Today in the Legislature we commenced second reading debate of Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017. This is an important piece of legislation that fulfills yet another promise contained within the Confidence and Supply Agreement that the BC Greens signed with the BC NDP.

As I was the last speaker on Thursday afternoon, I moved adjournment of the debate at the end of my initial comments. I will conclude my remarks when debate resumes next week.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my speech. I will update this post when I complete my remarks next week.

PS This post has now been updated at the end (text and video) with the remainder of my speech given Monday, October 23, 2017.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Kensington for the eloquent words speaking in favour of this bill, a bill that obviously, I’m rising to speak in support to, with recognition that perhaps there are some things that we might expand upon as we have this debate go forward. Some interesting ideas have been raised by members opposite.

I’m sure, in the spirit of trying to develop the best possible Legislature, and with the new access that members opposite have…. Actually, the government deserves a lot of credit for this. It’s quite remarkable that they have given us access to legislative drafters to allow us to actually provide amendments to legislation, government legislation, on a trial basis this fall, that could actually meet the issues that we raise, but at the same time, do so in a manner that we know has spanned across the legislative framework.

So when we put forward amendments — if there are any such amendments — we know that government could make a decision knowing that it has gone through legislative drafters as opposed to — even if it’s an amazing piece of amendment — having to say no because they’re concerned that maybe legislative drafters haven’t seen it.

So I think the government deserve an awful lot of credit for providing access to both the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP MLAs. I hope we, collectively, don’t abuse that so that we get to have the access withdrawn. But I think it’s a good step forward for our democracy and, perhaps, members opposite will be standing forth with some legislative drafter approved or assisted-upon amendments.

This bill that I’m standing to speak to — Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017, takes steps forwards in British Columbia for much-needed lobbying reforms. But, of course, it doesn’t include all the reforms that everybody would want, perhaps, but it does make an important step forward. It reforms…. Just because reforming lobbying is fundamental. It’s essential to rebuilding public trust in our democracy, in government and ensuring that special interests do not exercise undue influence on this or any other future governments.

The office of the registrar of lobbyists has issued a number of recommendations to reform lobbying in British Columbia. And our priorities for reform were drawn from and in line with these recommendations. The B.C. Greens were the only party that formally campaigned on introducing lobbying reform legislation, and we’re absolutely delighted that government has seen fit to bring forward a bill here to take steps towards improving the Lobbyist Registration Act by the amendments that are brought forward.

In particular, the bill before us acts on one of the recommendations from the office of the registrar of lobbyists, and that recommendation was instituting a prohibition on lobbying for former senior public office holders for a period of two years since leaving office. What does it mean now to say former senior and public officers?

Well, we’re delighted with the definition here in section 2 of the bill, where it says, “‘former public office holder’ means,” and therein lies a definition: “(a) a former member of the Executive Council and any individual formerly employed in the former member’s former office, other than administrative support staff.” Why that’s important is, ministerial staff have access to information, and ministers have access to information that most members here do not have access to. It’s information on how this government is operating at a very fundamental level. So we support this inclusion of those within the minister’s offices.

It also says, “a former parliamentary secretary,” — again, access to information that most members here will not have, as well as, including members in government, who were not in cabinet. Cabinet confidentiality is something that is respected not only with member’s opposition, but also member’s in government do not have access to the information unless they are in cabinet. That’s important that that be kept that way.

I fully support this ban because going out into now lobbying, a cabinet or a government where you have inside information, potentially puts people into awkward situation. I think we should try to avoid that.

The definition further continues saying, “any individual who formerly occupied (i) a senior executive position in a ministry, whether by the title of deputy minister, chief executive officer or another title, (ii) the position of associate deputy minister, assistant deputy minister or a position of comparable rank in a ministry, (iii) or a prescribed position in a Provincial entity” — the famous prescribed position done through regulation.

