which are both subsidiaries of Live Nation. They both have headquarters out of Beverly Hills and control ticketsnow.com and other websites.

I look at this, and I look at this little jurisdiction of British Columbia that is trying to control the original retail selling of tickets and, of course, the massive buying of these retail tickets by bots from different locations in the world. We’ll probably examine this a little bit more during the committee stage of this bill, but I’m going to be sitting and waiting to see how we can do that.

You know, we’ve got these organizations that are United States companies, licensed in Canada, licensed back in eastern Canada, head office in Toronto, head offices in Beverly Hills, operating an electronic retail ticket outlet in British Columbia, as they do right across Canada. It’s a big business. There’s no question about it. These laws pertain only within the jurisdictional boundaries of British Columbia. It’ll be interesting to see…. I know it’s done in other forms of business. There are some tight controls there.

The other part of it is, yes, technology is evolving at a significant pace. We have these bots that could be in Russia, that could be in the Cayman Islands, that could be in a number of different countries around the world here, which do massive buys. I understand there is technology available that Ticketmaster uses that can identify, right off the bat, that this is a bot that is buying these 1,000 or 2,000 tickets.

As we all know, in organized crime and criminals and people that are trying to beat the system, there’s somebody sitting right next door with some software trying to gerrymander the system so that as soon as we can figure out how to detect it, somebody’s also figured out how to make it more difficult to detect in the long run. So technology is going to progress at a quicker pace, there’s no doubt, as a result of this.

I do like the outcome that they have to disclose every­thing within the secondary tickets. If the people don’t get what they want, they get a refund from that. I think that’s great. Trying to get a refund from Russia or the Cayman Islands or someplace might be a little difficult to collect at the end of the day. And then new tickets will be reissued so the consumer will basically be out — if it’s not detected quickly enough — whatever money he or she has paid for those tickets.

In the meantime, new tickets have been issued, and that person will have the right to recoup civilly. But again, they’re dealing with out-of-province or out-of-country entities that might be a little bit difficult to track down, and it might be a little bit difficult to find some kind of satisfactory closure to that civil action.

[4:50 p.m.]

Again, I think the legislation is laudable. I think it’s trying to keep the prices down to an affordable level so that people can go to these shows and people like me can enjoy the product at home on a CD at the end of the day. But I think we’ll have our work cut out for us, Minister, and I look forward to the challenges this legislation will present to Consumer B.C. in enforcing it. I’m sure they’ll be faced with their challenges.

I’m sure that there are other jurisdictions that are doing this, and everybody will be cooperating and working hand-in-hand to try and make it work at the end of the day. It may take a while to smooth all the lumps out, but we’ll see. We’ll pop the hood open during committee stage and just see what more of this reveals. With respect to that, Mr. Speaker, we’ll be supporting the bill.

B. D’Eith: It’s interesting. I actually worked in the music industry for 28 years and saw a huge change in the way the music industry developed. When I started out…. Actually, when I went to my first concert when I was 15, I did exactly what the Solicitor General did. I went and stood in line, and I bought the tickets, and I went, and it was an amazing experience. I went to the Doobie Brothers.

Then the next iteration of that was buying tickets for the Rolling Stones, the Steel Wheels Tour in the ’80s, which was amazing. But those ones you had to phone in to get, and we had phone banks trying to get in.

The last concert I went to, just a few weeks ago, was Justin Timberlake. Now, for Justin Timberlake, that show, we bought the tickets a year in advance on line. The tickets were gone. They were gone within seconds.

The whole experience for fans buying tickets for live music has changed dramatically over the last 20 or 30 years. But it’s also important to know that the music industry has changed dramatically as well. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie refers to CDs, for example. I haven’t bought a CD in five years. Most people are actually not buying CDs anymore. They’re getting their music through Spotify and Apple Music and other sources. In fact, the industry went through an entire tidal change when Napster was created many years ago.

What happened is that artists became very dependent on live music, actually, because the whole sound recording industry really collapsed. Now it’s starting to come back, but the live scene is very important.

This issue is very important to artists. It’s also important to fans. It’s important to two groups of people. Actually, I was on the Canadian Independent Music Association executive a number of years ago. In Ontario, they actually looked at this a number of years ago because of the insidious practice of what the member for Prince George–Mackenzie was talking about, which is companies that sell the tickets are actually also reselling the tickets.

