I don't see how one could read the cited Wikipedia article as supportive of almost any of these claims: it doesn't indicate any time line, just noting that the last known event along that specific fault line were approximately 1100 years ago. With respect to damage, the article really only discusses the damage to bridges and the problems associated with their collapse in a major earthquake event.
The cited fault line is an east/west fault line. Vancouver is 225km northwest of Seattle. There are no known fault lines in Vancouver itself.
According to
NRC, the only thread of a major (9.0 richter scale event) earthquake arises along the
Cascadia subduction zone. This is far enough away from Vancouver that the building code doesn't require any additional seismic planning beyond what is required in other areas known to get earthquakes in Canada (e.g.,
Toronto and Montreal).
Vancouver doesn't typically get ice storms, massive snow falls, tornadoes, or hurricanes (or "sub tropical depressions with hurricane force winds"). Earthquakes are something for which we can properly build structures and handle. In the end, this is about your own perception of risk, which likely has nothing to do with the actual level of risk involved. I suspect you are more likely to die in a car accident than an earthquake, yet I suspect few people avoid cars as a result.