Again, senior members of government have access to privileged information — information that, in many cases, is subject to cabinet confidentiality. It’s information that is not available to the general public, and therein lies an important point. Sure, we want people with expertise to lobby in their area of expertise, but having inside information gives undue influence to various individuals — kind of like insider trading. If I know, for example, that a company is about to go bankrupt and I’ve been told by the chief financial officer of a company that the company is going bankrupt, and I act upon that by shorting that stock, that’s illegal, and the reason why is because the public does not tolerate the use of inside knowledge to undermine general public interest, which happens in that case. That’s the intent of this, and I applaud government for bringing forward legislation that’s true to that intent.

What’s important…. I’ve heard a number of members opposite speak about the fact that some staff may have moved off into positions now and they have to resign. I think that a case could be made, based on section 2.3 of this bill, which is entitled “Exemption from prohibitions….” It says here: “If the registrar is satisfied that it is in the public interest, the registrar may, on request and on any terms or conditions that the registrar considers advisable, exempt a person from a prohibition set out in section 2.1 or 2.2.” And, again, there are more details that the registrar has to do.

This doesn’t mean…. You know, this is what I would like to see through further discussion. The exemption is there, and if a compelling case can be made that somebody…. Well, honestly, I knew a couple of people who moved here from afar. They weren’t political, per se. They were very talented individuals who have since, because of the downsize of government, lost their positions. You know, one could make a case that they are impartial. They happened to work in the positions they worked because of an opportunity for their career advancement, particularly young people.

But we have the exemption here where the registrar could be approached with a compelling case. So I don’t see this legislation, as some members have pointed out, as being particularly unfair to those who have worked in a ministry’s office.

As I said, the B.C. Greens — soon to be officially recognized in this House, I should say, so I should say right now: the three independent members who ran under the B.C. Green banner…. It was the banner of the only party to actually campaign on lobbying reform. Frankly, it was one of our central pillars of our governance reform platform, and our confidence and supply agreement included a discussion of this.

You know, as in any agreement, it’s not — you bring your baseball bat and your ball to the game and then you stand up and walk and stomp out if you don’t get your way. Clearly, if…. This is not 100 percent what we would have written, but on the other hand, we understand the importance of collaboration, the importance of listening to other views, the importance of actually reflecting upon your position and being willing to change or expand upon it, based on new information that is brought forward. And again, we commend the government on bringing this forward, recognizing that it is a first step.

When we did our campaigning on reforming lobbying in B.C., we wanted to see first and foremost an increase in the transparency of how lobbying takes place in British Columbia and an increase in the accountability of lobbyists and public office holders. So one of the things, again…. To expand upon that, we wanted to see a requirement to disclose who one actually intends to lobby removed from the act and replaced with the requirement to disclose who one actually lobbies within ten days of lobbying.

Let me tell you why we thought that was important. We recognize, of course, that lobbying is a natural part, an important part of political life. It’s an important part for us to gather information as legislators on what the issues are facing various groups. It’s critical lobbying within the democratic system. But the public needs to know who is lobbying whom. By making it more transparent, then, decision-makers are more accountable for their actions, but also, the public trusts them when they make the actions. They’ve done so in an open and transparent manner.

It’s quite common for a lobbyist to say that they’re going to lobby 87 members of the B.C. Legislature — well, 86, because one member has since stepped down. Well, that’s not very helpful to anyone.

Let me suppose I’m from the Deep Earth coal mining company of Kansas. Well, let’s see. Who is a member here? Saanich South — the Deep Earth coal mining company from Saanich South. It’s very unlikely that that person would be lobbying the member from Cariboo-Chilcotin or elsewhere, but if they listed with the lobbyist registrar that they’re lobbying all 87 members, nobody really knows who they’re lobbying.

But if they were to lobby the member for Saanich South, the Minister of Agriculture now, or the Minister of Energy, we’d want to know that. The public would want to know that. They wouldn’t want to know that they intended to lobby everyone, because they’re not. They’re obviously going to lobby whoever. This is done with the greatest respect for the member for Saanich South. I just happened to look to see if there was someone in the audience here.

The purpose here is to register who you are lobbying to, and so we recognize that this is a first step. We would hope that, at some point in the future and in this Legislature, we’ll be able to list who is lobbying who, as opposed to “we’re lobbying everybody.”