Think of it from an artist and a fan point of view. You’ve got an artist who, let’s say, has a $50 ticket. With all of the markups and costs, it might be $75 or $80, and they’re making $50. The reseller comes along and resells that ticket for $200 or $300. The artist is still only making $50.

That is why this is so important for artists, this transparency around the amount that’s being sold for the original ticket and the cost. Then when the reseller sells, knowing how much is actually going to the artist and how much they’re making — that’s really important.

Really, really important is the transparency around how if you’re a seller, then you need to disclose you’re also a reseller, because this is where the really insidious part of this practice lies. It’s this idea that tickets are held back and then sold for a much higher price, and of course, the artist doesn’t benefit from that. Of course, the fan doesn’t benefit from that because less tickets are available.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’m really excited about this. In fact, my good friend, who’s the manager of Tegan and Sara, Nick Blasko — who was in the House, actually, just a couple days ago — is very, very excited about this because buyers deserve, as he said, fairness in the modern ticket marketplace, and this legislation is moving towards that. That increased transparency with primary and secondary sellers will ultimately allow more fans to attend more concerts, which is positive for the industry, the artists, the managers, the promoters and the fans as well. That’s a really important part of this legislation. So I’m very, very pleased with that, and so is the industry.

I talked a little bit about the clear and prominent disclosure of prices in this legislation. That is really a key part of the transparency so that people know what they’re paying for. That’s really important. Also, people will know, and the artists will be able to say: “Hey, this is how much we’re getting.” A lot of times, people don’t know. They might spend $500, $1,000, $2,000 on a ticket, and they might think that the artist is actually getting that money. Well, the artist is only getting a portion of the face value of the ticket, not the marked-up price by the reseller. So this is a really, really critical part of this legislation.

The other thing, too, especially with the secondary sellers, is, often, problems with tickets. Sometimes the tickets aren’t valid, or they’re illegitimate, so having a refund guarantee will make sure that those resellers are acting in a way that is actually good for the fans and for the artist. Also, again, the ticket resellers must disclose that they’re secondary sellers. That’s so important because of what the member for Prince George–Mackenzie was saying — that these big companies have subsidiaries all over the place that are not only selling tickets, but they’re also reselling tickets. That’s really important.

The other big piece of this is the bots. What happens with that is that there are only a limited number of tickets, and if companies are allowed to come in and swoop all of the tickets away, then fans are not getting access to those. The resellers have just basically taken all of those tickets away, and they’re going to be selling those for a lot more. The fan loses, and the artists lose. The only companies that benefit are the resellers. So that’s very important.

I’m very, very pleased about that move, and I also wanted to echo the Solicitor General’s thanks to the MLA for Vancouver–West End, who spent a lot of time on this issue. When I was actually working in the music industry at Music B.C., I often dealt with the MLA for Vancouver–West End, who was the critic for arts and culture. I must say that on this and many other things in arts and culture, I’m very grateful for his work over the years. This must be very gratifying for the member to actually see this happen now, because he worked extremely hard on this over the years.

With that, I will say I support this wholeheartedly. I think it’s important for fans. I think it’s important for artists. I know that the music industry will be very happy about this, I know the fans will be very happy about this, and I certainly know that the member for Vancouver–West End will be happy about this.

I would like to thank the Solicitor General for bringing this forward and, also, the member for Prince George– Mackenzie for his support. I am sure that given the other jurisdictions’ experience with this, we are behind the eight ball and that, in fact, there are mechanisms to deal with the enforcement of this. We’ll be able to learn from that.

J. Martin: I’m very hopeful that this is going to turn out the way the minister wants. It’d be nice to get my hands on some of those Canucks playoff tickets. It has been a while. This might enhance the process.

Interjections.

J. Martin: Well, you know, details, details.

I’ve been going to shows for about 46 years, 47 years. I’ve been attending concerts. Acquiring a ticket has always, always been a struggle.

[5:00 p.m.]

Probably one of the most celebrated concerts ever in Vancouver…. Back in 1972, the Rolling Stones announced that they were going to start their Exile on Main Street Tour in Vancouver. They hadn’t been in Vancouver for quite a while. This was going to be the biggest concert since the Beatles were in Empire Stadium in ’64. This was absolutely huge. But what was also huge was the ticket price — the most expensive ticket ever sold in Vancouver: six bucks to see the Rolling Stones. That was a buck and a half more than the Grateful Dead, Led Zeppelin, Alice Cooper and everybody else that had ever come through Vancouver: six bucks. People were outraged.