One of the second goals that we had, in including lobbying reform in our platform, was to reduce the undue influence of special interests on government decisions. I don’t want to rehash all of the last four years I’ve been here or the last 16 years in total — or even the 1990s. We don’t need to rehash all of that. The reality is the public wants government to work in the interests of the people of British Columbia, not in the interests of vested interests. One of the ways of getting that is reforming lobbying to get to transparency and to reduce undue influence.

One of the things with doing the two-year prohibition is it does just that. It gives, in some sense, a cooling-off period for those who’ve had that insider knowledge, so to speak, a cooling-off period that allows them to, you know, figure out what they want to do. Frankly, if it’s an MLA, it’s going to be tough when moving from an MLA. You’re going from 24-7 a day to suddenly having time on your hands.

Going back to university …. I’ll tell you, hon. Speaker, as you would know from the University of the Fraser Valley, that’s a cushy job compared to what we’ve got here, having to work — and B.C. Greens having to sit on five committees. But they’ll have time to reflect upon what they want to do and maybe they won’t become a lobbyist — and good on them; power to them — and build upon the expertise that got them here in the first place.

Public office holders have, as I mentioned, special privileged relationships and access to privileged information that would give them outsized influence if they become a lobbyist immediately upon leaving. As I said, two years is a sufficient time for these lobbyists to, in some sense, get a sense of what they want to do. We don’t want government and the senior civil service to be a revolving door. Once government, then lobbyists. That’s not good for democracy.

One of the third things we wanted to do is…. We felt it was very important — and again, we’re very grateful to government for moving down this path — to bring B.C. standards in line with other jurisdictions in Canada. As has been pointed out, we’ve been called the Wild West here in British Columbia. And I would argue in lobbying reform, we lag behind other jurisdictions across other provinces and at the federal level.

In 2008, the federal government imposed a multi-year prohibition on lobbying. Now, kudos go to the Harper government at the time for doing just that — a multi-year prohibition on lobbying was in recognition of the undue influences that could have, the special interests of somebody with inside knowledge lobbying as soon as they left.

We know that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia all have so-called “cooling-off periods” as well for former public office holders and a variety of lengths. Here we’ve got two years proposed, and they also have more stringent requirements for reporting codes of conduct and so on and so forth.

You know, this bill goes a long way towards reducing some of the problems that we face here with lobbying in British Columbia. Coming back to what this bill does, this bill, as I’ve said, takes steps forward for much-needed lobbying reform. It does not include all of the things that we felt were necessary, but it does make a good step forward. The two-year prohibition — wonderful.

What’s also really important — and frankly, give government credit for this — is that they’ve committed to undertaking a review of lobbying. Government has said that they’re committed to undertake a review of lobbying. I think that it’s a good step forward, and I hope that we get a multi-party agreement that this is something that we could….

This is not a partisan issue. I recognize that there are a few individuals who this legislation might actually cause some difficulty for right now. But we do have that exemption in section 2.3 that they could seek to apply for and make the compelling case why it’s important that they continue as lobbyists.

By committing to undertaking lobbying, I think we all will have collectively a chance and an opportunity to actually bring our views to this.

I do note that the Chair of the committee has entered. I do note the hour, and I reserve my right to speak on this matter further on Monday and do so move adjournment of debate just now.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech Part II (Oct 23, 2017)

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place and continue debate on Bill 8, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017.

Last Thursday, as I was noting the hour, I was coming to near an end of the issues I wish to raise in this bill, but please let me just expand a little bit more upon something that I think is very important that government has announced that it will do.

One of the key aspects of this bill is not so much what’s in the bill — it’s a very good first step — but also that the government has committed to undertaking a review of lobbying in general. While it’s not in the legislation, this is being put forward by government as a means of us moving forward to account for some of the areas that have not been covered here. For example…. We’ll come to one in a second.

I would like to note that the B.C. Green caucus will be delighted…. Well, we’ll soon be called the B.C. Green caucus, I hope, if the Constitution Amendment Act changes. But we’ll be participating in this review, as we have some ideas that we’d like to explore in further discussions.

One of these priorities for further changes that we’d like to explore is dealing with actual versus expected lobbying. As it stands now, the bill doesn’t really address the transparency issue. The bill articulates…. It still remains that you’re supposed to register who you’re going to lobby.

As we know, various lobbyists will sign up to lobby all 87…. Sorry, I forgot one member’s seat is open. They will sign up to lobby all 86 members here, and the public really wants to know who is being lobbied by who, not whether somebody is lobbying anybody. And transparency isn’t met in this registry system, because of the fact that we don’t actually know who is lobbied.

I recognize that the bill before us is called the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, and the whole framework of the bill is such that it’s designed as a registry, as opposed to a list of who you’ve lobbied. It would require substantive changes throughout the entire act, were we to actually start to note who was actually lobbied, rather than registering as a lobbyist per se.

You know, Elizabeth Denham’s 2013 report had some words attributed to a media spokesperson — I won’t mention his name. It said the following: “The current system creates a smokescreen about who is really being lobbied. We should be able to search the registry and find out who was actually lobbied, when and where.”

We support that. I support that. My colleagues have spoken about this. I’m sure my friend from Cowichan Valley, who will speak shortly, will reaffirm that we support this recommendation, as articulated in the quote that I just did. Again, expecting to lobby, as opposed to who you actually lobbied. We’d like to see that be reported — who you actually lobbied, within ten days. It’s something we hope that, as we move forward in this discussion process, we’ll be able to have input in.

There is no code of conduct, in the actual legislation, for lobbyists. Again, this is something that we will be looking to push, actually: the development of a code of conduct. Now, we recognize that a bill is probably not the right place to embed an entire code of conduct, but we’re looking to see if we could enable the registrar to come up with a code of conduct that will be made available to lobbyists, and they would be expected to follow that code of conduct in their lobbying efforts.

Finally, we want to look a little bit at government accountability and what role ministers play in confirming lobbying that actually may have taken place. We think there can be some further measures taken there to expand upon transparency.

Obviously, I will be standing and voting in support of this bill, because it takes important first steps towards the reform of our lobbying in British Columbia. I look forward to further discussions of this at committee stage. I particularly look forward to the discussions that will ensue as we develop this comprehensive review of lobbying registration in British Columbia in the months ahead.

Video of Speech Part II (Oct 23, 2017)

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 9 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2017. This bill corrects a number of very minor errors in legislation that have been found over the years. Changes include things like the addition of a few commas, correcting spelling mistakes, including an ‘and’, replacing ‘whom’ with ‘who’ and numerous other trivial modifications.

Below are the text and video of my not to be taken too seriously comments on Bill 9.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I see that the Attorney General was very excited and wanted to close debate on this very important bill that corrects quite a number of small, minor issues over quite a number of statutes that have occurred over many, many years.

I take my place to speak, obviously, in favour. But I’d like to cover this in a little detail, because I think that it’s important that we get to the bottom of some of these changes to see how things are playing out. And I must admit these are not trivial changes in some cases.

As the hon. member for Prince George–Mackenzie was able to point out, this, of course, is…. Other tools of doing this…. We have an incredible legislative counsel working with the Attorney General’s office to keep our bills and statutes updated.

But as I was reading through this and as I was going through the various bills, checking why a comma was changed and so forth, it became clear to me that it’s not as easy to see why the changes occur as one might think.

For example, if we start with the very first change in this bill under Administrative Tribunal Statutes Amendment Act, 2015: “1 Section 70 (b) of the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, S.B.C. 2015, c. 10, as it amends section 12 (2) (d) of the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 131, is amended by striking out ‘purposes’ and substituting ‘purpose.'” So rather than having purposes, there’s only one purpose.

But this is where it gets confusing. I went to section 10.3, where it said the following. In section 10, for the purposes of section 10.3, we’re directed to the Farm Practices Act. It says: “Stop a person whom the inspector….” I would have thought that the legislative drafters would have caught that it’s not “whom the inspector” but it’s “who the inspector,” because that is grammatically incorrect.

I’m not sure that, in fact, the Farm Practices Protection Act was changed in this. But I will point out that later in this, we do have a change in this act where the word “whom” is changed to “who.”