The way you got tickets in those days is that you lined up at the ticket counter at Empire Stadium. They had their own little box office there. And to get these tickets…. Even though it was festival seating, it didn’t matter. To get a ticket, you camped out overnight. At the end of the day, you still had a problem: you’ve bought your tickets, you’ve bought your maximum, you’re going to the Rolling Stones, and your buddies are going with you — but a couple of the Clark Park boys would beat the living bejesus out of you and take your tickets. So you didn’t have them anymore. It was quite an adventure, trying to attend live music back in that particular era.

Now, at that show, that turned ugly. We had a riot at the Rolling Stones concert. It was just a year and a half previous that there was also a riot at the rock ’n’ roll revival when Bill Haley and the Comets, Chuck Berry, the Shirelles…. A few others will come to mind. There was a riot at that show as well. It was getting really, really edgy if Vancouver was even going to promote major shows anymore.

At the Rolling Stones one, what happened was that several thousand people didn’t have tickets and couldn’t afford the scalpers — because scalpers were charging 20 bucks for a $6 ticket, and that was just too prohibitive.

Basically, the way you got in to see a concert at the Pacific Coliseum in those days is that as soon as they let someone through the turnstiles and the doors opened, a mob would just rush. As long as four, five, six or ten of you got in, that’s good; the security would force the rest out. Then you waited for another door to open. When someone went in, ticketed, you would charge in and that, and just hop the turnstile. This is some of the adventure that was involved in seeing live rock ’n’ roll in that particular period.

Things got a little bit more civilized when the ticketing process moved to Woodward’s on Hastings. If you wanted to get tickets for a show…. I remember lining up for Elton John, the Grateful Dead…. It was just endless, the amount of shows. You had to get there kind of late at night. You’d have your thermos of coffee and rye and wear something warm because you’re in there for the long haul.

At nine o’clock the next morning, they would start letting six people in at a time. The ticket centre was actually upstairs. They had to escort people up one level at a time. They wouldn’t let you use the elevator. That was how we got our tickets back in the day. Again, you know, it was festival seating, so it didn’t really matter. It’s not like the first in line was going to get a better seat. It just turned out that it was first come, first claimed to the seating.

You know, there were so many great shows back in the day. I mean, everybody came through Vancouver. Nobody played a big show in Seattle without making a stop here before or after, on their way to or from Portland or Seattle. Sooner or later, you got to see everybody in Vancouver. That’s what you had to go through to get a ticket. If you had a night job…. I was pulling veneer, graveyard shift, at the Canfor mill in New Westminster back in those days, so I basically had to book off and miss a shift, miss a payday, to line up to get tickets to see a show down the road.

The Rolling Stones one in 1972 raised issues around security. It raised issues around the whole process of ticketing. There was an enormous amount of fights with security because so many tickets that people had bought from scalpers in the street were actually forged. They were denied entrance with it, despite what they’d paid. Needless to say, things had turned pretty ugly.

[5:05 p.m.]

When we eventually got centralized ticket offices and you didn’t have to physically line up, this was the next phase. This was pre-Internet, but you could phone in to get your ticket. Well, all of a sudden, thousands and thousands of people, right at 10 a.m., are phoning this one number. Depending on who your provider is, sometimes things haven’t changed all that much.

But you’d be waiting forever, and we figured it out: “Hey, I don’t have to buy my ticket for a Vancouver show at the Vancouver ticket office. I’m going to phone the one in Prince George. No one in Prince George is coming down for the show.” So I phoned there and, yeah, I get my ticket right off the bat. I didn’t have to sit on hold for hours and hours.

There’s always been something that has been an obstacle to being able to go and support live music and to go and see favourite entertainers. With the advent of now being able to do this on line, there’s still no shortage of frustrations. You often need a password to be part of the presale, or you need to join — usually with a monetary attachment to it — an elite little club that allows you early access to tickets. On and on it goes. The process can still be quite intimidating.

It’s a mystery that somehow this hasn’t all been sorted out, hasn’t all been worked out by now. I mean, other than for a dozen of the biggest acts in the world, it shouldn’t be that difficult to be able to pay an exorbitant amount of money to buy a ticket to go and see some entertainment.