Just bear with me for a second. It’s a very complex and long bill here. Look in the Animal Health Act, No. 2 of the changes. It said: “Section 23 (1) (a) of the Animal Health Act, S.B.C. 2014, c. 16, is amended by striking out ‘whom’ and substituting ‘who.'” I agree with that — grammatically correct, very important to do.

But what I cannot believe was missed in this bill — and frankly, shame on government for missing this — in the change on section 1, it refers specifically to section 12.2(d) of the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, which says “stop a person whom the inspector respectfully believes is the person responsible for an animal or an animal product or by-product.” Shocking, reckless indifference to grammar.

I jest, as I’m sure you might imagine. The member Vancouver–West End isn’t sure whether I’m jesting or not, but there will be more of these to come. But it is kind of ironic as I was actually going through these, I did notice in the first reference, the “whom” wasn’t corrected to “who,” where in the very next thing, the “whom” was corrected to “who,” which is kind of interesting. But it gets complex.

When you go to the farm act again, and you’re coming in, it says “For the purpose of Section 10.3, respecting engagement and retention of specialists and consultants by the board,” the problem I’ve got here is that it refers to section 10, which was repealed. So it seems to me, in (1) that we’re correcting something that refers to another act, from “purposes” to “purpose,” which refers to another section that was repealed.

So I’m confused. I’m sure I’ll probe this in thorough detail during committee stage of this bill, as we try to get to the bottom of this critical missing section. I could just be in error.

There are many, many such changes here, most of which I’m sure have compelling reasons to actually support…. For example, the third one says…. In the Assessment Act, we’re striking out “sea going” and substituting “sea-going.” Now, that’s important because “sea going” could mean the sea is going, but “sea-going” implies sea-going. There’s a very important difference there, and I’m glad that this is picked out.

Also, in (4), it’s: “under the Canada Pension Plan.” But should you not know that the Canada Pension Plan needs to be highlighted…. We’re changing that to highlight Canada Pension Plan in italics, which is an important change for those who recognize that this needs to be brought forward and illustrated as significantly different from the rest.

We can go forward to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. There’s an “and” added here. It’s very important. Of course, I could see that. We’ve got some section issues. There’s a comma that was needed as well.

We’ve got “paragraphs” changing to “paragraph.” Heaven forbid we refer to “paragraphs” instead of just the “paragraph.”

There are many more. One of the more important ones is section 15 of the bill, where we talk about the Forensic Psychiatry Act. It’s critical. This is the Forensic Psychiatry Act. In today’s society, mental health issues are first and foremost in what we’re doing, and heaven forbid that we refer to an “inpatient” rather than “in-patient.” Now, I’m confused about that, and it’s causing me some mental anguish, particularly as it’s in the Forensic Psychiatry Act.

When I look it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “inpatient” is “inpatient.” I know it sounds like “impatient,” which I’m sure the members are right now, as I’m speaking, but “inpatient” seems to be okay.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Surrey–White Rock suggests that I do not jest when I say that.

There are many. The Great Bear Rainforest Act, an act brought in very recently. Instead of now saying “new-non GBR, it’s “new non-GBR.” Not sure quite what the change is in that…. Oh, sorry. The hyphen was in the wrong place. It was “new-non GBR,” and now it’s “new non-GBR.” Another important change.

I could go on. I could on with the many, many changes.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Oh, the member for Chilliwack-Kent would like me to go on.

I want to come to the schedules at the back, where the changes are. There are so many of these commas and others, which are important, obviously. We come to the schedules, and these are some of the most dramatic changes that need to be done.

On page 10 of this bill, it says “in so far” as opposed to “insofar” with no spaces. It’s replacing that in so many places, in 12 different bills. Sloppiness, going back to the 1990s. Heaven forbid we look at the error.

It was made in all the bills. The Arbitration Act, 1996. The Cooperative Association Act, 1999. The Creston Valley Wildlife Act, 1996. The Frustrated Contract Act, 1996. I didn’t know such an act existed. The Interpretation Act, 1996. The labour relations code, 1996. My good friends the NDP here shouldn’t have made the mistake in that one. The Land Title Act, 1996. The Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services Act, 1996. The Offence Act, 1996. The Railway Act, 1996. The Securities Transfer Act, 2007. This error clearly, while originating in the decadent eras of the 1990s, perpetuated through sequential Liberal governments and was not corrected in the 2007 bill, brought in as the Securities Transfer Act. I’m so glad it’s being changed. Grammaticists and spell-checkers around the world are celebrating today.

On Schedule 2. I must admit that I don’t understand this. I guess I do. In 13 — 13 no less — bills, most of which were done by the B.C. Liberals, “mail box” is corrected to “mailbox” with no space. Now, that’s important. It is not “male box.” They’re not saying “male box.” I get why some males should be in a box. They’re saying “mail box,” being replaced by “mailbox,” no space.

Now, I don’t understand that one. I thought “mail box” was pretty clear, that it’s a mail box, but apparently not. So I do appreciate these changes, and I thank government from the bottom of my heart for bringing these changes forward.

We also have, in Schedule 3, “merit based processes” being corrected to “merit-based processes” in many, many places as well. And finally, Schedule 4 on this bill, at the end….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin is taking such an aggrieved point of view about this bill. Oh, my goodness.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Cariboo North. I’m sorry. I’m looking forward to her standing and speaking passionately in support of this, as I’m about to head to Education estimates in about one minute.

The final change that I think needs to be celebrated here today is “self propelled” being corrected to “self-propelled.”

With that, I will self-propel myself back into my seat.

Video of Speech

The 89^th British Columbia Youth Parliament will hold its parliamentary session in Victoria at the Provincial Legislative Chambers from December 27 to 31, 2017. The Youth Parliament is a province-wide non-partisan organization for young people ages 16 to 21. It teaches citizenship skills through participation in the December parliamentary session and in community service activities throughout the year. Youth Parliament is a one year commitment.

The BC Youth Parliament is non-partisan and applicants need only be interested in learning more about the parliamentary process and in serving their community.

The application is available here, along with an informational brochure and poster.

All applications must be received by October 24, 2017. Selected applicants will be notified in early November.

Following the introduction of my Private Member’s bill today in the legislature, I was up in Question Period. I took the opportunity to ask the Minister of Transportation why we can’t work simultaneously to regulate ride-sharing while updating legislation that pertains to the taxi industry.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: The righteous indignation emanating from members opposite on this file is truly something to behold. Two years ago the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, the then Minister of Transportation, said that this former government was going to bring in ride-sharing, but he got soundly smacked down by somebody, and we don’t have it.

Twice before, I brought in a bill. On Monday… on Monday

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has the floor.

A. Weaver: On Monday the government provided British Columbians with a road map for how introduction of ride-sharing will happen in our province.

One could be forgiven for finding the announcement somewhat underwhelming. Gone was the end-of-year timeline — or any firm timeline at all, for that matter. Instead, we’re now going to embark on a review of the taxi industry, without engaging ride-share companies and without considering the impact that they might have. In essence, we’ll waste time and money to establish a new status quo.

To the Minister of Transportation: why are we making an effort to update legislation for the taxi industry without even engaging ride-sharing companies and considering the changes they may force on this industry?

Answer

Hon. C. Trevena: We are engaging with the ride-share companies.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Well, I actually had not heard an answer to that question previously, so I would disagree with the minister.

Obviously, the minister has said historically, and I agree, that a legislation needs to be updated on an ongoing basis. The minister has told local media: “We’ve got six pieces of legislation that we have to potentially modernize, one going back to 1924. Things are very different in 1924 than they are in 2017.”

The act being referred to here is the Motor Vehicle Act, which was first introduced in 1924. It’s a year known for the introduction of the classic Chrysler model B-70, a lovely automobile of its day, and the Oakland 6-54A, another amazing vehicle of its day.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I’m going to go on eBay to see if I can buy one, and I’ll give it as a gift to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

The impression that was left by this comment is misleading. The Motor Vehicle Act was actually substantively updated in 1996 by the NDP government and has been amended numerous times since then. The same goes for the Commercial Transport Act, first introduced in 1959 — also referred to acts that need to be billed.