When we get legislation like this, obviously, I’m very hopeful. At the same time, I’m somewhat skeptical, knowing how many of these bots are not connected to British Columbia, let alone North America. There are going to be some challenges in that regard as well. But I wish the minister well navigating this through the process. I’m happy to support anything that makes life a little easier and a little fairer to support live music, and I’ll be supporting the legislation.

S. Chandra Herbert: It’s been great fun to hear people’s walks down memory lane of the various concerts and shows they’ve enjoyed. I am jealous, because those are some great acts, some incredible acts, member for Chilliwack. I’ve got a couple of the vinyl. I bought them for 25 cents at the garage sale because a lot of people don’t have record players anymore and don’t know what to do with them.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: He’ll buy it off me for 50 cents. He still plays vinyl. Well, I’m not selling. I like the acts very much.

For me, the first concert that I went to — I remember getting a ticket; my parents took me — was MC Hammer. A little TLC, a little Boyz II Men, Mary J. Blige out at the Pacific Coliseum. I say that, talking about memory lane for some and how, I guess, it might age them talking about the arts. I’ve been here in this place for over ten years now, so talking about those artists ages me amongst some of my newer colleagues here, who would say, “Who the heck are those oldies,” perhaps.

I think U2 was when I first became aware of scalpers. I appreciate the minister shared his version of going to see Joshua Tree. For me, it was much later; I think it was the PopMart tour. “Discothèque” was all the rage. I think they had a giant lemon on the stage, and coming across people selling scalped tickets outside of the venue. It was B.C. Place. I can’t say the sound quality was very good, but it has improved a lot since then.

You know, when I first raised this idea of bringing in legislation on ticket scalping, it was a little over ten years ago. I had been an MLA for about five months. I came into the House and brought in legislation because my constituents said that they wanted action.

It wasn’t the Rolling Stones or any of those great acts that impelled some constituents to write me about it. It was Britney Spears. They were very upset that they didn’t get to Oops!… I Did It Again, or whatever the hits Britney was selling at the time. They were upset that they’d tried to buy tickets, and they found that a large ticket seller was reselling the tickets on their own website, their own resale site, before they had a chance to get them.

[5:10 p.m.]

That just struck me as so unfair — that a company who priced them at this point and advertised that you could get these tickets at this price would then resell them on their own company website under a different brand. This legislation stops that practice, so no longer can you pretend to sell a ticket, only to sell it again to yourself and then resell it at a much higher rate. That’s a big change, and that will help.

Bots became a bigger deal a little later. I introduced legislation ten years ago. Bots were certainly being used, but not to the extent they are now. Really, every single year, sometimes multiple times a year, I would be contacted by people across the province saying: “So that legislation you introduced — did it get passed? Where is it at? Why hasn’t the government acted?” At the time, the minister responsible had said to me that he didn’t want to act. The member was Wally Oppal. He said it wasn’t an issue, that nobody had complained to him about this as a problem.

Thankfully, years later, as it’s become more and more obvious…. Some people say it was the Tragically Hip and people not getting access to that show. Some people say it’s just the fact that we became government that we could finally act on this. I’m not sure which. I’m not going to say one way or another, but certainly, it helps to have a minister who agrees that action is needed, that he wants action and that he believes action is needed. I want to thank the minister and the cabinet for making this a priority so that we could get action.

To be clear, this isn’t going to solve every issue. A popular act is a popular act. It’s not going to be possible for any government to guarantee you a ticket to the favourite artist or the best playoff hockey game that you want to go to, but it will level the playing field to give people a better shot at being able to, at least, try to get that ticket. Obviously, if everyone in town wants to go to the show, it will be more challenging to get in and get the ticket, but you’re not going to be competing with bots. If bots do show up to try and buy the tickets from overseas, from wherever they are, the major ticket sellers have the ability to detect them and cancel those tickets and give the locals a better shot at getting those so that you don’t get rewarded for trying to game the system and get around the rules.

Transparency, so you can see what the cost of the ticket is right from the start, including all of the different add-on costs that bother people to no end. You know, I wanted to put a cap on all those add-on costs, personally. I know it’s challenging. Certainly it’s a major frustration. It is good to see, though, that you can’t continually add on ticket prices, add on costs when you resell the ticket, in the sense that if you were reselling your own tickets, you couldn’t double up on the fees, which I think is an issue for sure.

Some folks said, obviously, that we should cap the prices. I’ve probably said that myself on the news a number of times. It’s challenging, because no other consumer good does have that kind of a cap on it — you know, free market and all that kind of thing. Also, how do you police it? That, in the end, was the real crux of it. How do you police what people do on a black market? We’d much rather have it in a legitimate market where people are able to know that the ticket they bought or sold, that they purchased, is legitimate, is a real ticket, and that they have that protection. I think that’s really important.

Just to sum up, I’m really happy this has happened. It’s taken many years. I’m certainly no expert on ticket scalping. I was once introduced by Terry Milewski as the expert in Canada on ticket scalping, but I think that’s just because I talked about it on the news so many times over ten years. They just did a Google search and saw: “Jeez, this guy sure talks about the issue a lot. He must know something.” What I know is that people want fairness. They want a fair shot to access the ticket of their favourite band, their favourite sports team. They want to know that they’re not being gamed in the pursuit of enjoyment, and they want to be able to have a fair shot at an affordable rate.

I’m pleased that the legislation has been received so warmly, that the artists and the ticket sellers can see that they can work with it. I look forward to seeing the next steps to bring it into force.

M. Stilwell: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 27, the Ticket Sales Act. I know that long gone are the days where we could line up at box office sales and try to get those tickets, where we camp out all day and all night. I know my experiences might be two decades after the member from Chilliwack. He talked about the Rolling Stones.

Interjection.

M. Stilwell: Only two. Two decades.

My experiences of lining up and waiting for tickets to get my dream tickets was for New Kids on the Block, 1990s.

Interjection.

M. Stilwell: He said 1979, so two decades later.

[5:15 p.m.]

It was back in the day where my friends and I took turns camping out and waiting our turn. We would take turns on who would get to go to the washroom and then get back in line so that we wouldn’t lose our space. When I think back, it’s amazing to me that my parents even allowed me to do that late at night and overnight so that I could get the tickets that I wanted for my dream performance of New Kids on the Block. But I guess you don’t stand in the way of a crazy teenaged fan.

Of course, technology has evolved over the years, and we’ve replaced ticket buying with on-line purchasing. We’ve gone through the phone system and, now, with on-line purchasing. Pretty much everything we do these days is on line in some way or another. That is the way that we’re going.

When it comes down to it, people want fairness. People want to have that chance to get to see their dream performers. They want to be able to go see…. Well, we’ll go back. Corey Hart, Boyz II Men, DJ Jazzy Jeff and The Fresh Prince were the ones that were in my day.

Then, at the same time, the ones that we hear about more now…. There are people who are missing out on tickets. They’re dying to see their favourite performer.

I know most people would say that the most well-known case in point these days is, 2016, with the Tragically Hip. I know it was a concert that I would have loved to go to. There was huge momentum when Gord Downie was diagnosed with brain cancer, and we knew it was the farewell tour. It was the last time that we would ever see the Tragically Hip perform.

You know, who didn’t want to be there for the last performance of “Ahead By a Century” and to feel the emotion? We all know, in this House, how emotional I get. Instead, I was at home watching on TV, because I wasn’t one of those people who was able to get a ticket to the Tragically Hip. Rightfully so — many people weren’t able to. People are frustrated.

This act will change the ability for fans to have that access to transparent and equitable ticket sales. Hopefully, it will also take into consideration accessible seating, because — I’ll tell you — when it comes to picking a selection of seats to a concert, I’m pretty limited at the options of what I get. It never fails. The accessible seating always seems to sell out quickly and not necessarily by people who require those seats.

Tomorrow night I will be at Michael Bublé in my accessible seat, but it was something that I purchased over a year and a half ago. I had to have a friend who had a friend who had a friend who knew how to get the accessible seat. I’m very excited to be able to go, but I’m very excited that this legislation is coming forward and that there will be something in place to help consumers to prevent the ticket bots from doing what they do — to buy up all those tickets and sell them at a higher cost to people.

At the end of the day, we’re supportive of this legislation. Of course, you know, during committee stage we will look to see if there are any ways that we can make improvements on it. I know it’s not going to be an easy fix, but at least the government is taking the opportunity to try and tackle a pretty complicated situation.

I think I’ll leave it at that, noting that, I think, we have other things to move on to. I really hope that in the future, more people will get to see their favourite sports team or their favourite artist without much difficulty or extra expense.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I note the time, and I am just wondering…. I know that we may or may not be able to get to the other…. That’s fine?

I may make a few comments, then, on some of the comments that have been raised and also to thank some members for reminding us of a little bit of B.C. music history. I appreciate the comments of my critic across the way there, and I’m not going to comment on the desirability of sitting at home with a nice glass of wine and watching on TV, vis-à-vis being in the Rogers or the Coliseum or a live venue.

[5:20 p.m.]

I take his points very seriously on the issues that he’s raised, particularly around technology and the issue of bots, because it is one which we’re alive to. It’s one the industry is alive to. In fact, in the development of this legislation, it was a key issue. It was, like: how do you deal with bots?

One of the key aspects of this bill that I know we’ll get into in greater detail in committee stage is the fact that this legislation will require the ticket company, once they become aware of bots, to cancel that ticket. They have that technology now that they can tell when a bot has been active. So the issue isn’t so much about, you know, the individual in Russia or the individual in the Cayman Islands or the individual in Tajikistan. It is about the ability to cancel that ticket and get it into the primary selling market.

As my colleague from Vancouver–West End has said, this is also as much about transparency. And it’s transparency that many in the industry have called for, that artists have called for, because at the end of the day, fans want to go see their artists. Artists should expect good compensation, should expect decent value for their talent and for the ticket that the fans are buying. And they don’t want to see gouging either. Again, this bill deals with that by, as I said, the issue of greater transparency.

It was also interesting to hear the member for Chilliwack. He reminded me — and, I know, others in this House — that, yes, there was something really special about lining up with your friends to get tickets. For many people, it was often the first chance to be away from home, doing something on your own, something exciting, something to look forward to — that standing in line, whether it was miserable weather or nice weather. As the member said, I guess if you were of the right age, with a warm flask of coffee and rye…. I know he would have been of legal age at the time. I have no doubt. But it was that experience. I know.

That’s one of the positive sides of how things used to be. But there was also the dark side, which he talked about, which was the people rushing in, the challenges at the PNE, at the coliseum, in trying to keep order — the fact that you did have that riot at the coliseum back in 1972. That was a dark stain on the city of Vancouver at the time.

I remember it generated the headlines. I remember parents talked about it and were: “No, you’re not going to a concert.” It really did put a chill. Of course, we’ve come to the modern times of today. That is, you can get a ticket on line. You get assigned seating. That has been a significant, positive improvement.

But again, as with everything, there’s good and there’s bad. The bad is that we’ve seen bots being able to manipulate the process. We have seen practices where tickets are being held back and going on to the secondary market and people paying significantly inflated prices, and that’s not fair.

This bill, I think, will deal with a lot of those issues. It is a bill that also looks to being able to take account, as I said earlier, of advances in technology.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want to thank all of those who have spoken. I know that the LG is going to be in the precinct momentarily, and we’ll be dealing with some other business. With that, I will take my place and thank members for their participation in the debate. I look forward to discussing issues in greater detail at committee stage.

Maybe in committee stage, I can talk about one more story, which was going to see the Who. It was a great concert. But the real reason we went there was to see the Clash. It was in Seattle. The funniest part about that, which I will never forget, is that the Americans didn’t know who the Clash were. But the 20 percent of the audience from Canada most certainly knew who the Clash were, and that’s why we were there. That was a great show.

With that, I move second reading.

Mr. Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 27.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for Committee of the Whole at the next sitting after today.

Bill 27, Ticket Sales Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[5:25 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[5:30 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Acting Clerk:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): ÍY SC̸ÁĆEL. ÍY, C̸NES QENOṈE ṮÁ.

As always, good day, dear friends. It’s wonderful to see all of you.

As always, I want to thank you for your really splendid work. I understand you have two weeks of constituency time and an opportunity, also, to spend time with your families over Easter. I just hope you enjoy that. I encourage you to enjoy it as much as I know I will enjoy my family time.

Thanks again, and I look forward to seeing you all again soon.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[5:35 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Please be seated.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: There’s just a little bit of heckling going on over there, and look at how quickly he came to order. [Laughter.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call bill…. No, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., Monday, April 29.

The House adjourned at 5:37 p.m.