To the minister: why can we not work simultaneously to regulate ride-sharing while updating legislation that pertains to the taxi industry?

Answer

Hon. C. Trevena: The member is quite right. It is a complex issue, and this is why we want to take some time to look at it. This is why we have engaged an expert. This is why we are talking to ride-share companies. This is why we’re looking at these six pieces of legislation the member cited, some of which have been updated, but some of which will need to be changed substantially if we are introducing a whole new mode of ride-hailing to the province, which we are intending to do.

We are also dealing, obviously, with our public insurer, which we’re very proud…. The opposition, clearly, has not got the same sense of reverence and concern about the public insurance company, by the way it’s been left. So we have that still.

We also have the Passenger Transportation Board, which makes B.C. a unique place for introducing ride-share to the norm.

It is not a simple approach. We are approaching this so that we have — as Dr. Hara actually said, in an interview — a win-win-win situation; so that we can have something that will ensure that those people who want to use ride-hailing on an app, or however they are using ride-hailing, can do that; so that the taxi industry, where there are people who have been working for many years, can continue working and we have the knowledge of passenger safety and driver safety all covered. That’s why it’s complex, and that’s why we’re taking this approach.

Today in the Legislature I rose to table, for the third time, a bill, now entitled Bill M203 — Rideshare Enabling and Increased Taxi Occupancy Act, 2017. This bill introduces a regulatory framework that would allow ride-sharing to come to British Columbia.

Shortly after introducing the Bill, I rose in Question Period to ask the Minister of Transportation why we can’t work simultaneously to regulate ride-sharing while updating legislation that pertains to the taxi industry.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the introduction, as well as the accompanying media release.

Video of Introduction

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Rideshare Enabling and Increased Taxi Occupancy Act, 2017, of which notice has been given, be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce a bill intituled Rideshare Enabling and Increased Taxi Occupancy Act for the third time. This bill introduces a regulatory framework that would allow ride-sharing to come to British Columbia.

Our economy is changing, and ride-sharing is but one example of that change. As legislators, we cannot bury our heads in the sand and ignore this change. We must embrace it and ensure that it leads to the best outcomes possible for British Columbians.

Introducing ride-sharing into British Columbia is something that all three parties committed to do during the last election campaign. It’s time we fulfilled that promise collectively. In introducing this bill, I’m offering a way forward, one that lets us to grapple with the questions that this industry presents us with.

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

Motion approved.

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

Bill M203, Rideshare Enabling and Increased Taxi Occupancy Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Media Release

Andrew Weaver introduces ride-hailing legislation for the third time

For immediate release
October 19, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, today introduced his Ridesharing Enabling Act for the third time. Weaver previously introduced the bill twice under the past B.C. Liberal government. The bill has been modified slightly from previous versions to enable ICBC to develop an insurance regime for ride-hailing, as well as some other minor modifications.

“Now that all three parties have agreed to bring ridesharing to B.C., it’s time we had a frank and substantive debate on the details of this issue,” Weaver said.

“In the five years since ride-hailing was first introduced to B.C., there has been much fear-mongering and politicization of this issue. The legislature should be a place where people can hear their elected representatives engage in substantive debate about the issues that matter to them. There is no better opportunity to do this than in a minority government where parties need to work together. I urge the B.C. NDP to call this bill forward for debate so that British Columbians can hear an open, transparent discussion on ridesharing from their MLAs.

“B.C. cannot be a leader in the creative economy unless it addresses emerging technologies head-on. Vancouver is the largest city in North America to not regulate this industry. Meanwhile, ride-hailing companies are operating without proper oversight, insurance or regulation.

“Disruptive technologies like ride-hailing have ramifications throughout many facets of society. Parties have rightly raised concerns about how ridesharing will impact existing businesses and public safety. But our job as leaders is to offer solutions. Let’s take this opportunity to do things differently be engaging in a substantive policy-based discussion about this issue that British Columbians have awaited for far too long.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca